Ali Shehadeh, Christine a Coombe - Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts _ Research and Implementation

Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts

Task-Based Language Teaching: Issues, Research and Practice (TBLT) Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is an educational framework for the theory and practice of teaching second or foreign languages. The TBLT book series is devoted to the dissemination of TBLT issues and practices, and to fostering improved understanding and communication across the various clines of TBLT work. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/tblt

Editors Martin Bygate

University of Lancaster

John M. Norris

University of Hawaii at Manoa

Kris Van den Branden KU Leuven

Volume 4 Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts. Research and implementation Edited by Ali Shehadeh and Christine A. Coombe

Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts Research and implementation Edited by

Ali Shehadeh UAE University

Christine A. Coombe Dubai Men’s College

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts : research and implementation / edited by Ali Shehadeh, Christine A. Coombe. p. cm. (Task-Based Language Teaching, issn 1877-346X ; v. 4) Includes bibliographical references and index. 11. Language and languages--Study and teaching--Methodology. 2. Second language acquisition--Methodology. 3. Task analysis in education. I. Shehadeh, Ali. II. Coombe, Christine A. (Christine Anne), 1962P53.82.T356 2012 418.0071--dc23 2012020908 isbn 978 90 272 0723 4 (Hb ; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 0724 1 (Pb ; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 7342 0 (Eb)

© 2012 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

We would like to dedicate this work to the memory of Teresa Pica, a luminary in the TBLT world, who wrote the foreword to the volume, but sadly passed away before its publication (Teresa Pica 1945–2011).

Table of contents Preface

Foreword Teresa Pica chapter 1 Introduction: Broadening the perspective of task-based language teaching scholarship: The contribution of research in foreign language contexts Ali Shehadeh

xi

xv

1

section i.  Variables affecting task-based language learning and performance chapter 2 Effects of task complexity and pre-task planning on Japanese EFL learners’ oral production Shoko Sasayama and Shinichi Izumi chapter 3 Measuring task complexity: Does EFL proficiency matter? Aleksandra Malicka and Mayya Levkina

23

43

chapter 4

Effects of strategic planning on the accuracy of oral and written tasks in the performance of Turkish EFL learners Zubeyde Sinem Genc chapter 5 Effects of task instructions on text processing and learning in a Japanese EFL college nursing setting Yukie Horiba and Keiko Fukaya

67

89

 Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts: Research and implementation

chapter 6

Task structure and patterns of interaction: What can we learn from observing native speakers performing tasks? James Hobbs

109

section ii.  Implementation of task-based language teaching chapter 7 Patterns of corrective feedback in a task-based adult EFL classroom setting in China Noriko Iwashita and Huifang (Lydia) Li chapter 8 Incidental learner-generated focus on form in a task-based EFL classroom Paul J. Moore

137

163

chapter 9

Qualitative differences in novice teachers’ enactment of task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms Sui Ping (Shirley) Chan

187

chapter 10

Implementing computer-assisted task-based language teaching in the Korean secondary EFL context Moonyoung Park

215

chapter 11

Task-based language teaching through film-oriented activities in a teacher education program in Venezuela Carmen Teresa Chacón chapter 12 Task-based language teacher education in an undergraduate program in Japan Daniel O. Jackson chapter 13 Incorporating a formative assessment cycle into task-based language teaching in a university setting in Japan Christopher Weaver

241

267

287



Table of contents 

chapter 14

Language teachers’ perceptions of a task-based learning programme in a French University Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes, and Rebecca Starkey-Perret

313

epilogue.  What is next for task-based language teaching? chapter 15 TBLT in EFL settings: Looking back and moving forward David Carless

345

About the contributors Index

359 363

Preface We are very pleased to welcome Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation, edited by Ali Shehadeh and Christine Coombe, as the fourth volume in this series on task-based language teaching. As the volume editors note in their introduction, the common thread that provides coherence to this collection of studies is a focus on how tasks are being researched or used in a wide variety of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) educational settings in order to unravel the complexities and peculiarities of researching and implementing TBLT in these contexts. As such, the volume adds a range of new studies to the steadily growing research base on the implementation of TBLT in the language classroom. This the volume accomplishes not only in quantitative terms, but also in terms of scope: While historically, many of the available studies into the use of tasks in intact classrooms were carried out in contexts of second language teaching and learning, this volume focuses exclusively on the use of tasks in the teaching of English as a foreign language. The theoretical framework on language learning underpinning the rationale behind TBLT has tended to emphasize that processes of second language (SL) learning and foreign language (FL) learning have a lot in common. For both SL and FL learning, social interaction embedded in holistic, goal-directed activity is centrally seen as the means for deep-level language learning. The importance of comprehensible and rich input, focus on form, speaking opportunities, and feedback are stressed in both contexts. As a result, in many publications on task-based language learning, the term “second language learning” is used by authors as an umbrella term covering both foreign and second language learning processes. However, one of the interesting questions this volume raises is whether SL and FL teaching through tasks have as much in common. From a TBLT perspective, foreign language teaching may differ from second language teaching contexts in a number of ways. For example, in a FL context, and contrary to a SL context, students may lack opportunities and/or pressure to put what they learnt in the classroom to proper use in the outside world. Secondly, foreign language teachers may find it much harder than second language teachers to introduce authentic material and texts in the classroom, to point out the usefulness of certain tasks, to motivate their learners to use the target language in the classroom, and to encourage them to put effort in acquiring and studying it. Thirdly, teaching languages as a subject (as is typically done in the case of foreign language teaching) may add to both learners’ and teachers’ view of the target language as an object of study, rather than as a useful means for functional communication or as something with direct relevance to learners’ needs. As a result, practitioners in the field of foreign language

 Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts: Research and implementation

teaching might be expected to be (even) more hesitant than second language teachers to use tasks in the classroom, and to be more inclined to stick to the use of more traditional, grammar-based methods of teaching and testing. Fourthly, in most FL contexts, most or all of the students generally share the same L1, so that in the classroom the target language is not a lingua franca but an additional and often unnecessary alternative medium. Indeed, the various articles in this volume empirically substantiate the wide range of factors that complicate the introduction and implementation of TBLT in EFL classrooms. In their introduction, the volume editors group these factors into three types: institutional factors (comprising, amongst others, issues like class size, official exam pressure, available materials, and mixed-proficiency classes), teacher factors (e.g., teachers’ beliefs and subjective theories on language teaching, their need to control what goes on in the classroom, their interactive skills), and student factors (e.g., their beliefs about effective language learning, their preferences for certain methodological formats, their level of assertiveness). Many of these factors have been mentioned in previous publications on the implementation of TBLT as considerably complexifying the use of tasks in authentic classrooms: the combined presence of large/huge class sizes, grammar-based exams, forms-focused teacher and student beliefs, lockstep-type curriculum, and teacher-dominated traditions of teaching have been reported to turn the introduction of TBLT into a real ‘challenge’ (and we probably should take that as an understatement). This has been particularly, though not exclusively, the case in publications on the implementation of TBLT in Asian contexts. In this respect, it is fascinating to see that this volume reports on studies that were carried out in different countries around the world: in addition to numerous studies from Asian countries, European and American settings are also represented, which allows the reader to draw a wide range of interesting comparisons. In fact, some of the above-mentioned factors hindering the introduction of tasks in authentic classrooms do again turn up in a number of chapters in this volume, but at the same time they do not in other chapters, or they play a surprising and unanticipated role. Indeed, some of the chapters in this volume report on success stories with the use of tasks. Strikingly, the accounts of successful implementation of TBLT do not appear to be geographically bound: they are reported in Asian, Venezuelan, and French EFL classrooms. It is also worth highlighting that in most of these success stories the teacher played a crucial role. This pattern lends support to the insight that the actual impact of potentially complexifying factors tends to be mediated by the teachers and the students in the first place, and by other change agents (such as syllabus and exam developers, and teacher trainers and coaches) in the second place. This corroborates the basic insight that when it comes to promoting the use of tasks in the foreign language classroom, the teacher is a key figure. Structural and institutional measures, like reducing class sizes and making available new syllabuses, may help to pave the way, but if teachers lack the skills and the motivation to work with tasks (and the basic belief that task-based interaction fosters language learning), no real change will take place.



Preface 

So, in many, perhaps all, foreign language teaching contexts, the implementation of TBLT will need to include a strategic policy plan on teacher training and support. Clearly, this volume does not answer all questions on the implementation of TBLT in EFL contexts. In fact, it raises new questions, as a good book will. As a collection of a wide variety of studies carried out in different parts of the globe where English language learning persists as an important educational target for diverse types of learners, it illustrates both (a) the possibilities for language educational innovation, in particular at the classroom, teacher, and learner levels; and (b) the kind of methodologies that might be used when further pursuing this research path and the kinds of more nuanced questions in need of answers. At the same time, the volume provides another colorful illustration that in different continents, and in different educational settings (from primary schools to higher education), practitioners are experimenting with tasks in ever-more sophisticated ways, in the effort to make their language teaching more functional, more usage-based, and more powerful. Ultimately, it is what happens in a range of distinctive contexts that provides a measure for the generalizability of the approach, as well as providing the variety of real world challenges that an approach like TBLT needs to enable its full development.

Foreword Teresa Pica

University of Pennsylvania, USA

Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation – from its title to its table of contents and authors, and across its chapters, this important volume builds on, and enhances task-based teaching and research in contexts where English is not readily available beyond the classroom (e.g., Turkey, Thailand) or is available in the wider community, but is seldom learned as an L1 therein (e.g., Hong Kong). The volume includes contributions from countries such as Japan and Spain, where publications on task-based language teaching (TBLT) have long been widely disseminated, and from countries such as Venezuela, whose work on TBLT might have been unfamiliar to readers prior to this volume. The chapter entries cover topics and concerns that are characteristic of TBLT across ESL contexts, including the role of planning in task implementation or task outcomes in fluency and accuracy, as well as those that are shared between ESL and EFL contexts, such as task-based assessment within a national English curriculum. “Foreign” languages typically originate in classroom contexts, where they are pursued as an academic endeavor or in compliance with education policy. However, many foreign language learners go on to use learned languages for academic, business, or scientific communication beyond their original site of learning. Editors Shehadeh and Coombe have selected topics and authors that focus on English as an example of such a foreign language, and on the issues that surround its teaching and research in FL contexts. In so doing, their collection builds on the substantial body of work by Doughty and Long on critical “foreign” languages such as Korean, Chinese, and Arabic, and by Gass and Van Patten on Spanish learning in US university classrooms (see, e.g., Doughty & Long, 2003; Gass & Alvarez-Torres, 2005; Van Patten, 2002). The success of these research-based projects, accomplished primarily in controlled settings, has activated a great deal of thinking about the ways in which tasks can be used to address the scope and scale of EFL teaching and research in broader contexts, and to do so through a classroom focus and a longitudinal approach. As it builds on this foundation, the current volume pioneers explorations into territories of FL teaching which have so far been neglected in much of TBLT research.

 Teresa Pica

Over the past several decades, tasks have generated increasing interest among educators and researchers, and provided them with an opportunity to respond to the challenges of their fields in complementary and productive ways. The vitality and versatility of the task as an instructional tool, a research instrument, and a learning activity becomes especially evident when viewed with respect to the pedagogic, sociocultural, linguistic, and cognitive processes that contribute to successful language learning. Since their formalized inception in the early work of Long and Prabhu (see, e.g., Long, 1985; Prabhu, 1987), tasks have brought forth a focus on design features that have made them suitable as course syllabus units (Willis, 1996), classroom activities (Nunan, 1989), enhancements to the language curriculum (Crookes & Gass, 1993), and as tools for assessment (e.g., Norris, Brown, Hudson, & Yoshioka, 1998). These pedagogic features have also made tasks effective treatments for encouraging learners to engage in goal-oriented social interaction during which they exchange information and negotiate to achieve its comprehensibility. As they do so, they modify their messages and signal their difficulties. These interaction moves enable learners (and teachers) to provide each other with modified, comprehensible input and corrective feedback, and to respond to each other with their own modified output. These linguistic manipulations shed light on cognitive processes such as noticing, attention, and awareness. Together, the modifications and processes serve as a source of data for researchers as they study language development and outcomes (Iwashita, 2003; Mackey, 1999). The versatility of tasks is further revealed as they are implemented by teachers and researchers for independent or joint purposes. A problem-solving task, for example, can originate in a student textbook or professional resource guide. A teacher might assign the task to a group of students, making sure the information needed to solve the problem is distributed evenly, so that each student can engage in collaborative planning and practice. The same task might be adopted by the researcher, and used with the same student group, in order to study the linguistic features of their planning and practice and the ways in which they provide modified, comprehensible input and output in their exchange of information. An interview task, used as a classroom activity for students to access information for writing a report or planning a project, can also provide data on linguistic forms and manipulations required for question formation (Mackey, 1999) and on students’ ability to encode and respond to each other’s conversational adjustments (Pica, Kang, & Sauro, 2006). A comparison task applied to decision-making projects, pictures, and texts can promote turn-taking and classroom communication, as it provides data for the researcher to study learners’ development of English morphemes, such as – er and – est (Loschky & Bley-Vroman, 1993). In addition to their versatility and appeal to teachers and researchers, tasks have played an important role in responding to theoretical and practical challenges posed by approaches to learning and instruction, curriculum design, classroom language study, and assessment of language skills. As such, tasks are helping to address the longstanding debate over the effectiveness of direct and indirect instructional approaches



Foreword  

in meeting learners’ linguistic needs. It is widely held that direct approaches are effective when forms are simple and when criteria for their learning can be transparently defined in terms of explicit knowledge and assessed by discrete-point testing. For difficult and complex forms to be internalized and used automatically, however, implicit and incidental approaches, albeit much slower in their impact on learning, are believed to be required. Even here, tasks which indirectly engage the strategic use of target features are seen as offering an essential dimension of learning. As research by Pica et al. (2006) has revealed, difficult forms can be readily incorporated into textbased tasks, and both direct and indirect approaches can be applied to their implementation. Comparison studies are underway to resolve this debate (see, e.g., Ellis, 2003; Pica, et al., 2006). Tasks have also been used to address issues that surround the design of the language curriculum (see, for example, Pica, 2009). One of the foremost criticisms of task-based instruction has been that its approach to task specification and selection does not explicitly address the forms, sequences, and processes of language learning. Of course, this standard has not been applied to other instructional approaches, perhaps because their ordered arrangement of linguistic units gives the appearance that they reflect these characteristics of language and learning. Nonetheless, it is well documented that language acquisition is a multidimensional process, does not often follow a stage-wise path, and occurs most efficiently in meaningful contexts, rich in comprehensible input, with opportunities for feedback and production of modified output. These are the very attributes that task-based instruction has to offer, and the chapters of this volume provide a springboard for further research on the design of an effective, task-based curriculum. As Shehadeh (this volume) and others (e.g., Ellis, 2009; Van den Branden, 2006) point out, it is unfortunate that most of the tasks used in research have been implemented under controlled (i.e., laboratory-like) conditions rather than in authentic classroom settings. Some studies in this volume as well as in the broader literature have begun to gather data by implementing tasks in authentic classrooms, but as extracurricular activities, added on to the regular classroom agenda. Such researcher-dominated practices have been shown to generate concerns among learners that they are subjects in a study rather than students in a classroom (see, e.g., Pica, et al., 2006). These learner perceptions raise questions about the simultaneous validity of tasks as both attractive classroom activities but also research tools. Whereas considerable strides have been made in the design of tasks, there remains a need for approaches where task designs meet the twin demands of being genuine learning activities as well as effective research tools within authentic classroom settings. Research to date has revealed the ways in which tasks can be designed to activate linguistic and cognitive processes that are needed for successful language learning. However, achieving learning outcomes is ultimately what students, teachers, and researchers want and deserve. Longitudinal studies of sustained task-based coursework can reveal the extent to which successful outcomes are possible in the foreign language

 Teresa Pica

classroom, and whether tasks can play a defining role. This type of work can also provide answers to questions that arise after more typical, one or two week studies, as to why students all too often fail to retain the very features they had been able to use during the studies. Was a task-based intervention withdrawn too early? Had it been poorly designed? Were the students simply not ready to internalize the task form or feature? What was the teacher’s apparent role in implementation and outcomes? Such questions require close, long-term observation by the researcher and sustained interest among the researcher, the teachers, and their students. As this volume includes studies in classrooms where students might remain for lengthy periods, its chapters provide a promising basis for addressing these questions. One final concern about tasks relates to education and language policy and the restrictions it often places on classroom practice. Many teachers and their students are eager to join researchers in using tasks, but their involvement is limited by a curriculum that is pre-set by policy and tradition (and often by external assessments as well). As teachers and researchers become more informed, more professionalized, and more visible and relevant to each other, so too will opportunities arise for their greater collaboration and dialogue. As long as teachers and researchers find ways to work together in the classroom, and remain committed to long-term relationships with language learners and with each other, tasks provide principled and informed direction and guidance. In identifying the opportunities for the study of task-based instruction in EFL contexts, the editors and chapter authors of Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation serve as a source of motivation for advancing the importance of tasks and their current and potential contributions to the field of language studies.

References Crookes, G., & Gass, S. (Eds.). (1993). Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 23, 35–73. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of tasks planning in the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509. Gass, S., & Alvarez Torres, M. (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 1–31. Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25,1–36. Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam, & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language development (pp. 77–99). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.



Foreword   Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning, Vol. 1 (pp. 123–167), Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–588. Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T., & Yoshioka, J. (1998). Designing second language performance assessment. Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pica, T. (2009). Integrating content-based and task-based approaches for teaching, learning, and research. In L. Wei & V. Cook (Eds.), Continuum contemporary applied linguistics, Volume 1. London: Continuum. Pica, T., Kang, H., & Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 301–338. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Patten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803. Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for task-based learning. Harlow, UK: Longman.

chapter 1

Introduction Broadening the perspective of task-based language teaching scholarship: The contribution of research in foreign language contexts Ali Shehadeh

UAE University, United Arab Emirates This chapter introduces the collection of papers and situates it against previous and current research on task-based language teaching (TBLT). The chapter first contextualizes the theme of the volume within the field of TBLT, arguing that there is a need to broaden the perspective of TBLT scholarship to include the contribution of research in foreign language (FL) contexts. First, it will be argued, as attested by several contributions to this volume, that the manner in which TBLT is researched, implemented, and used in FL contexts depends on conditions and social practices that do not necessarily coincide with those in second language (SL) contexts. Next, a brief description of what constitutes a FL, or English as a foreign language (EFL), context will follow as a prelude to the discussion of the factors and problems that characterize educational settings in FL contexts. After that, an overview is provided of the chapters that make up this collection, showing how each chapter contributes to the theme of the volume, and signaling how it relates to other chapters. The chapter concludes with a few, but important remarks, on the scope and significance of the volume, calling for more rigorous research in other EFL settings in the world, which thus far are underrepresented within TBLT research.

Introduction In 2009, Kris Van den Branden, Martin Bygate, and John Norris inaugurated a new book series entitled Task-Based Language Teaching: Issues, Research and Practice with a volume entitled Task-Based Language Teaching: A Reader. In their introduction to the volume, Van den Branden, Bygate, and Norris stated: ... there is widespread agreement that tasks, potentially at least, offer a uniquely powerful resource both for teaching and testing of language. In particular, they



Ali Shehadeh

provide a locus for bringing together the various dimensions of language, social context, and the mental processes of individual learners that are key to learning. There are theoretical grounds, and empirical evidence, for believing that tasks might be able to offer all the affordances needed for successful instructed language development, whoever the learners might be, and whatever the context. (p. 11)

The authors based these statements on the extensive and varied literature on taskbased language teaching (TBLT) that has appeared across many journals, edited volumes, monographs, and special issues in refereed journals like Language Teaching Research, Language Testing, and International Review of Applied Linguistics, which speaks of the potential of TBLT as an approach to second/foreign language (L2) learning and teaching and as a teaching methodology in which classroom tasks constitute the main focus of instruction and assessment (see Van den Branden et al., 2009, p. 1). At the same time, research on TBLT has acquired a special value in light of the shift of focus in research in the last few years from controlled, laboratory conditions to authentic, naturalistic or classroom contexts (e.g., Ellis, 2009; Van den Branden, 2006b). For instance, Van den Branden (2006b) suggested that “much of the research concerning TBLT has been conducted in laboratory conditions or in tightly controlled settings.... Far less empirical research has been carried out where tasks have been used as the basic units for the organization of educational activities in intact language classrooms” (p. 1). However, Van den Branden also points to the expanding research base that is being developed in intact classrooms or authentic educational contexts, and indeed combines “a discussion of task-based pedagogical principles with descriptions of actual applications of task-based language teaching in response to language education problems” (p. 13). This shift illuminates a number of crucial questions such as whether TBLT works for teachers and learners in the classroom, whether it inspires language teachers when they prepare their lessons, whether it is compatible with prevailing classroom practices, how TBLT can be implemented in classes with a wide range of cultural backgrounds and different levels of proficiency, and how one writes a task-based syllabus that may need to cover multiple levels of schooling (Van den Branden, 2006b). There is no wonder, therefore, that Van den Branden et al. (2009) rightly point to the substantial challenges associated with the belief that “tasks might be able to offer all the affordances needed for successful instructed language development, whoever the learners might be, and whatever the context” because “the institutional, cultural, professional, and research challenges involved in establishing whether, or how far, this is the case are substantial” (p. 11). One of these challenges is providing sufficient empirical knowledge about TBLT issues, research, and application in varied and authentic foreign language (FL) educational settings. In 2009, the Asian Journal of English Language Teaching (AJELT) devoted a special issue (Volume 19) to the topic titled Task-based Language Teaching in Asia: Innovation in Research and Practice. Although the AJELT special-issue was a step



Chapter 1.  Introduction

in that direction, the issue was limited to the Asian context only, and mainly to the challenges involved in implementing TBLT. For instance, the issue’s guest editors, Jonathan Newton and Rebecca Adams (2009), stated that “The purpose of this special issue is to present recent research which further investigates what challenges are involved in implementing TBLT in Asia, how these challenges are experienced by teachers and students, and how the challenges are responded to” (p. 11). Some edited collections have focused on relevant phenomena, of course. For example, the volume by Leaver and Willis (2004) focused on TBLT implementation in FL contexts; and the volume by Van den Branden, Van Gorp, and Verhelst (2007), based on papers presented during the first international TBLT conference, was specifically devoted to studies into the use of tasks in the classroom. Other edited volumes have also focused on the use of tasks in the language classroom as well as on issues like tasks for language testing and assessment, and how tasks can be used for specific classroom activities or whole courses (e.g., Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Edwards & Willis, 2005; Garcia Mayo, 2007; Shehadeh & Coombe, 2010; Van den Branden, 2006a). Other authored books have focused on other TBLT-related issues like the relationship between research, teaching, and tasks (Ellis, 2003), the effect of planning on task performance (Ellis, 2005), or tasks within a broad educational and social perspective (Samuda & Bygate, 2008). On the other hand, a lot of the early work on TBLT was carried out in second language (SL) contexts like Ellis (1987), Lyster and Ranta (1997), Pica (1987), Pica and Doughty (1985a, 1985b), Van den Branden (1997), and many of the studies in Bygate, Skehan, and Swain (2001). However, no volume or journal special-issue was specifically devoted to providing empirical accounts of TBLT research and practice in varied and authentic FL, particularly English as a Foreign Language (EFL), contexts (see also Carless, this volume, for other differences between this volume and others like Edwards and Willis, 2005, and Shehadeh and Coombe, 2010, which have also in part explored TBLT in EFL settings). The concern in the current research on TBLT is that knowledge about TBLT in SL contexts gets naturalized inadvertently as being about TBLT in general, with the implication that it is universally valid and easily generalizable across other contexts, including FL contexts (see also Manchón, 2009a, 2009b; Ortega, 2009, for similar arguments in relation to L2 writing in FL vs. SL contexts). For instance, in her introductory chapter to a recent volume (Manchón, 2009a) that is devoted to theory, research, and pedagogy on L2 writing in FL contexts, Manchón (2009b) argues that “...mainstream pedagogical discussions have rarely debated whether or not instructional recommendations for SL contexts apply to FL settings” (p. 2). She also pointed out that “the SL bias of scholarly work in the field [...] means that the bounds of claims of official discourse have not been sufficiently tested across diverse contexts (much less across widely varying EFL contexts)” (pp. 16–17). Along the same lines, it is possible to make similar arguments about TBLT research. As will be discussed below, and attested by several contributions to this volume, the manner in which TBLT is researched, implemented, and practiced in FL





Ali Shehadeh

contexts depends on a whole set of conditions and social practices that do not necessarily coincide with those in SL contexts. In the following section, I will provide a brief description of what constitutes a FL context (features, characteristics) as a prelude to the discussion of the factors and problems that typically constitute educational settings in FL contexts.

What is a foreign language context? A distinction is often made between a foreign language (FL) context and a second language (SL) context. An FL context describes a setting in which the teaching of a language other than the native language usually occurs in the student’s own country and as school subject only. An SL context, on the other hand, describes a setting in which a target language other than the learners’ native language is the medium of instruction. It also describes a native language in a place as learnt by people living there who have another first language. For instance, English in the UK would be called the SL of many immigrants. Richards and Schmidt (2010) describe the difference between a foreign language and a second language more extensively as follows: A foreign language is “a language which is not the native language of large numbers of people in a particular country or region, is not used as a medium of instruction in schools, and is not widely used as a medium of communication in government, media, etc. Foreign languages are typically taught as school subjects for the purpose of communicating with foreigners or for reading printed materials in the language” (pp. 224–225). For example, English is described as a foreign language in France, Japan, China, Venezuela, and other regions. A second language, on the other hand, refers to “a language that plays a major role in a particular country or region though it may not be the first language of many people who use it” (ibid, p. 514). A second language is a language that is widely used as a medium of communication (e.g., in education and in government) and which is usually used alongside another language or languages. For example, English is described as a second language in countries such as Singapore, Nigeria, India, and the Philippines. Strictly speaking, the distinction between a FL and a SL applies to any language. In practice, however, the distinction is most often applied to English language teaching, because to date English is the most frequently taught second or foreign language in the world and because there exists significant research about English-as-second-or-foreign language in the world too. For instance, Polio and Williams (2009), describing the state of writing in English-as-a-foreign language, claim that “English is the dominant foreign language in most settings outside of North America and is certainly the only one in which there exists significant research on writing” (p. 494). It comes as no surprise, therefore, that most of the scholarship on TBLT, this volume included, comes from English as a second and/or foreign language contexts. Thus, an English-as-a-foreign language (EFL) context, or English non-dominant region, describes settings in



Chapter 1.  Introduction

which English is taught as a school subject in the students’ home location, which is the case with the collection of studies comprising this volume. Henceforth, therefore, in this introduction FL settings will be referred to as EFL settings. (See Howatt and Widdowson, 2004, for fuller discussion of English as a second language and English as a foreign language; Fujii and Mackey, 2009, and Moore, this volume, for important distinctions between foreign and second language contexts in task-based learnerlearner interaction; and Sato, 2011, for a discussion of the use of the terms foreign and second language contexts in SLA research.)1

Factors and problems associated with educational settings in EFL contexts In spite of all the potential value of TBLT noted above, and in spite of the policies of a number of governments and educational authorities worldwide that support curricular innovations in favor of TBLT, traditional, language-centered, and teacher-centered instruction still persists in many EFL settings. Adams and Newton (2009), citing evidence from a large body of classroom-based research on current English teaching in Asia, state that “[r]esearch conducted across East Asian contexts has overwhelmingly suggested that curricular policies have had limited overall impact on English language teaching, which remains traditional with an explicit grammar-teaching focus” (p. 2). Such resistance to curricular changes applies to the adoption of TBLT in particular. For instance, Adamson and Davison (2003) and Luk (2009) found very minimal adoption of the task-based Hong Kong Target Oriented Curriculum by teachers and schools (see also Chan, this volume). Similarly, Zhang (2007), describing the situation in mainland China, speaks of the “limited, sporadic, unsystematic, and sometimes contradictory dissemination of TBLT by various disseminators, including educational authorities, teacher trainers, university scholars, and textbook writers” (p. 76). Similar observations have been noted in other EFL contexts such as Taiwan (Chao & Wu, 2008),

1. Some authors, e.g., Harmer (2007, pp. 19–21), suggest that the traditional distinction between EFL and ESL has become difficult to sustain in recent years. First, English has become a language for international communication, especially on the internet; as a consequence the socalled foreign language (English) invades learners’ lives more than the so-called second language they are learning (when for instance they are living in a region dominated by a language other than their mother tongue). Second, in many places around the world, communities have become truly multilingual making it harder to distinguish second languages from foreign languages. In Flanders, for example, English has become such a dominant foreign language (on television, on the internet, in the entertainment industry, in business, etc.) that it can hardly be called a foreign language anymore. Harmer suggests that ESOL (English to Speakers of Other Languages) is gaining ground as an umbrella term. However, Harmer admits that although ESOL reflects a more multilingual global reality, it “ignore(s) the context in which languagelearning takes place” (p. 20).





Ali Shehadeh

Korea (Shim & Baik, 2000), Japan (Jackson, this volume; Gorush, 2000), and Venezuela (Chacón, this volume). A number of factors may be identified as challenges for adopting TBLT in many EFL settings, including administrative constraints, exam pressures, cultural pressures and expectations, time pressures, and available materials (e.g., Adams & Newton, 2009; Iwashita & Li, this volume). Following Adams and Newton (2009), these challenges may be grouped under three main factors: institutional factors, teacher factors, and student factors. These are considered and discussed separately below.

Institutional factors A number of institutional factors are shown to hinder the adoption of TBLT in many EFL settings like focused exams and assessments, large class sizes, and mixed-proficiency classes. First, studies in several EFL settings including China (Hu, 2002; Zhang, 2007), Hong Kong (Chow & Mok-Cheung, 2004), Korea (Shim & Baik, 2000), and Japan (Gorush, 2000) have shown that the measurement of success in L2 teaching and learning is frequently sought through norm-referenced, summative, knowledge-based, vocabulary-and grammar focused exams. These likely hinder successful adoption of TBLT in the classroom. For instance, Hu (2002) and Zhang (2007) show that grammar and vocabulary knowledge-based high stakes national examinations are the main barriers preventing the adoption of TBLT in China, because they do not take into account or reflect communicative curricular objectives. They rely rather too heavily on multiple-choice testing formats, leading administrators and teachers to revert to traditional, explicit, and rote-learning approaches for teaching to the test (Carless, 2007; Li, 1998; Littlewood, 2004). Similarly, large class sizes and mixed-proficiency classes are also frequently cited as factors that limit the adoption of TBLT courses in many EFL settings, such as Taiwan (Chao & Wu, 2008), Korea (e.g., Jeon, 2006; Li, 1998), Hong Kong (Carless, 2002), China (Zhang, 2007), and Venezuela (Chacón, this volume). For instance, Li (1998) and Littlewood (2007) argue that it is difficult to implement TBLT in large classes because it requires a range of participatory structures including whole class work, group work, and pair work which interfere with local notions of good classroom management, which is usually defined in these contexts as students working individually and quietly and not causing any disruption (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996). Likewise, Chao and Wu (2008) pointed out that many teachers find it difficult to select appropriate tasks for use in public schools in Taiwan because their students are often streamed by age and not by level of proficiency. Along the same lines, Chacón (this volume) states that “EFL in Venezuela [...] is taught in formal classroom situations. In these settings, learners do not have sufficient opportunities to interact in English in the classroom in part due to large class sizes” (p. 255).



Chapter 1.  Introduction

Teacher factors A number of teacher factors have been found to challenge the adoption of TBLT in several EFL contexts. First, many teachers struggle to make sense of new approaches to language learning and teaching because of uncertainty about the nature of tasks, doubts about the effectiveness of TBLT itself for their traditional notions of what constitutes language learning, beliefs that tasks are no more than another face of the traditional exercises and drills, or else they simply do not know how to implement TBLT in their teaching practices (e.g., Adamson & Davison, 2003; Carless, 2009; Chacón, this volume; Chan, this volume; Jeon, 2006; Zhang, 2007). Second, many teachers feel more secure and in control in traditional, teacher-fronted, teacher-centred instruction. These teachers feel uncomfortable with the shifts in teaching styles and classroom dynamics required by TBLT because they feel that these reduce their ‘authority’ from the role of instructor to that of a facilitator or counsellor (e.g., Carless, 2004, 2007; McAllister, Narcy-Combes, & Starkey-Perret, this volume). Third, teachers in many EFL settings consider TBLT an alien concept not applicable to their specific teaching context or educational setting because it is incompatible with their own experiences of language learning and teaching. For instance, Cortazzi and Jin (1996) pointed out that many TBLT principles are incompatible with the Confucian heritage for language education in China that advocates the authoritative role of the teacher, memorization, and rote learning. Many of these teachers consider traditional methods of teaching more appropriate than TBLT (see also Iwashita & Li, this volume).2

Student factors Research exploring EFL students’ views and beliefs has also suggested that many students express doubts about the effectiveness of TBLT, which both matches their teachers’ views and echoes their conservative parental beliefs about education. In particular, many students in these settings have expressed a preference for traditional methods of teaching that promote accuracy over fluency, individual or independent work over pair- and group work, and reliance on the teacher as an authority figure over taking risks through speaking, as favored by TBLT courses (e.g., Adamson & Davison, 2003 in Hong Kong; Lee, 2005; Zhang, 2007 in China; Li, 1998 in Korea; Eguchi & Eguchi, 2006 in Japan). For instance, many students in the studies by Eguchi and Eguchi (2006) and Lee (2005) were reluctant to take risks or make mistakes in English in order to save face, which undercuts the value of interactive and production tasks necessary for language development.

2. It has to be acknowledged that pretty much the same applies in Europe – traditional methods die-hards can still be found in places like the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Hungary, amongst others.





Ali Shehadeh

Overall, and in spite of perceived value of TBLT and the increasing interest in TBLT research that is being built up in EFL contexts (such as Ellis, Tanaka, & Yamazaki, 1995; Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993; Skehan & Foster, 1997), and by a number of studies in recent edited collections (e.g., Edwards & Willis, 2005; Garcia Mayo, 2007; Leaver & Willis, 2004; Shehadeh & Coombe, 2010; Van den Branden, 2006a; Van den Branden et al., 2007), TBLT research and implementation in many EFL settings still face a number of challenges. It must be pointed out, however, that these challenges are NOT problems for/of TBLT itself. Rather they are problems for ANY successful language teaching in these settings, due to the fact that many of the schooling-related policies and practices are NOT aligned with notions of effective language pedagogy. For example, very large numbers of Confucian-educated international students attempting to enter the US higher education systems incapable of functional use of English would suggest that there are real problems with the ‘appropriate’ traditional approaches. On the other hand, while acknowledging that the tasks of researching and doing TBLT in some EFL settings are challenging as shown above, it must be mentioned that there are numerous cases, experiences, and studies which demonstrate success stories of TBLT research and implementation in these same settings, including McDonough’s research in Thailand (e.g., McDonough, 2004; McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007, 2010), Robinson’s work in Japan (e.g., Robinson, 2007; Robinson, Cadierno, & Shirai 2009; Cadierno & Robinson, 2009), and Gilabert’s work on EFL in Spain (e.g., Gilabert, 2007; Gilabert, Baron, & Llanes, 2009). Against this backdrop, and in pursuit of encouraging effective language learning, this volume puts together a series of new studies that explores a range of TBLT research and implementation possibilities, and strengthens and widens the range of EFL contexts represented in research on TBLT. The volume presents recent research that reports on how TBLT ideas are being investigated by researchers and language professionals and being successfully put into practice by teachers and learners in these educational settings.

An overview of the book It is worth restating that the common thread that provides coherence to this collection of studies is how tasks are being researched or used in authentic and a wide variety of EFL settings in order to unravel the complexities of researching and implementing TBLT in these contexts. All contributions to the book: (a) are focused on task-based language teaching or task-supported language teaching (Samuda & Bygate, 2008); (b) are conducted in educational contexts, motivated by local relevance, or have local implications for TBLT research and practice; (c) are based on actual research studies that are grounded in the relevant literature, research, and theory; and (d) are motivated by evidence-driven practice. Yet, the book emphasizes the rich range of possibilities, avenues, and issues that this collection of studies opens up in undertaking such an activity. It describes some of the challenges and illustrates some of the successes in



Chapter 1.  Introduction

researching, implementing, and utilizing TBLT in EFL settings, with an aim of making a fresh and enriching contribution to our knowledge about TBLT research and implementation in these settings. The thirteen studies that make up this volume fall into two main sections. Section I consists of five studies that have investigated how different variables affect learners’ interaction and performance within a TBLT framework, serving as a lead-in to the study of a number of contextual adaptations of TBLT for implementation, which constitute the focus of Section II. Some variables explored in Section I include the effects of task complexity and pre-task planning on EFL learners’ oral production, whether language proficiency mediates the perception of task difficulty, whether intended task complexity differences are reflected in the language production (i.e., fluency, accuracy, and complexity) of learners of different proficiency levels, effects of strategic planning on the accuracy of learners’ performance on spoken and written narrative tasks, effects of task instructions on text processing and L2 learning, how task structure influences native speaker interaction, and how EFL learners might benefit from exposure to such interaction. Following this introduction, Sasayama and Izumi (Chapter 2) test Skehan’s (1996, 1998) limited capacity hypothesis and Robinson’s (1995, 2003) cognition hypothesis by investigating the effects of task complexity and pre-task planning on EFL learners’ oral production in a Japanese educational setting. They collected data from a population underrepresented in previous studies despite its obvious importance for both research and teaching, namely, EFL high school students who have limited oral L2 proficiency. Sasayama and Izumi found that increased task complexity positively affected the specific measure of syntactic complexity, but negatively affected global accuracy and fluency; whereas planning time positively affected global syntactic complexity, but like task complexity, negatively affected fluency. These findings partially support and partially disconfirm both Robinson’s and Skehan’s hypotheses, posing questions about the value of making blanket universal generalizations on the linguistic consequences of task manipulation. Findings of the Sasayama and Izumi study suggest the importance of employing task-discourse sensitive measures in investigating the effect of task complexity on EFL learners’ language use. Also testing Robinson’s cognition hypothesis and Skehan’s trade-off hypothesis, Malicka and Levkina (Chapter 3) investigate whether language proficiency mediates the perception of task difficulty and whether intended task complexity differences are reflected in the language production (i.e., fluency, accuracy, and complexity) of learners of different proficiency levels in English. The researchers collected data from 37 participants (20 advanced and 17 pre-intermediate learners of English) who were undergraduate students at a Spanish university. The participants were provided with two tasks differing in cognitive complexity levels and manipulated along ± few elements and ± reasoning dimensions. Two kinds of instruments were used to measure participants’ perceptions of task difficulty: self-reported difficulty ratings and time estimation of task completion. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency measures were used to





Ali Shehadeh

analyze participants’ speech production on the two tasks. With respect to the participants’ perception of complexity, the researchers found no significant differences between the high and low proficiency groups. Regarding performance measures, the complex task triggered greater lexical and structural complexity and accuracy in the high proficiency group, but adversely affected fluency. In the low proficiency group, fluency was boosted on the complex task, while the other areas remained intact irrespective of cognitive task complexity. As the researchers state, the main conclusion to be drawn from this study is that the proficiency level plays a key role in attention allocation, whereby trade-off effects between fluency, accuracy, and complexity are more pertinent to lower L2 proficiency learners, which become less marked, if not disappear altogether, as proficiency increases. In part like Chapters 2 and 3, Genc (Chapter 4), focusing on the issue of planning, investigates the effects of strategic planning on the accuracy of learners’ performance on spoken and written narrative tasks in a Turkish EFL university setting. Most of Genc’s findings provide further support for research conducted in other, primarily ESL, settings. Most notably, she found that in unplanned conditions, EFL students were more accurate on the written tasks than on oral tasks; in contrast, in planned conditions the effect of modality (oral, written) on accuracy was not influential; strategic planning did not have a significant effect on accuracy for the oral task while it appeared to have had an adverse effect on accuracy for the written task; and learners spent more attention and time on vocabulary and organization than grammar during the planning time before and during the task performance phases. The main contribution of Genc’s study is that it extends the study of a number of task-design and performance issues, including planning time, accuracy, and oral and written modalities, into an EFL setting. Remaining within the territory of task conditions and how they might influence students’ processing capacity and subsequent learning, Horiba and Fukaya (Chapter 5), report on a study that investigated the effects of task instructions on text processing and L2 learning. They collected data from 70 limited L2 proficiency college nursing students in a Japanese EFL context. The participants processed texts about a healthcare case under three different task conditions. Some students were informed of a recall task in one language and later recalled in the same language (the L1-only and the L2-only conditions), while others recalled in a different language (the L1-L2 condition). After recall, the participants took a vocabulary test on unfamiliar words contained in the text. The investigators found that the L1-only condition facilitated content recall whereas the L2-only condition led to increased incidental vocabulary acquisition. Horiba and Fukaya argue that these findings imply that there may be a trade-off between content learning and language learning for limited L2 proficiency students (i.e., those often the students in EFL contexts). The main contribution of Horiba and Fukaya’s study to this volume is that it addresses two essential questions on TBLT research in EFL settings: Can limited L2 proficiency students learn both content and



Chapter 1.  Introduction

language simultaneously in the L2? and How can task conditions influence students’ text processing capacity and subsequent learning? In the final contribution to Section I (Chapter 6), Hobbs expands the TBLT research base into a largely unexplored area, namely, how task structure influences native speaker (NS) interaction, and how EFL learners might benefit from exposure to such interaction. Hobbs examined NS task performance over a range of nine tasks, focusing on the ways in which patterns of interaction are influenced by task design, and showing how recordings of NS task interaction can be used to better equip learners to perform similar tasks without recourse to L1. The study sought to identify features that might offer a basis for predicting performance by other NSs on similar tasks, and that learners could be expected to benefit from exposure to. For instance, even when students are accustomed to a particular task type, activities using NS transcripts can encourage them to experiment with alternative expressions. Findings of Hobbs’ study show that valuable insights can be obtained by analyzing NS task performance, enabling L2 researchers to gain a deeper understanding of how task design and task selection can influence interaction. And this, consequently, enables them to make reasoned pedagogical recommendations for the implementation and practice of TBLT in the classroom, including task selection and design, sequencing of tasks, task complexity, and task demands. Section II consists of eight studies that focus on TBLT contextual adaptation, implementation, or related issues in EFL educational contexts. The studies explore themes such as patterns of teacher – student and student-student interaction in a TBLT classroom, effectiveness of learner-generated focus on form in oral task-based interaction, differences in teachers’ enactment of TBLT, designing and implementing computerassisted TBLT lessons, enactment of TBLT in teacher education programs, task-based language assessment, and teacher perceptions of task-based language teaching. Following on the issue of interaction raised in Chapter 6 by Hobbs, but this time from a purely classroom interaction perspective, Iwashita and Li (Chapter 7) investigate patterns of teacher-student and student-student interaction in a task-based oral EFL classroom in a university setting in China. Eight hours of classroom interaction data were analyzed for various types of feedback and uptake. The study was conducted against the backdrop of classroom-based TBLT research in Asian counties in general, and in China in particular, that has focused to date mainly on the factors that ostensibly hinder the implementation of communicative, TBLT methodologies in these contexts. By contrast, these investigators found strong and active student participation in the classroom, and extensive teacher – student and student-student interaction, despite the large class size and the students’ unfamiliarity with a teaching methodology that was very different from the traditional Chinese way of learning and teaching. The main implication and contribution of Iwashita and Li’s findings is that the apparent successful implementation of TBLT in this study was not only due to the classroom teacher’s familiarity with TBLT, her strong belief in it, and her good relationship with her students, but also to the willingness of these students to accept new methodologies





Ali Shehadeh

and modes of learning which are so different from their past learning experiences, their old beliefs about learning, and from the traditional methodologies they were accustomed to. In a longitudinal study, Moore (Chapter 8) investigates oral task-based interaction in an undergraduate EFL classroom in a Japanese university context. He analyzed data obtained through language-related episodes (LREs) from four focal learners and their partners (N = 8) in two oral presentation tasks for the effectiveness of learnergenerated focus on form (FONF). He also conducted a qualitative microanalysis of one learner’s interaction with partners of similar proficiency on two similar tasks, separated by a period of seven months, to investigate the influence of context. Providing further support for previous studies, Moore found that there was little focus on form in interaction and there was much variability across dyads. Qualitative analysis revealed that the effectiveness of FONF in interaction and performance may have been influenced by the learners’ shared background (including L1 use), individual differences in terms of engagement in LREs, learners’ perceptions of each other’s language proficiency, and other interpersonally negotiated features of the interaction. Pedagogically, Moore’s study highlights the potential of attempting to refine learners’ FONF to encourage more on-task negotiation, including forms which may be essential to task performance. Chan (Chapter 9) also considers patterns of interaction (who spoke about what, in response to what, and with what effect) as part of her investigation of how TBLT is enacted in primary ESL classrooms in Hong Kong. Framed within a qualitative research framework, Chan’s study collected data from 20 lessons taught by four teachers on the same topic (the weather) from individual lesson plans, teaching materials, interviews with these teachers, and tasks completed by the students. The researcher found that teachers differed in enacting TBLT in their classrooms along six dimensions: (1) strategic use of visual support to manage task demands; (2) contextualizing input to make connections between old and new knowledge; (3) simultaneous attention to task demands for progression in complexity; (4) provision of scaffolding through task sequencing and adjustment of task variables; (5) creating conditions in noticing form and salient features; and (6) creating conditions for restructuring to occur. Chan argues that these findings imply that what is most important in shaping learning in an authentic TBLT classroom is not the task per se, but rather the interweaving of pedagogic strategies (e.g., scaffolding) at various levels of complexity as teachers respond to students’ needs in the immediacy of the classroom environment. An additional, but important, contribution of Chan’s investigation is that it focuses on pupils (aged between 7–9 years) at lower primary levels, an age group not often studied in research into TBLT practice or in TBLT theory. It should be noted here that the decision to include a contribution from Hong Kong, in which the status of English language teaching might be considered to be ESL rather than EFL, was based on an important consideration; namely, the educational setting in Hong Kong includes most of the challenges observed in other EFL settings



Chapter 1.  Introduction

for adopting and implementing TBLT principles or framework (see pp. 6 ff above; Carless, this volume). Indeed, Chan enumerates some of these challenges in the introduction to her chapter and also in her Conclusions and Implications section. For instance, in her concluding section, Chan states: “Local studies and my personal interaction with in-service teachers [in Hong Kong] seem to suggest that teachers find the concept of TBLT difficult to grasp” (p. 206). In a research area that has received comparatively little attention, Park (Chapter 10) illustrates how computer-assisted TBLT lessons can be designed and implemented in a conventional English classroom in a Korean school setting. He also investigates students’ L2 development in writing as well as their perceptions of TBLT. A total of 61 Grade 7 students at a Korean middle school participated in the study. The participants were divided into an experimental group (N = 30) that was taught with the TBLT lesson plans, and a control group (N = 31) that was taught in a conventional teachercentered and forms-focused approach. For each unit, two task-based writing tests (pre/post-test) and a conventional unit test on grammar and reading comprehension were administered. A paired sample t-test of the two groups revealed that the mean scores of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the control group. The experimental group also exceeded the control group in the conventional unit tests. The main finding of the study is that TBLT can be effective in improving students’ communicative competence while not hindering form-focused L2 learning. On the other hand, students and teachers both found the TBLT lessons effective and motivating. Park discusses a number of implications of the study for EFL teachers as well as for administrators, curriculum designers, and materials writers. Like Chan’s and Park’s studies, Chacón’s contribution (Chapter 11), framed within a qualitative research framework, reports on the successful enactment of TBLT in a teacher education program in Venezuela. The investigator explored ways of enhancing EFL students’ oral skills using TBLT through film-oriented activities. She collected data from 50 third year students enrolled in the program over a ten-week period. Her data sources included student diaries, student recordings, and focus group interviews. The investigator found that implementing TBLT through a cooperative learning project using films was successful and beneficial for L2 learning in multiple ways, including improvements in the students’ fluency and intelligibility in L2, their listening comprehension, and their vocabulary building skills. Most of the participants in the study expressed positive attitudes towards the TBLT-based cooperative learning project they took part in. At the same time, the project was successful because it fostered collaboration between learners and facilitated language learning through the use of authentic input, interaction, and communication tasks in the classroom. In line with the recent EFL teaching curriculum reforms in Venezuela, which recommend the adoption of TBLT in teacher education programs in the country, the main implication of Chacón’s study is that TBLT enabled these would-be teachers to develop their English competence as learners, and at the same time gave them firsthand knowledge about TBLT methodology and practice in order to utilize it successfully in their future





Ali Shehadeh

teaching situations. Chacón argues that these findings and implications are quite major for the EFL setting of Venezuela -and perhaps for other EFL settings like the ones explored in this volume- where English is usually taught following a traditional, linear curriculum in formal classrooms, where there is hardly any time or opportunity for interaction or negotiation of meaning, and where teachers face numerous constraints such as lack of materials and school facilities, tight schedules, and large classes (as documented in Chacón, 2005). Also focusing on teacher education programs, Jackson (Chapter 12) investigated aspects of novice teacher cognition among 15 participants in a one-semester, taskbased, undergraduate seminar on language teaching methods in a university setting in Japan. Jackson collected data from retrospective comments, classroom discourse, and survey results on the effectiveness of this task-based teacher education approach. He found that the participants both gained and shared knowledge related to teaching practice through classroom tasks. In addition, the participants expressed very positive attitudes towards the TBLT instructional practices (see also the contribution by Chacón, this volume). The chapter discusses the potential of task-based teacher training to support curricular innovation initiatives, like TBLT, which are designed to enhance language education in Japan. Jackson concludes that “task-based second language teacher education offers opportunities for novice teachers to explore roles and responsibilities, develop a collaborative culture around language teaching, and plan and implement communicative teaching practices designed for school-based learners” (p. 282). The study by Weaver (Chapter 13) focuses on assessment and testing in EFL contexts utilizing TBLT principles. It is worth noting that within the framework of TBLT methodology, the main goal of task-based language assessment (TBLA) is measured against the extent to which assessment can successfully achieve a close link between the testee’s performance during the test and his/her performance in the real world (e.g., Ellis, 2003; Long & Norris, 2000; Shehadeh, 2012; Weaver, this volume). For instance, Weaver reminds us at the outset of his chapter that: At its core, task-based language assessment (TBLA) involves evaluating the degree to which language learners can use their L2 to accomplish given tasks. A welldesigned and implemented assessment can also provide teachers and language learners with a detailed account of task performance that can inform future taskbased instruction and L2 development. (p. 287)

Along these lines, Weaver proposes a formative assessment cycle that can inform the development, implementation and evaluation of assessment tasks in a task-based syllabus. He reports the results of a study in which he examined 46 Japanese university business students’ competence to deliver a PowerPoint presentation in English. He illustrates how a many-faceted analysis of student ratings of their PowerPoint presentations combined with a discourse analysis of the presentations revealed a significant gap between the students’ PowerPoint and their English presentation skills, which then provides focal points for informing future learning and teaching. He also shows how a



Chapter 1.  Introduction

significant gap existed between these students’ descriptive and explanatory skills, and how this too can be a focal point for future learning and teaching. By way of exemplifying this successful formative assessment cycle that is informative, refined, and reliable, Weaver provides a detailed and compelling account of one participating student’s competence to deliver a PowerPoint presentation in relation to the different task requirements and multiple assessment criteria. The main implication of Weaver’s study, in his own words, is that “A formative assessment cycle can help teachers establish a framework for systematically implementing TBLT in their classrooms” (p. 307). In the final contribution to Section II, Julie McAllister and her team (Chapter 14) examine, as part of a large-scale research project, teachers’ self-perceptions and attitudes to learning and teaching after shifting from face-to-face teacher-centered approaches to computer-mediated and task-based teaching. Their findings are based on interviews with 14 teachers involved in a task-based blended learning program for first-year Business English undergraduate university students in Northwest France. The researchers found that most of the teachers accept and are adapting to the new, multifaceted role of the teacher implied in the TBLT program. However, some teachers voiced some concerns and reservations about successful implementation of TBLT, including the increased workload associated with the provision of more personalized support for students, the shift away from a transmission-based approach to teaching, and some institutional and cultural constraints. The main contribution of the chapter by McAllister and her team is that it focuses on one of the key factors for successfully implementing TBLT in EFL settings, namely, the teacher’s role (see Factors and Problems Associated with Educational Settings in EFL Contexts above). Indeed, the study is of particular value given that teachers play a key role in the successful implementation of any TBLT program. An important theme that runs explicitly or implicitly through all eight contributions to Section II, in particular those by Chacón (Chapter 11), Jackson (Chapter 12), and McAllister et al. (Chapter 14) is that successful task-based teacher training/education programs are necessary to support curricular innovation initiatives like TBLT, which are designed to enhance language education in these EFL settings. Such programs have strong implications for the teacher trainees’ own language learning, for their self-perceptions and their attitudes to TBLT, and for their language teaching capabilities, as many of them will become EFL teachers in the future (see Carless, this volume, for a detailed discussion of the issue). In the closing chapter, Carless (Chapter 15) contextualizes the volume’s contribution to TBLT in EFL contexts in particular, and in the wider contexts of TBLT and research in general. Specifically, he identifies and discusses five main themes arising in the collection: research methodologies used, contextual adaptations to TBLT, TBLT in Chinese contexts, assessment and TBLT, and teacher education and TBLT. He concludes his chapter and the volume by outlining some issues in task-based language teaching in need of further exploration.





Ali Shehadeh

Concluding remarks It is worth concluding this introductory chapter with a number of remarks: First, as one might have noticed, the geographical spread of the contributions to this collection is worth some comment (see also Carless’s chapter, this volume). As can be seen from the Table of Contents, the majority of the chapters come from Asian settings, with the remaining including one from Latin America (Venezuela), one from Eastern Europe (Turkey), and two from Western Europe (Spain and France). Six of the Asian contributions come from Japan alone. As Carless says in his chapter, this spread may partly reflect editorial orientation; yet, arguably it could also reflect developmental trends across Asia in general and Japan in particular. That is, it might simply reflect the likelihood that any worldwide dissemination of TBLT or any other trend is likely to proceed asymmetrically, spread occurring more easily and quickly in some areas than others for contextual and chance historical reasons – and that this applies both in terms of education and research. With the increase in global communications, however, such dissemination is likely to become more even in the future. Publications such as this one are intended to promote further spread and dissemination of TBLT. Viewed from this perspective, this volume of studies adds to the large amount of work addressing TBLT in EFL learning in Europe in places like Spain, France, Holland, and Germany; and at the same time encourages exploration of how TBLT is being researched and practiced in other – largely underrepresented – EFL parts of the world like the Middle East and the Gulf, Africa, and other Latin American and Eastern European counties. Second, in spirit with the mission statement of the International Consortium on Task-Based Language Teaching (ICTBLT), formed in 2005, which states that “The basic mission of the ICTBLT is to foster excellence in TBLT work – from theoretical, empirical, and practical perspectives – across the diverse contexts of language education worldwide,” this collection of studies reflects the increasing amount of scholarship underway in exploring and using TBLT in EFL contexts. With its focus on how TBLT ideas are investigated and being put into practice beyond the contexts represented in the majority of the literature, the book extends research on TBLT to new boundaries and accesses new research findings. With this remark in mind, the ultimate aim of this collection of studies was to explore the potential of TBLT for language learning in general, and in EFL contexts in particular, and to promote further studies. The volume provides strong indications that the research and implementation of TBLT in EFL settings is of a different kind because it takes into account different contextual variables from those found in ESL settings. It is thus a step towards acknowledging the contributions of TBLT research in EFL settings and the right of such research to question or resist pedagogies developed for ESL settings. The book puts TBLT research in EFL contexts on the scene. Finally, as stated earlier, the collection provides firsthand knowledge about how TBLT is being researched, implemented, and practiced in EFL contexts. It thus adds to the ongoing debate on the subject given the “considerable diversity in the theoretical



Chapter 1.  Introduction 

scope, research, and applied practice that corresponds with the TBLT name” (Van den Branden et al., 2009, p. x). I therefore believe that the collection will appeal to SLA researchers and research students in applied linguistics. Likewise, because a number of the contributions explore the various ways in which TBLT principles may be incorporated in the curriculum or utilized by the classroom teacher, I believe that the book will be of value too to course designers and language teachers who come from a broad range of formal and informal educational settings encompassing a wide range of ages and types of language learners.

References Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2009). TBLT in Asia: Constraints and opportunities. Asian Journal of English Language teaching, 19, 1–17. Adamson, B., & Davison, C. (2003). Innovation in English language teaching in Hong Kong primary schools: One step forward, two steps sideways? Prospect, 18(1), 27–41. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. Harlow, UK: Longman. Cadierno, T., & Robinson, P. (2009). Language typology, task complexity and the development of L2 lexicalization patterns for describing motion events. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 245–277. Carless, D. (2002). Implementing task-based learning with young learners. English Language Teaching Journal, 56(4), 389–396. Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 639–662. Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35, 595–608. Carless, D. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT versus P-P-P debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language teaching, 19, 49–66. Chacón, C. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 257–272. Chao, J. C., & Wu, A. M. (2008). A study of task-based learning and teaching in a large EFL class. Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr. Muller. Chow, A. K. W., & Mok-Cheung, A. H. M. (2004). English language teaching in Hong Kong SAR: Tradition, transition, and transformation. In H. W. Kam & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.). Language policies and language education: The impact in East Asian countries in the next decade (pp. 150–177). Singapore: Times Academic Press. Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). English teaching and learning in China. Language Teaching 29, 61–80. Edwards, C., & Willis, J. (Eds.). (2005). Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Eguchi, M., & Eguchi, K. (2006). The limited effect of PBL on EFL learners: A case study of English magazine projects. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 207–225. Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1–19.



Ali Shehadeh Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of tasks planning in the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509. Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1995). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–491. Fujii, A., & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a taskbased EFL classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 267–301. Garcia Mayo, M. (Ed.). (2007). Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and [± Here-and-Now]: Effects on L2 oral production. In M.P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44–68). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gilabert, R., Baron, J., & Llanes, M. (2009). Manipulating task complexity across task types and its influence on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 367–395. Gorush, G. J. (2000). EFL educational policies and educational cultures: Influences on teachers’ approval of communicative activities. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 675–710. Harmer, G. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Longman. Howatt, A.P.R., & Widdowson, H.G. (2004). A history of English language teaching (2nd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hu, G. (2002). Recent important developments in secondary English-language teaching in the People’s Republic of China. Language, Culture and Curriculum 15(1), 30–49. International Consortium on Task-Based Language Teaching (ICTBLT). Link: http://cteno.be/ downloads/ictblt_support_letter.pdf (accessed on 13 June, 2011). Jeon, I. J. (2006). EFL teachers’ perception of task-based language teaching: With a focus on Korean secondary classroom practice. Asian EFL Journal, 8, 192–206. Leaver, B. L., & Willis, J. R. (Eds.). (2004). Task-based instruction in foreign language education: Practices and programs. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lee, S. M. (2005). The pros and cons of task-based instruction in elementary English classes. English Teaching, 60, 185–205. Li, D. F. (1998). “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677–703. Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. English Language Teaching Journal, 58(4), 319–326. Littlewood, W. T. (2007).Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching 40, 243–249. Long, M. H., & Norris, J. M. (2000). Task-based language teaching and assessment. In M. Byram (Ed.). Encyclopedia of language teaching (pp. 597–603). London: Routledge. Luk, J. (2009). Preparing EFL students for communicative task performance: The nature and role of language knowledge. Asian Journal of English Language teaching, 19, 67–90. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.



Chapter 1.  Introduction  Manchón, R. (Ed.). (2009a). Writing in foreign language contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Manchón, R. (2009b). Introduction: Broadening the perspective of L2 writing scholarship: The contribution of research on foreign language writing. In R. Manchón (Ed.) (2009a), pp. 1–22. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207–224. McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 107–132. McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2010). Collaborative syntactic priming activities and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 817–842. Newton, J., & Adams, R. (Eds.). (2009). Task-based language teaching in Asia: Innovation in research and practice (special issue). Asian Journal of English Language teaching, 19. Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203–110. Ortega, L. (2009). Studying writing across EFL contexts: Looking back and moving forward. In R. Manchón (Ed.) (2009a), pp. 209–231. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3–21. Pica. T., & Doughty, C. (1985a). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.). Input in second language acquisition (pp. 115–132). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Pica. T., & Doughty, C. (1985b). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 233–248. Polio, C., & Williams, J. (2009). Teaching and testing writing. In M. Long, & C. Doughty, (Eds.). The handbook of language teaching (pp. 486– 517). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Richards, J., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.) London: Longman. Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140. Robinson, P. (2003). The cognitive hypothesis of adult, task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45–107. Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 193–214. Robinson, P., Cadierno, T., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Time and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language production. Applied Linguistics, 28, 533–554. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Sato, M. (2011). Constitution of form-orientation: Contributions of context and explicit knowledge to learning from recasts. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 1–28. Shehadeh, A. (2012). Task-based language assessment: Components, development, and implementation. In C. Coombe, P. Davidson, B. O’Sullivan, & S. Stoynoff (Eds.). The Cambridge guide to second language assessment (pp. 156–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



Ali Shehadeh Shehadeh, A., & Coombe, C. (Eds.). (2010). Applications of task-based learning in TESOL. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Shim, R., & Baik, M. (2000). South and North Korea. In H. W. Kam & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.). Language policies and language education: The impact in East Asian countries in the next decade (pp. 246–261). Singapore: Times Academic Press. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17 (1), 38–62. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211. Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners’ output. Language Learning, 47, 589–636. Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006a). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van den Branden, K. (2006b). Introduction: Task-based language teaching in a nutshell. In K. Van den Branden (Ed.). (2006a), pp. 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (Eds.). (2009). Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., & Verhelst, M. (Eds.). (2007). Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press. Zhang, E. Y. (2007). TBLT innovation in primary school English language teaching in mainland China. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, & M. Verhelst (Eds.). Tasks in action: Taskbased language education from a classroom-based perspective (pp. 68–91). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.

section i

Variables affecting task-based language learning and performance

chapter 2

Effects of task complexity and pre-task planning on Japanese EFL learners’ oral production Shoko Sasayama and Shinichi Izumi

University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, USA and Sophia University, Japan This study sought to test Skehan’s (1996, 1998) limited capacity hypothesis and Robinson’s (1995, 2003) cognition hypothesis by investigating the effects of task complexity and pre-task planning on EFL learners’ oral production (see also Genc, this volume). Twenty three Japanese-L1 high school students were given two sets of picture-based narrative tasks: a simple task with fewer characters and a complex task with more characters appearing in cartoon-based stories. Ten of these participants were given pre-task planning time, whereas thirteen were not. The results indicate that (a) the increased task complexity positively affects the specific measure of syntactic complexity, but negatively affects global accuracy and fluency; and (b) planning time positively affects global syntactic complexity, but negatively affects fluency. These findings partially support and partially disconfirm both Robinson’s and Skehan’s hypotheses, posing questions about making blanket predictions on the linguistic consequences of task manipulation. The findings also show the importance of employing task-discourse sensitive measures in investigating the effect of task complexity on learners’ language use. The main value of the findings of the study comes from its focus on Japanese EFL high school students who have limited oral L2 proficiency, a population underrepresented in previous studies, despite their obvious importance for both research and teaching.

Introduction The use of tasks in second language (L2) classrooms has recently been gaining enormous popularity. Unlike traditional exercises which focus exclusively on the manipulation of language forms, tasks are designed to encourage learners to pay primary attention to meaning and simultaneously attend to the form that is necessary to convey meaning. Tasks, therefore, are believed to be useful tools to promote the development of the form-meaning connections that are crucial for L2 learning. However, it is still an



Shoko Sasayama and Shinichi Izumi

open question as to what kinds of tasks can effectively trigger such learning processes and under which conditions. Many SLA researchers (e.g., Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Ellis, 2003, 2005; Ortega, 1999, 2007; Robinson, 2001a, 2001b, 2005; Skehan, 1998) acknowledge that various factors mediate the learning processes. One such factor that has received considerable attention in SLA research is the role of pre-task planning. The question of interest is whether and how giving learners time to plan their utterances before engaging in the task affects their language use in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Another factor that is hypothesized to mediate the effects of task lies within the task itself, that is, the question of how the complexity inherent to the task itself affects the learners’ language use. The current study focuses on these two factors in an effort to further our understanding of the processes involved in taskbased L2 use and learning. Specifically, it manipulates two independent variables, ±few elements and ±planning time, in order to examine their respective, as well as their combined, effects on the production of oral narratives by Japanese EFL learners.

Task complexity and L2 task performance Task performance and attentional capacity In the current SLA literature, two major competing claims exist regarding how taskrelated variables affect learners’ performance. On the one hand, Skehan (1996, 1998) assumes a single-resource model of attention and claims that learners are not capable of paying simultaneous attention to the three main aspects of language use: complexity, accuracy, and fluency. He argues that attention to one aspect is likely to compromise attention to the others. Thus, attention to complexity, for instance, likely results in decreased accuracy, and vice versa. This is known as the ‘limited capacity’ hypothesis (also referred to as the ‘trade-off ’ hypothesis). Robinson (1995, 2001a, 2001b, 2003, 2005, 2007), on the other hand, assumes a multiple-resource model of attention and argues that learners are capable of attending to different aspects of language performance as needs arise in the task. He views structural complexity and accuracy as arising from functional complexity in discourse and, hence, increased functional demands imposed by the task should have detectable linguistic consequences. In this model, known as the cognition hypothesis, concurrent attention to different aspects of L2 use is considered not just possible, but natural. These two opposing positions held by Robinson and Skehan derive from the different theoretical frameworks adopted in the conception of task complexity. In his Triadic Componential Framework for task design, Robinson (2005) makes distinctions between three categories of factors: task complexity, which concerns inherent task characteristics relating to cognitive demands posed to the participants; task difficulty, which relates to learner factors as reflected in learners’ perceptions of how difficult tasks are; and task conditions, which concerns interactive demands of the task. Task



Chapter 2.  Effects of task complexity and planning on oral production 

complexity is further divided into two categories: resource-directing and resource-­ depleting dimensions. Resource-directing dimensions are those in which particular features of the task direct learners’ attention to specific aspects of the language; for example, whether the event to be described focuses on here-and-now or there-and-then ([±here-and-now]), and whether the task requires elaborating on the reasons for decision/choice made or not ([±no reasoning demands]).1 Increasing task complexity along resource-directing dimensions is expected to lead to interlanguage development, as learners are pushed to produce linguistically more complex and more accurate speech to meet increased functional demands. In the case of resource-depleting dimensions, increasing task complexity along these dimensions disperses, not directs, learners’ attention over many non-specific areas of the L2 performance; for example, whether planning time is allowed prior to the engagement in the main task ([±planning]), and whether the learner has relevant background knowledge to perform the task or not ([±prior knowledge]). Although these factors do not by themselves push learners to direct their attention to any particular linguistic forms, a decrease in complexity in these dimensions is hypothesized to bolster the attention-directing effect of the increase in the complexity of the resource-directing dimensions. Skehan (1996, 1998), on the other hand, argues for analysing the complexity of tasks based on three principal areas: language, cognition, and performance conditions. Language is concerned with code complexity, that is, how complex the language is required to be for completion of the task. Cognition is concerned with cognitive complexity, referring to the intrinsic cognitive demands posed to the participants and to the amount of task-related knowledge or information the learners possess. Performance conditions are concerned with the communicative stress the task places on the participants during task performance. Skehan contends that all these factors affect how learners allocate their attention during a task, as well as what L2 performance results. However, given that L2 learners’ knowledge of the language is still limited and is under conscious control, which takes up considerable attentional resources, cognitively demanding tasks are likely to draw their attention away from language forms and encourage them to rely on already developed automatized L2 knowledge. This may have the consequence of learners achieving the task outcome by sacrificing complexity along with any accompanying potential for IL development (“the safety first approach” – Skehan & Foster, 2001, p. 189). Conversely, learners may attempt to stretch their IL capacity to its limit, with the consequence of increasing complexity at the expense of accuracy (“the accuracy last approach” – Skehan & Foster, 2001, p. 189). To alleviate these problems, Skehan views pre-task planning as a particularly useful externally-manipulable performance condition that can regulate cognitive load. The opportunity to plan ahead of the task is believed to allow the learners extra processing

1. In all these cases, plus (+) denotes lower task complexity and the minus (-) denotes higher task complexity.



Shoko Sasayama and Shinichi Izumi

space so that they can allocate their limited attentional resources strategically to focus on formal aspects during task performance. Based on these different models, Robinson and Skehan make contrasting predictions about the effects of cognitive task complexity. Robinson hypothesizes that increasing task complexity along resource-directing dimensions has the effect of simultaneously improving complexity and accuracy, while fluency may be negatively affected. Where resource-depleting dimensions are concerned, an increase in task complexity is hypothesized to negatively influence all three aspects of L2 performance. In contrast, Skehan argues that when cognitive task complexity is high, accuracy and complexity enter into severe competition for attentional resources and, therefore, these two aspects cannot be promoted simultaneously. He argues, however, that by providing pre-task planning time, which can be viewed as decreasing task complexity along a resource-depleting dimension in Robinson’s terms, learners can allocate their attention with greater ease, with the consequence of improving some, but not necessarily all, aspects of task performance. When cognitive task complexity is increased by depriving learners of pre-task planning time, Skehan’s argument coincides with Robinson’s, in that all three aspects of task performance are likely to be negatively affected.

Previous studies on the effects of planning on L2 performance A number of studies have examined how planning affects learners’ L2 production (e.g., Ellis, 1987; 2005; Ellis & Yuan, 2004; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Yuan & Ellis, 2003). To take a couple of examples here for illustration, Foster and Skehan (1996) used different tasks to examine the effects of two planning conditions – guided and unguided planning conditions – on the learners’ L2 use. The results showed that planning had a greater effect on accuracy than on complexity or fluency for the personal information exchange task, whereas it promoted complexity and fluency in the case of the narrative task. The results of the narrative task obtained here are also corroborated by most other studies utilizing this type of task. Moreover, guided planners were found to be more fluent than unguided planners in the narrative task, but no obvious differences emerged for the other tasks. From these results, Foster and Skehan argued for the competence-expanding role of pre-task planning, while admitting that simultaneous improvement of complexity, accuracy and fluency is hard to attain. Another study was conducted by Ortega (1999), who examined the effects of pre-task planning on L2 Spanish learners’ linguistic performance in a story-retelling task. She found that syntactic complexity and fluency were positively influenced by planning, but lexical complexity was not. The results for accuracy were mixed, with significant effects found for noun-modifier agreement, but not for articles. Ortega also investigated the process of planning by administering retrospective interviews with the participants and found quite a bit of individual variability in the extent to which learners attended to form or meaning during pre-task planning. It appears that learners’



Chapter 2.  Effects of task complexity and planning on oral production 

interpretations of the task requirements, as well as their general orientation to the task and their L2 proficiency, mediate what they do during planning time. In general, three robust findings emerge from the results of previous studies on planning: (a) pre-task planning typically promotes fluency and syntactic complexity of the learners’ L2 performance; (b) results for accuracy are inconsistent, as some studies show greater accuracy in the planning condition for some forms or measures, but not others, and other studies show no detectable effects of planning on accuracy; and (c) all three aspects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency may not be improved simultaneously by pre-task planning. In spite of these findings, there is still uncertainty regarding what inherent task characteristics interact with pre-task planning to affect the learners’ L2 performance (see also, Genc, this volume).2

Previous studies on the effects of inherent task characteristics on L2 performance Other researchers have focused on the effects of inherent task characteristics (i.e., resource-directing dimensions of task complexity) on learners’ performance (e.g., Gilabert, 2007; Ishikawa, 2007; Kuiken & Vedder, 2007; Robinson, 1995, 2001b, 2007). Robinson (1995), for example, used monologic narrative tasks and manipulated task complexity along the ±here-and-now dimension. The results indicated that the complex task significantly promoted lexical complexity, with a trend for greater accuracy and greater dysfluency as well. No statistically significant differences were observed for syntactic complexity, however. In a more recent study, Robinson (2007) used an interactive narrative task and manipulated task complexity along the ±reasoning demands dimension. The results indicated no statistically significant differences among the different tasks in accuracy, syntactic complexity or fluency, while significant effects on lexical complexity were found for simpler tasks. These results are in contradiction to the cognition hypothesis. Robinson attributed these results to his failure to control for the resource-depleting dimensions adequately. In addition to using general measures, Robinson also used in this study theoretically-motivated specific measures of lexical and syntactic complexity. Based on findings in L1 acquisition research, Robinson hypothesised that increasing conceptual demands of reasoning would lead learners to use more cognitive state terms (e.g., “think,” “know”) and complex syntactic complementations (e.g., “he thinks that he is ...”). The analysis using these specific measures indeed showed this to be the case. Another recent study was conducted by Ishikawa (2007), who used a story-writing task and examined the effects of manipulating task complexity along a resource-­ directing dimension of ±here-and-now. All participants were given five minutes to 2. Learners’ task performance may likely be affected by manipulations of other variables as well. For instance, task repetition studies (e.g., Bygate, 1996, 2001; Bygate & Samuda, 2005) raise the possibility that different aspects of complexity, accuracy and fluency could be affected on different iterations of task performance.



Shoko Sasayama and Shinichi Izumi

plan and thirty minutes to write a story. The results revealed that syntactic complexity and accuracy were significantly higher in the complex task condition, with fluency being negatively affected. Gilabert (2007) used monologic, oral narrative tasks and manipulated task complexity along the resource-directing dimension of ±here-and-now and the resource-depleting dimension of ±planning. The results revealed that planning significantly promoted greater fluency and lexical complexity, but not syntactic complexity or accuracy. As for the resource-directing dimension, the here-and-now conditions elicited significantly more fluent speech, whereas the there-and-then conditions promoted significantly greater accuracy. There was also some indication that the learners’ performance in the there-and-then task was enhanced when given planning time, albeit non-significantly. In sum, these previous studies lend only partial support to Robinson’s cognition hypothesis. It appears that although lexical complexity and accuracy may improve simultaneously, syntactic complexity and accuracy may not. The only exception is Ishikawa (2007), who found a simultaneous increase in syntactic complexity, lexical complexity and accuracy in the complex task. This may be due to the use of a written task in his study, in which the processing load may have been eased for learners more than would have been the case in a speaking task. In continued investigation of the cognition hypothesis, particularly needed are studies that examine the effects of manipulation in the resource-directing dimensions and resource-depleting dimensions concurrently, so that the validity of both Skehan’s and Robinson’s claims can be examined in a comparable manner. The study reported below constitutes an attempt to do this by investigating the effects of both pre-task planning and ±few elements in the same study.

Research aims and hypotheses Three unique features of the current study should be noted. First, as mentioned earlier, this study is one of the first attempts to examine the possibly synergistic (mutually potentiating) effects of manipulating task complexity along both resource-directing and resource-depleting dimensions on L2 learners’ task performance. Second, in addition to using global measures, the current study employed theoretically-motivated specific measures in analysing L2 task performance. Robinson’s cognition hypothesis predicts that tasks made complex along resource-directing dimensions prompt learners to pay attention to “task relevant, communicatively non-redundant language” (Robinson, 2001b, p. 35). If so, it is reasonable to expect that specific measures focusing on task-relevant forms can capture the effects of such manipulation better than can global measures (see the thematic issue of Applied Linguistics, 2009, 30(4), for extensive discussion on this and other related issues). In our study, we looked at the use of noun modifiers, as these are the forms most likely to be affected by the manipulation of ±few elements. Third, in terms of our study participants, we focused on Japanese EFL high school students who had limited oral L2 proficiency – a population thus far



Chapter 2.  Effects of task complexity and planning on oral production 

not highlighted enough in previous studies, despite their obvious importance for both research and teaching. Two main research questions (RQ) guided the study: Research Question 1. What effects does the manipulation of task complexity along a resource-directing dimension ([±few elements]) and a resource-depleting dimension ([±planning]) have on L2 learners’ task performance in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency? Research Question 2. How does analysis using specific selected language measures differ from analysis using general measures of L2 task performance for complexity and accuracy? Based on the predictions made by Robinson and Skehan in their respective theoretical frameworks as outlined above, the following hypotheses were formulated: Hypothesis 1: A complex task will elicit more complex and more accurate, though less fluent, speech than a simple task (RQ1 focusing on the impact of a resource-directing factor). Hypothesis 2: Specific measures of complexity and accuracy will provide more evidential support to Robinson’s cognition hypothesis than will general measures of L2 task performance (RQ2). Hypothesis 3: Planners will produce more complex and more fluent speech than will non-planners, while the effects on accuracy will be restricted (RQ1 focusing on the impact of a resource-depleting factor). Hypothesis 4: A decrease in complexity in the resource-depleting dimension (i.e., [+planning]) will bolster the attention-directing effect of the increase in the resource-directing dimension (i.e., [–few elements]) (RQ1 focusing on the interaction between both resource-directing and resource-depleting factors).

Methodology Participants Twenty-three Japanese EFL high school students participated in the study on a voluntary basis. They were students in year 11, ranging in age from 16 to 17. There were seven male and 16 female students. The regular English classes these students took in the school were streamed, and all participants were enrolled in the highest level class. However, the class streaming was done based on the students’ knowledge of written English, as is typically the case with EFL in Japan. Therefore, it turned out that as a group their oral proficiency was variable and generally limited.



Shoko Sasayama and Shinichi Izumi

Tasks and procedures Participants engaged in two monologic narrative tasks of different levels of complexity. Task complexity was varied along the resource-directing dimension of ±few elements. A simple task required learners to narrate a sequenced set of pictures with two characters, which was adapted from the Picture Arrangement subset of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised, Japanese version at level 3 (Shinagawa, Kobayashi, Fujita, & Maekawa, 1990). A complex task required learners to narrate a sequenced set of pictures adopted from Elder and Iwashita (2005). These pictures contained four male characters, one female, one policeman, two ambulance attendants, and a dog. The participants, therefore, had to differentiate between these characters, which made this task cognitively more complex. The experiment was conducted on two separate days with six other collaborators in a one-on-one setting.3 Participants in the experiment were asked to narrate a story based on the given set of pictures, so that a listener – a collaborator or one of the researchers – could correctly sequence the same set of pictures based on their narration. The listener, however, did not interact with the speaker except to occasionally encourage the speaker to keep on speaking. All participants engaged in both the simple and complex tasks. The order of the tasks was counterbalanced. At the same time, for both tasks, half of the participants were assigned to the planning condition (n = 10), and the other half to the non-planning condition (n = 13). Those in the planning condition were given five minutes of pre-task planning time for both tasks, and those in the nonplanning condition were given only one minute to familiarize themselves with the picture stories.4 The instructions given for the planners were as follows (original in Japanese): “Consider in detail ‘what’ you would like to say, and ‘how’ and ‘in what order’ you would like to say it. You can take a memo, but you will not be allowed to look at your memo during the task.” No questions or access to a dictionary were allowed during planning. No time limit was set for the completion of the task.5

3. These collaborators were graduate students majoring in TESOL or applied linguistics. All of them participated in a thirty-minute training session prior to the data collection. 4. Although Mehnert (1998) found in her monologic task that complexity was promoted only when participants were given ten-minute planning time, our pilot study showed that ten minutes was too long especially for a simple task. Since the experimental design of our study necessitated that the length of the planning time be equivalent for the two tasks, we made a compromise decision of five minutes as adequate time to be given to both tasks. 5. Planners spent 84.30 seconds on average for the simple task (SD = 31.61) and 155.70 seconds for the complex task (SD = 65.79). Non-planners, on the other hand, spent 50.85 seconds for the simple task (SD = 16.02) and 110.46 seconds for the complex task (SD = 28.09).



Chapter 2.  Effects of task complexity and planning on oral production

Data analysis Participants’ utterances were transcribed and divided into T-units and dependent clauses. The T-unit was defined as “a main clause plus all subordinate clauses and non-clausal structures attached to or embedded in it” (Hunt, 1970, p. 189). In this study, the T-unit was chosen over the C-unit or AS-unit, as our one-way monologic tasks elicited few elliptical utterances. The dependent clause was defined to include coordination,6 subordination, and embedding (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999). To address our research hypotheses, data were analysed using two-way repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVA), using one between-subject (i.e., with or without planning time) and one within-subject (i.e., two levels of task complexity) factorial design. The dependent variables in the current study were analyzed by seven measures as discussed below. Syntactic complexity was analyzed by clauses per T-unit, which was calculated following the formula of the total number of clauses divided by the total number of T-units. The same measure has been used by other researchers such as Foster and Skehan (1996) and Robinson (2001b, 2007) for L2 spoken corpora and Ishikawa (2007) for L2 writing corpora. Clauses included both dependent clauses and independent clauses. In addition to this global measure, syntactic complexity was also analyzed by a specific measure, that is, by examining the use of noun modifiers. We decided to focus on these particular forms because these were the task-relevant forms that may be most likely to be affected by the manipulation of ±few elements. As Robinson (2007) argues, complex tasks with many elements require distinguishing similar elements in the task and this requirement can be met by the use of noun modifiers. For the purpose of our analysis, the following forms attached to nouns were counted as noun modifiers: relative clauses, prepositional phrases, participle phrases, compound nouns, and adjectives. Determiners and number words were excluded from the analysis, as these were not used in our data to distinguish one noun from another in the learners’ narration. Lexical variety was measured by calculating the mean segmental type/token ratio (MSTTR). By dividing the text or utterance into certain segments and taking the average of the type/token ratio for each segment, the MSTTR minimises the influence of text or utterance length (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005; Ellis & Yuan, 2004). To calculate the MSTTR, the transcript of each participant for each task was divided into 25-word segments, and the average number of different words or types included in each segment was calculated. Accuracy was analyzed by calculating the percentage of error-free clauses. Several researchers, such as Foster and Skehan (1996) and Mehnert (1998), have used the same accuracy measure for the analysis of task performance. Errors were defined at phrasal 6. Coordination here means “the process of combining two constituents [or sentences]” (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999, p. 461). An example would be “The man was arrested and put into prison” or “She tried to open the door but couldn’t.” In the present study, when a subject is inserted in the second sentence (e.g., “The man was arrested and he was put into prison”), it was not counted as a coordination but as two separate sentences.





Shoko Sasayama and Shinichi Izumi

and sentential levels, rather than at discourse or pragmatic levels. For this reason, it was not counted as an error when different verb tenses were used within a single task performance and when common nouns substituted pronouns. To calculate the percentage of error-free clauses, the number of error-free clauses was divided by the total number of clauses and multiplied by 100. As with syntactic complexity, accuracy was also analyzed by using a specific measure, that is, by calculating the percentage of error-free use of noun modifiers. This analysis was done to examine whether increased task demands along the resource-directing dimension would promote not only the frequency of use of the task-relevant form, but its accuracy as well. Fluency was analyzed by calculating the percentage of repeated words or phrases per total number of words. Repetitions were divided into two types: verbatim and substitutive repetitions. Verbatim repetitions often occur “when hesitating, creating time to find an appropriate word” (Bygate, 1996, p. 141). Substitutive repetitions, on the other hand, are used “when correcting a word or grammatical feature” (Bygate, 1996, p. 141) upon identification of any errors in speech. These two types of repetitions were used jointly and then separately in the analysis in order to examine both the frequency of repetitions generally and the nature of those repetitions more specifically. For both types of repetition, the number of repeated words or phrases was counted, then divided by the total number of words and multiplied by 100. Fluency was also analyzed by the number of pruned syllables per total number of seconds taken to complete a task.7

Results In this section, the results of the study will be presented to answer the two research questions that guided this study. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for complexity, accuracy, and fluency of the learners’ performance in different conditions. First, the results of the effects of task complexity and planning as analyzed by global measures will be presented. Then, the results from the analysis using the specific measures will be reported.8

Analysis by global measures First, when the data were analyzed for global syntactic complexity, it appears that the complex task elicited approximately the same proportion of clauses per T-unit as did 7. An independent rater coded a subset of the data (52%). The simple percentage agreement between the raters was more than 90% in all cases, except for the global accuracy measure, which reached 83.33%. All disagreements were subsequently discussed and resolved between the raters. 8. Interpretations of statistical analysis reported below should be taken with caution due to multiple uses of ANOVAs in this study.



Chapter 2.  Effects of task complexity and planning on oral production 

Table 1.  Descriptive statistics for complexity, accuracy, and fluency in different conditions Syntactic Syntactic Lexical Accuracy Accuracy Fluency 1 Fluency 2 complex- complex- complex- (global) (specific) ity ity ity (global) (specific) Clauses Use of MSTTR % of % of % of Syllables per T-unit noun error-free accurate repeated per total modifiers clauses use of words/ number of noun phrases seconds modifiers* [+few elements] [+planning] [+few elements] [–planning] [–few elements] [+planning] [–few elements] [–planning]

1.33 (0.22) 1.04 (0.08) 1.28 (0.34) 1.13 (0.15)

1.00 (1.25) 0.08 (0.28) 4.80 (4.61) 3.23 (2.49)

0.64 (0.10) 0.61 (0.08) 0.64 (0.10) 0.64 (0.10)

50.06 (24.47) 42.03 (25.22) 35.27 (22.13) 22.67 (19.25)

75.00 (43.30) 0.00 (NA) 38.71 (32.54) 54.11 (30.22)

9.55 (7.27) 5.74 (3.31) 14.24 (8.56) 8.16 (4.31)

0.87 (0.39) 1.14 (0.50) 0.73 (0.40) 0.74 (0.38)

Note. Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. *The data of only those who produced noun modifiers were subject to analysis for the specific accuracy. The number of the samples is five subjects for the [+few elements +planning] condition, one for the [+few elements -planning] condition, eight for the [–few elements +planning] condition, and 11 for the [–few elements –planning] condition.

the simple task, while planners produced a greater number of clauses per T-unit than did non-planners (see Figure 1). A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA revealed no main effects for task complexity (F = 0.13, p = 0.72), a significant main effect for planning (F = 10.12, p < 0.01), and no significant interaction effect (F = 1.91, p = 0.18). Therefore, participants with pre-task planning time produced significantly more complex speech than did those without planning time, whereas differences in ±few elements did not result in any significant differences in the learners’ linguistic complexity. For lexical complexity, approximately the same scores were obtained across all conditions (see Figure 2). A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA revealed no significant main effect for task complexity (F = 0.83, p = 0.37), nor for planning (F = 0.37, p = 0.55), and no interaction effects (F = 0.94, p = 0.34). Therefore, neither task complexity nor planning conditions affected lexical variety to any significant degree. As for global accuracy, participants appear to have produced more accurate speech when engaging in the simple task. Participants also seem to have produced more accurate speech under the planning condition (see Figure 3). A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for task complexity (F = 21.00, p < 0.01); however, no significant main effect for planning (F = 1.56, p = 0.23), nor any

Shoko Sasayama and Shinichi Izumi

1.40

Global syntactic complexity

1.20

Mean

1.00 0.80

Simple task Complex task

0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00

+ Planning

– Planning

Figure 1.  Mean scores on the global syntactic complexity measure by task complexity and planning

0.70

Lexical complexity

0.60

Mean

0.50 0.40

Simple task Complex task

0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

+ Planning

– Planning

Figure 2.  Mean scores on the lexical complexity measure by task complexity and planning

Global accuracy 60.00 50.00 40.00 Mean



Simple task Complex task

30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

+ Planning

– Planning

Figure 3.  Mean scores on the global accuracy measure by task complexity and planning



Chapter 2.  Effects of task complexity and planning on oral production 

interaction effects (F = 0.22, p = 0.64) were obtained. Therefore, the simple task elicited significantly more accurate speech than did the complex task, while planning did not significantly affect the degree of learners’ linguistic accuracy. As for fluency, participants produced more repetitions when engaging in the complex task than in the simple task, and under the planning condition than under the non-planning condition (see Figure 4). A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a main effect for task complexity (F = 6.12, p < 0.05), a main effect for planning (F = 5.81, p < 0.05), and no interaction effects (F = 0.62, p = 0.44). In other words, participants produced significantly less fluent speech for the complex task than for the simple task and under the planning condition than under the non-planning condition. Separate analyses of the two types of repetitions – verbatim and substitutive repetitions – were conducted. These analyses revealed that the complex task elicited significantly more verbatim repetitions than did the simple task (M = 4.18, SD = 4.88 for the simple task; M = 6.98, SD = 6.59 for the complex task) (F = 4.66, p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found for substitutive repetitions (M = 3.22, SD = 2.55 for the simple task; M = 3.82, SD = 2.54 for the complex task) (F = 1.18, p = 0.29). The analyses also revealed that planners produced significantly more verbatim repetitions than did non-planners (M = 8.19, SD = 7.41 for planners; M = 3.57, SD = 3.37 for non-planners) (F = 6.12, p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found for substitutive repetitions (M = 3.70, SD = 3.01 for planners; M = 3.38, SD = 2.15 for nonplanners) (F = 0.14, p = 0.71). In other words, the significant results for fluency here were attributable to the use of verbatim, but not substitutive, repetitions. With regard to another fluency measure, the number of pruned syllables per total number of seconds taken to complete a task, participants produced more syllables when engaging in the simple task than in the complex task, especially under the nonplanning condition (see Figure 5). A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for task complexity (F = 31.06, p < 0.01), no significant main Fluency 1 16.00 14.00

Mean

12.00 10.00

Simple task Complex task

8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00

+ Planning

– Planning

Figure 4.  Mean scores on the fluency measure (percentage of repeated words/phrases) by task complexity and planning

Shoko Sasayama and Shinichi Izumi Fluency 2

1.20 1.00

Mean

0.80 Simple task Complex task

0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00

+ Planning

– Planning

Figure 5.  Mean scores on the fluency measure (number of syllables) by task complexity and planning

effect for planning (F = 0.63, p = 0.44), and a significant interaction effect between task complexity and planning (F = 7.24, p < 0.05). In other words, fluency was best promoted when participants engaged in the simple task under the non-planning condition.

Analysis by specific measures With regard to the specific measure of complexity, the complex task seems to have triggered much greater use of noun modifiers than did the simple task (see Figure 6). A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a main effect for task complexity (F = 30.65, p < 0.01), no main effect for planning (F = 1.97, p = 0.18), and no significant interaction effect (F = 0.27, p = 0.61). Thus, the complex task elicited significantly more use of noun modifiers than did the simple task, but planning did not affect the use of these forms to a significant degree. 6.00

Specific complexity

5.00 4.00 Mean



Simple task Complex task

3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

+ Planning

– Planning

Figure 6.  Mean scores on the specific complexity measure by task complexity and planning



Chapter 2.  Effects of task complexity and planning on oral production 

Table 2.  Summary of comparisons among task conditions* Complexity Syntax

Planning time

Task complexity

Accuracy

Fluency

Lexis

Global

Specific

Global

planning

planning

planning planning planning

planning

planning

∨ no planning complex

= no planning complex

= = = no no no planning planning planning Complex complex complex

∨ no planning complex

= no planning complex

= simple

∨ simple

= simple

∨ simple

∧ simple

∧ simple

Specific**

= simple

# of # of repetitions syllables***

*The symbol “∨” in the table indicates that the condition above it outperformed the condition below it, and the reverse pattern holds for “∧.” The symbol “=” indicates no significant difference between the two conditions. **The results shown here for specific accuracy is only tentative due to the limited sample size available for this analysis. ***The significant interaction effect obtained for this variable indicates that fluency was best promoted when participants engaged in the simple task under the non-planning condition.

As for the specific measure of accuracy, the mean percentage of error-free use of noun modifiers was calculated. It has to be noted first that the number of participants who produced noun modifiers varied among the four groups. In particular, only one participant in the +few elements -planning condition produced any at all, and that was only a single noun modifier. Therefore, excluding this group, the data from the other three groups were submitted to a one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA revealed no significant differences among the three groups (F = 1.78, p = 0.19). Therefore, despite some differences observed in the descriptive statistics, accuracy did not differ among the three groups on this specific measure. Summary of the overall results of the study is shown in Table 2.

Discussion Hypothesis 1 posited that a complex (i.e., [–few elements]) task would elicit more complex and accurate though less fluent speech than would a simple (i.e., [+few elements]) task. This hypothesis was confirmed by fluency measures, where the complex task elicited significantly less fluent speech, a result in line with other studies on the effects of task complexity (e.g., Gilabert, 2007; Ishikawa, 2007; Robinson, 2001b). However,



Shoko Sasayama and Shinichi Izumi

Hypothesis 1 was not confirmed by the global syntactic complexity, lexical variety, and global accuracy measures. In fact, the global accuracy measure indicates results opposite to Hypothesis 1: the simple task elicited significantly greater accuracy than did the complex task. It is possible that the complex task, by requiring the participants to generate and organize their thoughts to convey a complex storyline, may have prevented them from paying due attention to accuracy, whereas the simple task may have been simple enough for most participants to complete without posing excessive cognitive demands, which allowed them to produce more accurate speech. This explanation may find some support in the number of words produced by the participants for each task, where significantly more words were elicited in the complex task (M = 69.04, SD = 41.77) than in the simple task (M = 51.43, SD = 25.86) (F = 21.89, p < 0.01). Hypothesis 2 predicted that specific measures would provide more evident support to Robinson’s cognition hypothesis than would global measures. This hypothesis was partially confirmed in that, whereas the global complexity measures did not capture the significant positive effects of task complexity, the specific measure showed a significantly greater use of noun modifiers in the complex task than in the simple task. The cognition hypothesis predicts that higher functional demands of a task will be accompanied by greater linguistic demands, with observable linguistic consequences in complexity and accuracy. In our study, the complex task was made cognitively more complex by increasing the number of characters appearing in the task, which should pose higher functional demands for distinguishing among similar characters through the use of noun modifiers. The results obtained in this study are consistent with this prediction, but importantly this was captured only by the specific, and not by the global complexity measures. Although global measures have been widely used in the investigation of task complexity, these results suggest that future studies will benefit from the use of specific measures, which will allow us to examine more closely the possible consequence of increased functional demands on learners’ L2 performance. This, we believe, would be more consistent with the notion of “resource-direction” as proposed by Robinson in his cognition hypothesis. As for the specific accuracy measure, no firm conclusion can be obtained in this study due to the limited sampling of the relevant form. Future research, therefore, will need to elicit data from a greater number of subjects on the use of the target form to allow for adequate analysis. Hypothesis 3 predicted that planners would produce more complex and fluent speech than would non-planners. This hypothesis was confirmed by the global syntactic complexity measure; participants under the planning condition produced significantly more complex speech than did those under the non-planning condition, a result consistent with the findings of other planning studies (e.g., Foster & Skehan, 1996; Ortega, 1999). Following Skehan (1996), pre-task planning appears to have helped decrease cognitive demands of the tasks, which freed up learners’ attentional capacity to complexify their language. Hypothesis 3, however, was not supported by the fluency measures. When fluency was analyzed by the percentage of repeated words, planners



Chapter 2.  Effects of task complexity and planning on oral production 

produced significantly less fluent speech than did non-planners. This result is contrary to other studies on pre-task planning (e.g., Foster & Skehan, 1996; Ortega, 1999). A possible reason for this may be found by looking at the significantly greater number of words produced by the participants for the complex task. As learners engaging in the complex task had to manage more ideas and express them with limited interlanguage resources, they may have needed to create time to cope with the greater cognitive and linguistic processing involved. This they appear to have managed by the use of verbatim repetitions. It is possible that this situation was exacerbated by the planning time, as planning time allowed learners to elaborate on their ideas and add even more things to say. In contrast, when engaging in the simple task, learners had a clear and simple story to tell, and thus they could presumably perform the task at one go without worrying about processing time. Especially when deprived of planning time, learners may have had no choice but to focus on the bare minimum of the story, which further simplified their narration. The fact that significant differences were observed only for verbatim repetitions and not for substitutive repetitions for both complexity and planning variables lends some support to this interpretation because verbatim repetitions are often used to buy time to allow for greater online processing, whereas substitutive repetitions are typically used for self-correction to achieve greater accuracy. For accuracy, no significant effect of planning was observed for either global or specific measures, a finding which is in line with other studies on pre-task planning (e.g., Ellis & Yuan, 2004; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Yuan & Ellis, 2003). Finally, Hypothesis 4 predicted that a decrease in complexity in the resource-depleting dimension would bolster the attention-directing effect of the increase in the resource-directing dimension. This would mean that participants engaging in the complex task under the planning condition would outperform the other groups in complexity and accuracy. No interaction effects, however, were found for any of the measures, except for one of the fluency measures, the number of pruned syllables per total number of seconds taken to complete a task. This measure showed that learners were most fluent when engaged in the simple task under the non-planning condition. This, we argue, is due to the reasons outlined in the previous paragraph. Although Hypothesis 4 was not supported in this study, it should be noted that there was some suggestive evidence from the specific complexity measure that the -few elements +planning condition elicited the highest instances of noun modifiers of all groups, albeit non-significantly so (see Table 1). The possible synergistic effect of resource-directing and resource-depleting dimensions of task complexity, therefore, remains an interesting area that deserves further investigation. In sum, results of the current study, together with those of a number of previous studies, seem to suggest that L2 learners with limited language proficiency have difficulty in paying attention to aspects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency simultaneously (see also Genc, this volume). At the same time, it seems that learners’ attentional allocation can be altered to some extent by manipulating inherent task characteristics (e.g., [± few elements]) and task implementation conditions (e.g., [± planning]).



Shoko Sasayama and Shinichi Izumi

Although the research results are somewhat mixed, some common tendencies can nevertheless be noted: (1) cognitively complex tasks can elicit task-relevant, complex language structures; (2) pre-task planning can encourage learners to challenge the limit of their interlanguage and to produce complex language structures in general; and (3) simple tasks can be effective for fluency development. Pedagogically, this suggests that teachers are well advised to select tasks and their implementation conditions according to their purposes. If development of a particular form is desired, for example, teachers could utilize a complex task by considering carefully what kind of form is necessary or useful to complete the given task. If they wish to focus on learners’ development of linguistic complexity in general, teachers could provide students with opportunities for pre-task planning. It remains to be seen in future research, however, how balanced language development in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency can really be achieved in the long term through the effective use of different tasks and different implementation conditions.

Conclusion This study set out to investigate the effects of task complexity and pre-task planning on L2 learners’ task performance. The main findings of the study were: (1) increased task complexity along ±few elements positively affects the specific measure of syntactic complexity, but negatively affects global accuracy and fluency; and (2) planning time positively affects global syntactic complexity, but negatively affects fluency. These findings partially support and partially disconfirm both Robinson’s and Skehan’s hypotheses on task complexity and pre-task planning. The results suggest that increasing cognitive complexity of tasks indeed poses higher linguistic demands on learners, with observable consequences on their use of specific forms, but not necessarily of any form in general. It also seems that L2 learners with limited L2 proficiency, as was the case with the high school EFL students who participated in the present study, face intractable cognitive difficulty in performing complex tasks (see also Jimarkon & McGrath, this volume). While EFL learners’ performance can be enhanced in part by the availability of pre-task planning time, the difficulty seems severe enough to make simultaneous improvement in complexity, accuracy, and fluency hard to attain. Given these results, we are led to conclude that Robinson’s and Skehan’s claims should be construed as complementary rather than contradictory. Robinson’s cognition hypothesis has strength in capturing the close connection between functional demands and linguistic demands posed by the task, while Skehan’s limited capacity hypothesis has the advantage in capturing the nature of L2 learners’ language use which is often effortful and attention-consuming. Both positions, we feel, are necessary to account for the complex nature of L2 learners’ language use and learning. The remaining task is not to decide which position to take, but to show exactly how their seemingly contradictory claims can be reconciled. The current study suggests, in this



Chapter 2.  Effects of task complexity and planning on oral production 

vein, that future research will likely benefit from examining the two positions concurrently and, in so doing, employing task-discourse sensitive measures of complexity and accuracy to examine how specific functional demands of the task are related to specific linguistic demands affecting learners’ L2 use under different conditions.

References Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising learners’ performances on tasks. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.). Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136–146). London: Heinemann. Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Elder, C., & Iwashita, N. (2005). Planning for test performance: Does it make a difference? In R. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 219–237).  Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1–20. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323. Gilabert, P. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and [± Here-and-Now]: Effects on L2 oral production. In M.P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44–68). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hunt, K. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35, 1–67. Ishiwaka, T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the [± Here-and-Now] dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In M.P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In M.P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 117–135). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.



Shoko Sasayama and Shinichi Izumi Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148. Ortega, L. (2007). Meaningful L2 practice in foreign language classrooms: A cognitive-interactionist SLA perspective. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 180–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140. Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 285–317). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57. Robinson, P. (2003). The cognitive hypothesis of adult, task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45–107. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a Componential Framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–33. Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 193–213. Shinagawa, F., Kobayashi, S., Fujita, K., & Maekawa, H. (1990). Manual of the Japanese Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised. Tokyo, Japan: Psychological Corporation. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17 (1), 38–62. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and task. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.

chapter 3

Measuring task complexity Does EFL proficiency matter? Aleksandra Malicka and Mayya Levkina University of Barcelona

The current study explored whether language proficiency mediates the perception of task difficulty and whether intended task complexity differences are reflected in the language production (i.e., fluency, accuracy, and complexity) of learners of different proficiency levels in English. 37 participants (20 advanced and 17 pre-intermediate learners of English) took part in the experiment, all of them undergraduate students at a Spanish university, aged between 18 and 25. They were provided with two tasks of hypothetically differing cognitive complexity levels manipulated along ± few elements and ± spatial reasoning dimensions. Two kinds of instruments were used to measure participants’ perceptions of task difficulty: self-reported difficulty ratings and time estimation of task completion. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency measures were used to analyze participants’ speech production on the two tasks. As far as the perception of complexity is concerned, no significant differences between the high and low proficiency groups were found. Regarding performance measures, in the high proficiency group the complex task triggered greater lexical and structural complexity and accuracy, to the detriment of fluency. In the low proficiency group, on the complex task, fluency was boosted while the other areas remained intact irrespective of cognitive task complexity. These results are discussed in terms of Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis and Skehan’s Trade-off Hypothesis.

Introduction Since the early 1990s, there has been an increasing interest in using tasks as a potential instructional mechanism through which language development and acquisition can be fostered. One area which has received particular focus is that of grading task complexity according to hypothesized cognitive demands on L2 users’ attention involved in performing different kinds of tasks. As a result, two competing but complementary psycholinguistic frameworks have been developed which give different accounts of



Aleksandra Malicka and Mayya Levkina

attention allocation – and associated cognitive complexity – during task performance: Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson, 2001, 2003, 2005) and Skehan’s Trade-off Hypothesis (Skehan, 1998). The current study sought to find out whether the perception of task difficulty is mediated by language proficiency and whether intended task complexity differences are reflected in language production (i.e., fluency, accuracy, and complexity) of learners of different proficiency levels in L2 English. The role of language proficiency in task-based instructional settings is an under-researched area, and this study aimed to shed some light on its potential role by measuring the performance of high and low proficiency groups in an EFL context in Spain. In Robinson’s theory, when L2 learners engage in task performance, attention to aspects of the task draws on different resource pools, potentially enabling the learner to enhance performance on all three areas of production, that is, fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Of particular interest, for certain kinds of tasks, increasing complexity may simultaneously foster attention to (and development of) linguistic complexity and accuracy, though with a possible detriment to fluency. More specifically, the Cognition Hypothesis makes a series of claims about the effects of increasing cognitive complexity of tasks along certain dimensions (Robinson, 2005). The increased conceptual and cognitive demands in the case of complex tasks ostensibly generate greater accuracy and complexity in performance because increased demands boost interaction and require higher attention to and memory for input, as well as possibly long term retention of input. Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis stands in contrast to Skehan’s Trade-off Hypothesis. According to Skehan (1998), attentional resources are limited, and therefore the three performative areas of fluency, accuracy, and complexity are in competition for the available attentional resources. Hence, learners have to prioritize between the dimensions of performance in terms of where they allocate attention. As a result, “tasks which are cognitively demanding in their content are likely to draw attentional resources away from language forms” (Skehan & Foster, 2001, p. 189). Engaging in a cognitively complex task thus leads to trade-off effects between linguistic complexity and accuracy: when the output is linguistically complex, it ostensibly happens to the detriment of accuracy, and vice versa. Although these theories present conflicting accounts regarding how attention is manipulated during task performance, one basic construct which is common to both frameworks is that of task complexity. This concept has been of interest to researchers since the late 1980s, but it was Skehan and Robinson who “most clearly articulated and researched the concept of cognitive complexity” (Nunan, 2004, p. 86). In his framework, Skehan (1998) proposed a three-way distinction between code complexity (language required), cognitive complexity (thinking required), and communicative stress (performance conditions). However, the primary theoretical framework of the study at hand is Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis.



Chapter 3.  Measuring task complexity 

For Robinson (2001), task complexity is the “result of the attentional, memory, reasoning, and other information-processing demands imposed by the structure of the task on the language learner” (p. 28). Task complexity is one of the major components in Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis, which distinguishes between different kinds of factors, each making its contribution to overall task performance. These factors are cognitive, interactive, and learner factors, referring respectively to task complexity, task condition, and task difficulty. Together they interact to bring about qualitative changes in performance, and possibly also to contribute to language development. However, of these factors only task complexity is the controllable one in terms of cognitive demands; it is considered a design feature of tasks that can be manipulated intentionally by placing increased or reduced cognitive demands on the learner, and thereby supposedly eliciting specific linguistic behavior. Ultimately, according to Robinson and Gilabert (2007), increasing the cognitive demands of tasks will “push learners to greater accuracy and complexity of L2 production” (p. 162). Within the concept of task complexity, Robinson’s model distinguishes importantly between resource-directing and resource-dispersing variables. The manipulation of the former “has the potential to direct learners’ attentional and memory resources to the way the L2 structures and codes concepts, so leading to interlanguage development” (Robinson, 2005, p. 4). Recent years have seen a growing body of research into these dimensions of task complexity, which have been investigated in multiple contexts, with multiple learner populations and under various research paradigms. Pertinent to the current study are the resource-directing dimensions of task complexity, and more specifically, ± elements and ± reasoning demands, a brief review of which is presented in the following section.

Investigating task complexity and proficiency Previous research on ± elements and ± reasoning demands This section reviews studies which have investigated ± elements and ± reasoning demands. Two criteria employed for including these particular studies are their focus on oral tasks (as opposed to written ones) and on production outcomes (as opposed to development or acquisition). The following review inquires particularly into the different interpretations of the findings obtained and aims to see whether language proficiency, one of the major variables in the current study, is present in these interpretations. In a study by Michel, Kuiken, and Vedder (2007), 44 intermediate learners of Dutch engaged in simple and complex versions of a decision-making task, manipulated along ± elements and ± dialogic dimensions. The complex task was found to boost accuracy to the detriment of fluency, but hardly any effects were detected for linguistic complexity. The findings gave only partial support to the Cognition



Aleksandra Malicka and Mayya Levkina

Hypothesis. The results obtained for fluency and accuracy were attributed to the decisions regarding the measures; it was suggested that the accuracy measures of repair behavior and two other fluency measures, rather than being related to accuracy or fluency, were related to the construct “repair” (Michel et al., 2007). In two studies by Michel (2011a, 2011b), 64 intermediate-level learners of L2 Dutch engaged in performing a decision-making task manipulated along ± number of elements. The first study (Michel, 2011a) found that only lexical complexity (as measured by Guiraud’s index) was fostered as a result of engaging in the complex task, which gives little support for the Cognition Hypothesis. Among the possible explanations were task design (insufficient difference in cognitive load between the two task versions) and insufficiently sensitive measures. The second study (Michel, 2011b), in which the same materials and subjects were involved as in the first study, measured performance by means of a specific measure (the use of conjunctions), as opposed to the first study, which only used global measures. The complex task was found to boost the use of only one conjunction. Except for that one conjunction, however, the findings go in the opposite direction to that predicted by the Cognition Hypothesis: it was the simple task that fostered the use of the conjunctions. Possible reasons for these findings included, among others, task design (not salient enough difference between the simple and the complex task), and the fact that the variable ± elements on its own may not bring about qualitative, but only quantitative changes in performance. In a study by Robinson (2007), L1 Japanese learners of English performed three narrative tasks manipulated along ± reasoning demands. The results indicated that the complex tasks resulted in more complex speech on specific, but not general measures, and they therefore only partially supported the Cognition Hypothesis. This result was interpreted through task design: the complexity of all the tasks was increased simultaneously along resource-directing (± intentional reasoning) and resource-dispersing (± planning time and ± dual task) dimensions, whereas the Cognition Hypothesis makes different predictions for increasing resource-dispersing and resource-directing dimensions. It states that increasing the former likely results in less accurate, complex, and fluent production, and increasing the latter leads to greater accuracy and complexity, to a possible detriment of fluency. Gilabert (2007a) explored the effect of task complexity and self-repairs on oral production with lower-intermediate and advanced Spanish learners of L2 English. The proficiency of the participants was measured by means of X-lex and Y-lex (vocabularybased language ability tests). Out of the three tasks used, two are pertinent to the current study: an instruction-giving task and a decision-making task, manipulated, respectively, along ± number of elements and ± reasoning demands. In the former task, the findings were in line with the Cognition Hypothesis in that both higher rate and amount of self-repair were triggered by the complex task. In the case of the decision-making task, the simple and complex versions of the two tasks triggered comparable amounts of errors and repairs. Results on two measures (frequency and the amount of self-repair) were found to be in line with the Cognition



Chapter 3.  Measuring task complexity 

Hypothesis. Overall, the findings for the latter task did not provide as strong results in favor of the Cognition Hypothesis as the former one. A psycholinguistic explanation might suggest that the learners paid a substantial amount of attention to justifying their choices, focusing on structural complexity, to the detriment of speech monitoring. Regarding the role of proficiency in Gilabert (2007a), except for different error patterns (as expected, low-proficiency participants made more errors than high proficiency ones), no significant differences between the low and high proficiency groups were found regarding self-repair behavior. However, the complex version of the narrative task triggered more self-repair behavior in the low-proficiency speakers (as measured by the number of errors per AS-unit and the ratio of error to words). One reason that may account for this finding is that high proficiency speakers, given their advanced level of the L2, did not have difficulties with verb morphology, unlike their lower-intermediate counterparts. On the basis of the above review, despite a growing interest in researching ± elements and ± reasoning demands in the Cognition Hypothesis, language proficiency, one of the variables under investigation in the present study, has not been studied in a very systematic way. In the studies reported here, little or no information is provided regarding the participants’ proficiency in the L2, with only one research design (Gilabert, 2007a) deliberately dividing the participants according to proficiency criteria. Consequently, where mixed results were obtained in studies, this has been attributed most frequently to either task design (combining resource-directing and resource-dispersing dimensions or insufficient differences between the complexity levels) or the measures employed (global versus specific). While such interpretations may be valid, none of the studies reported here contemplated the potential role of the participants’ proficiency as a, or perhaps the, factor explaining the results obtained. This gap is noteworthy in that the findings of studies reported here frequently give a rather ambiguous picture of the effects of task complexity on performance, and, as a result, they fail to give full support to either of the two hypotheses presented at the beginning of this paper. Hence, the contribution of the current study is to initiate an exploration into whether L2 proficiency should be considered a factor when drawing conclusions about the impact of task complexity on L2 learners’ production. Before turning to our study of the impact of L2 proficiency on oral production, it is important to consider how we might scientifically determine the cognitive complexity of a particular task.

Measuring task complexity When dealing with different constructs of cognitive task complexity, they should be measured robustly in order to ensure their adequate operationalization. However, to date researchers have mostly relied on the design of the tasks rather than on



Aleksandra Malicka and Mayya Levkina

independent measures of cognitive complexity. In some previous studies, when measured, the most common instrument used to determine the cognitive load of designed tasks was self-reported data based on Likert-scale questionnaires (Robinson, 2001; Gilabert, 2005; Gilabert, 2007b). As research in cognition has shown, humans do seem to have the capacity to assess the mental burden involved in completing tasks with different cognitive loads. However, this kind of self-report questionnaire is by no means the only way of measuring the cognitive complexity realized in diverse communication tasks. Along these lines, Norris and Ortega (2003, 2009) have called for employing a range of measures previously used in cognitive psychology, such as subjective time estimations (once the tasks are completed), reaction time data for dual tasks, or physiological data, including heart rate variation, skin conductivity, papillary response, and even brain activation and blood flow patterns. The last two of the mentioned techniques, as they require special equipment, are quite difficult to use when dealing with linguistic research that involves the collection of spoken L2 performances. However, the first of the above-mentioned instruments is easily administrable both in laboratory and classroom contexts. Regarding subjective time estimation judgments, these have been extensively used in psychological literature. However, the tasks used were not language tasks but psychological ones, such as card sorting, word classification, and anagram manipulation. In these kinds of tasks, certain key features have been detected that may potentially affect subjects’ perception of task complexity (Block, Hancock, & Zakay, 2010). Among them, cognitive load, attentional demands, processing demands, or judging prospectively versus retrospectively may make a difference in judging the time on task. For instance, Block et al. (2010) found that, where judging tasks retrospectively is involved, the subjects estimate the most difficult task as the one that it took them longer to complete and also time judgment is likely to be less accurate when dealing with a more complex task. Although this technique is quite new in the field of applied linguistics, it has proven to be a good predictor of people’s perception of cognitive load in psychology where attention and processing had been implied. Consequently, several studies have started using this tool for measuring cognitive task complexity independently (e.g., Baralt, 2009; Recio, 2011). It is clear that, on the one hand, more studies in the field are needed which use this kind of independent measure. On the other hand, their use is crucial in task-based studies and in studies dealing with the Cognition Hypothesis, as it will make it possible to scientifically demonstrate the cognitive differences between tasks with different cognitive loads and attentional and processing demands, instead of estimating task complexity solely on the basis of task design. Whereas methods and instruments of measuring task complexity are beginning to be researched systematically, the question as to whether L2 proficiency plays a role in task performance where cognitive complexity is manipulated is still open. The



Chapter 3.  Measuring task complexity 

motivation for the current study was to initiate investigations into the potential that cognitive task complexity may interact with language proficiency in determining variable learner responses to tasks and, in particular, variability in language production on oral tasks.

Research questions The current study investigated the following research questions:

(1) Is the perception of task complexity on tasks designed to represent cognitive complexity differences actually different for more versus less proficient speakers of English as a foreign language? (2) Are there observable differences in how designed cognitive task complexity affects more versus less proficient L2 English speakers’ linguistic accuracy, complexity, and fluency?

The questions were motivated by the need to explore whether it is language proficiency that mediates the perception of task difficulty and whether task complexity is reflected in language production differences (i.e., in terms of fluency, accuracy, and complexity) for learners of different proficiency levels in English as an L2. In the case of both research questions the null hypothesis is adopted since L2 proficiency is a variable in the Cognition Hypothesis which has received almost no attention thus far, and neither the Cognition Hypothesis nor the Trade-off Hypothesis make statements about the role of proficiency in task-based performance.

Methodology Participants The participants in this study were 37 (20 high-proficiency and 17 low-proficiency) Spanish and Catalan students of EFL from two higher education institutions: International College of Tourism and the University of Barcelona, both located in Barcelona, Spain. They were students in their first, second, or third years of English language education. Participation in the project was voluntary and the participants received course credit for it in order to incentivize their participation. The university groups were assigned to either a high or a low proficiency group in the study on the basis of the Oxford Placement Test and X-lex (Meara & Milton, 2005) and Y-lex test (Meara & Miralpeix, 2006).



Aleksandra Malicka and Mayya Levkina

Materials Measuring proficiency To determine participants’ level of proficiency, two different tests were applied: X-lex and Y-lex measures, and the Oxford Placement Test1. Both tests are considered to be good predictors of global proficiency levels, and they have been extensively used by the Language Acquisition Research Group of the University of Barcelona, as well as in many other studies in EFL contexts. For the current study those students whose scores were within either the lower-intermediate or advanced categories were taken into account. Out of the original 60 participants 37 were chosen on the basis of their proficiency test results. These proficiency levels (lower-intermediate and advanced) were chosen as it was thought that if any differences in either perception of complexity or performance were to be found among proficiency levels, these would be most noticeable if the levels represented two extremes of proficiency. In order to gain comprehensive insights into the dynamics between proficiency, task difficulty, and cognitive complexity, it would of course be useful to see performances from learners across the full spectrum of proficiencies. However, in the case of the tasks used in this study, a certain baseline level of proficiency in the L2 was considered essential for task completion, thus the tasks used might have proven linguistically too challenging for levels lower than low-intermediate. Measuring the perception of task difficulty Two psychological tests were employed to measure the participants’ perceptions of task difficulty: an affective variable questionnaire and a time judgment task (see App­endix B). In the Affective Variable Questionnaire a six-point Likert scale was used. The questionnaire consisted of six statements enquiring about task difficulty, time pressure, participants’ confidence, interest, and motivation. The participants were asked to evaluate these statements by circling the number which best reflected their perception. In the time judgment task the participants were asked to identify the task that, according to their perception, took them longer to perform, in order to subsequently compare their perceptions with the real time it took them to complete each of the tasks. Whereas questionnaires have been used somewhat in empirical task-based studies (Robinson, 2001; Gilabert, 2005; Baralt, 2010), time judgment is a new psychological tool to measure task difficulty (and estimate cognitive complexity by extension), and to our knowledge in the field of applied linguistics it appeared for the first time in the doctoral study designed by Baralt (2010).

1. The Oxford Placement Test is a multiple choice test with 60 items, and it is targeted mainly at lexis and syntax. It distinguishes the following proficiency levels: 0–17 beginner, 18–29 elementary, 30–39 lower intermediate, 40–47 upper intermediate, 48–54 advanced, and 55–60 very advanced.



Chapter 3.  Measuring task complexity

Tasks Finally, the participants were asked to complete two oral instruction-giving tasks2. Two versions (designed to be cognitively simple or complex) of an instruction-giving task were used, in which ± reasoning demands and ± elements were manipulated (see Appendix A). In both versions the participants were asked to explain as accurately as possible where they would place furniture items in different areas of an apartment in London they had just moved into. The distinction between the simple and the complex task was established by means of the number of elements the participants were asked to deal with and also by the level of spatial reasoning demands the task required from them. Regarding ± elements, in the simple version the participants were given a list of six furniture items, and their task was to explain where they wanted the objects to be placed on the map of the apartment. In the complex task, the participants were provided with a list of fifteen objects, from which they had to choose five, taking into account several conditions (i.e., budget, price, and color). As for ± spatial reasoning demands, in the simple version the participants were given two points of reference (two furniture items were already placed in the room), which in cognitive psychology (Becker & Carroll, 1997) has been shown to be helpful and less demanding in terms of spatial reasoning. In the complex task, no points of reference were provided.

Procedure Once two proficiency groupings were established, the two tasks were administered to the participants, with all task performances audio recorded. The recording took place in an extracurricular setting, in 5 sessions with 7 or 8 participants per session performing the task one-by-one with the researcher in the role of listener. The length of the individual task performance ranged from approximately 1 to 5 minutes. The participants were first given the instructions, then the layout of the apartment, and after one minute of planning time they were instructed to start performing the first task. Clarifications of instructions were provided when necessary. After completing the first task, an affective variable questionnaire was administered, after which the whole procedure was repeated with the second task, with the time judgment questionnaire administered after performing the second task (see Appendix B). The time judgment questionnaire asked the participants to circle the task which they thought it had taken them the longest to complete after performing the two tasks. They were not asked to estimate the time of each task in minutes or seconds. To avoid possible carry-over effects, approximately half of the participants were administered the simple-complex order of the tasks and half of them performed the tasks in reverse order. 2. Both tasks had been previously piloted with 20 university students in their L1 to ensure the difference in their cognitive complexity.





Aleksandra Malicka and Mayya Levkina

Production CAF measures The CLAN mode of CHILDES (MacWhinney, 2000) was used to transcribe and codify the collected performance data for indices of fluency, linguistic complexity, and accuracy. Briefly, coding involved dividing transcriptions into syllables for fluency, tagging syntactic types of sentences and dividing them into clauses and AS-units for structural complexity, and tagging different kinds of errors for accuracy, in order to compute the CAF measures explained below. Interrater reliability of 93% simple agreement was established during dual coding of an initial sample of 10% of randomly selected data. The rest of the data was coded by one or the other of the researchers independently. Two measures were used to analyze fluency: Unpruned Speech Rate A and Pruned Speech Rate B (Mehnert, 1998; Yuan & Ellis, 2003). The first measure is the average number of syllables produced per minute of unpruned speech, including repetitions, false starts, self-repairs, and so on. In Rate B these performance features were excluded from the counting. These measures are considered robust, since they include two of the three sub-components of fluency, distinguished by Skehan (2003): pausing and speed. Therefore, it has been extensively employed in the literature (Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Gilabert, 2007b; Michel et al., 2007). Lexical complexity was computed by means of the Guiraud’s index of lexical richness (Guiraud, 1954), which is calculated by dividing the number of word types in a speech sample by the square root of the number of word tokens produced. The square root was introduced to reduce the effect of differences in text length (Vermeer, 2000). Two other measures used in the present study (tokens/types and number of types) have also been shown to correlate significantly with the Guiraud’s index in early studies on vocabulary and, consequently, they are considered to be a good predictor of lexical diversity. Structural complexity was measured by dividing words per AS-unit (Foster, Tonkyn, & Wigglesworth, 2000), words per clause, and clauses per AS-unit. These measures were chosen following previous studies on language production analysis for oral tasks (e.g., Gilabert, Baron, & Levkina, 2011). Accuracy was calculated by means of two general measures (errors per AS-units and errors per clauses) and two specific measures (errors in spatial expressions per AS-units and errors in spatial expressions per clause). The choice of the two specific measures is justified by the nature of the tasks, in which a wide use of spatial expressions was expected (see Appendix A).

Statistical analysis Three different kinds of statistical analysis were used in the study: (a) descriptive statistics to retrieve information about means and standard deviations; (b) Wilcoxon signed-rank comparison tests to provide pairwise inferential comparisons, which determine where potential significant differences are yielded; and (c) Pearson



Chapter 3.  Measuring task complexity 

correlations to analyze the results of the newly employed psychological measure of time estimation. Non-parametric tests were used due to non-normal data distributions. Alpha decision levels were set at p < .05.

Results Research Question 1: Perception of task difficulty Two measures were employed to analyze learners’ task difficulty perceptions. As can be observed in Table 1, non-parametric pairwise comparisons of the results obtained from the Affective Variables Questionnaire did not display any statistically significant differences for any of the variables in either the high or low proficiency groups. However, the results of descriptive analysis showed the tendency in both proficiency groups to estimate the complex task as more difficult to complete (see Table 2). Table 1.  Pairwise Comparison of Affective Variables: Wilcoxon signed-rank test Dependent Variable Difficulty Enough Time Confidence Interest Did it easily

High proficiency students

Low proficiency students

Simple Task vs. Complex Task

Simple Task vs. Complex Task

Z

p

Z

p

  –.79   –.85 –1.47    .00   –.37

  .43   .39   .14 1.00   .72

–1.25 –1.27   –.37 –1.03 –1.13

.21 .20 .71 .31 .26

Table 2.  Descriptive statistics of affective variables questionnaire: Means and standard deviations Dependent Variable

Difficulty* Enough Time Confidence Interest Did it easily

High proficiency students Simple Task

Low proficiency students

Complex Task

Simple Task

Complex Task

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

4.22 4.11 4.00 4.33 4.22

1.35 1.41 1.24 1.28 1.17

4.06 4.44 4.39 4.44 4.17

.98 1.04 1.04 1.19 .92

3.94 3.94 3.41 3.53 3.24

1.03 1.52 1.46 1.13 1.35

3.65 3.41 3.29 3.76 3.41

1.06 1.46 1.49 1.20 1.38

Note: *In the 6-point Likert scale offered to the participants “6” means “easy task” and “1” means “difficult task”, respectively.



Aleksandra Malicka and Mayya Levkina

Specifically, the results for perception of difficulty show, on the one hand, greater differences between simple and complex tasks (4.22 vs 4.06 in the high proficiency group and 3.94 vs 3.65 in the low proficiency group), where the simple task is marked as the more difficult one and, on the other hand, the different ways in which low and high proficiency participants are estimating the tasks (4.22 vs 3.94 for simple tasks; 4.06 vs 3.65 for complex tasks) where low proficiency participants consider the complex task to be more difficult compared to the high proficiency group’s perception (see Figure 1). In the Estimation Time Judgment Task, the Pearson Correlation between participants’ estimated time and real time showed different patterns of time perception in the two groups. High proficiency participants estimated the duration of their performances rather inaccurately in comparison with the actual time on task; the correlation between their estimated time and real time was not significant (r = .30; p = .20). The low proficiency participants were somewhat more precise in judging the time they needed to perform each of the tasks; however, the strength of relationship here is still quite marginal (r = .51; p = .04). When analyzing the data on Estimation Time Judgment Task qualitatively, the following pattern was observed. As explained before, previous research showed that a more cognitively demanding task tends to be estimated as the one that takes longer to complete. In the present study two tendencies emerged. In the high proficiency group half of the participants considered the simple task as the one that took the longest to complete, whereas the perception of the other half was the opposite. However, in the low proficiency group 12 out of 17 participants estimated the complex task as the one that took the longest to do. When comparing estimated time with the real time the participants needed to do each task, 60% (high proficiency group) and 65% (low proficiency group) correctly estimated the time of task completion.

6 5,5 5 4,5 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1

4,22

3,94

4,06

3,65 High Low

Simple task

Figure 1.  Task difficulty

Complex task



Chapter 3.  Measuring task complexity 

Research Question 2: Impact of task complexity on L2 production Table 3 shows that for high proficiency participants the complex task elicited more fluent speech, which was also linguistically more complex and more accurate. In the low proficiency group the same pattern is observed for fluency and lexical complexity, but not for the other measures of structural complexity or accuracy, where ASU per S-nodes, spatial expressions, and errors per clauses show the opposite patterns. In what follows, the results of Wilcoxon pairwise comparisons are presented to detect statistically significant differences for fluency, lexical and structural complexity, and accuracy for both high and low proficiency groups (see Table 4). With respect to fluency, there was a statistically significant impact of task complexity on students’ performance in the case of the low proficiency group for both measures Rate A (Z = –2.63; p = .01) and Rate B (Z = –2.27; p = .02). However, no significant difference in fluency between the two tasks was found for high proficiency students. Concerning the results of linguistic complexity, the complex task generated lexically richer speech in the high proficiency group, as detected by Guiraud’s Index (Z = –2.84; p = 0.01) and the number of tokens (Z = –3.08; p = .00). Their speech was also found to be syntactically more complex, as measured by words per ASU (Z = –2.46; p = .00) and words per clauses (Z = –2.25; p = –.02). However, the low proficiency group was not found to be significantly affected by task complexity in terms of lexical or structural complexity. Finally, regarding accuracy, high proficiency students displayed more accurate speech in the more complex task, as reflected by two specific measures, errors in spatial expressions per ASU (Z = –2.56, p = .01) and errors in spatial expressions per clauses (Z = 3.10, p = .00), whereas low proficiency participants performed less accurately on the more complex task, as yielded by errors in expressions per clauses (Z = –2.25; p = .02).

Summary of results In this study, descriptive statistics showed that both groups perceived the complex task as being more difficult, as measured by Affective Variable Questionnaire. However, this difference in the perception of tasks was not captured in statistical analysis (Wilcoxon signed-rank test), which will be discussed in the following section. The time estimation task showed two patterns. Firstly, the low proficiency group was more sensitive to task complexity, as most of them identified the complex task as the one it had taken them the longest to perform. Secondly, both groups obtained similar results when comparing real time vs estimated time, with 60% (high proficiency group) versus 65% (low proficiency group) correctly estimating the time.

Accuracy

Structural Complexity

Lexical Complexity

Fluency

M 28.95 25.89    .54    .39 18.35   6.71    .88    .23    .27    .07    .19    .10

SD 127.99 119.61    5.51    2.70   82.75   16.85    5.80     .55     .19     .08     .08    2.52

M 27.13 24.81    .72    .37 23.38   3.60    .92    .15    .17    .08    .09    .03

SD

Complex Task

High proficiency students Simple Task

Unpruned Speech Rate A 125.55 Pruned Speech Rate B 116.38 Guiraud’s Index    4.96    2.63 Tokens/Types Nº of types   65.80 Words/ASU   20.59    6.40 Words/clauses ASU/SN     .53 Errors/ASU     .31 Errors/Clause     .10 Spatial Expressions Errors/ASU     .21 Spatial Expressions Errors/Clause   4.32

Dependent Variable

Table 3.  Descriptive statistics of tasks: Means and standard deviations.

95.53 85.01   4.51   3.06 63.00 17.99   6.46    .59    .50    .19    .29   2.37

M 20.24 17.99    .55    .56 18.49   3.57   1.75    .22    .38    .17    .33    .28

SD

Simple Task

104.35   94.19    4.69    3.20   70.24   17.15    5.98     .56     .40     .15     .14    4.44

M

22.22 21.63    .60   1.00 23.49   4.09   1.47    .15    .31    .11    .17    .06

SD

Complex Task

Low proficiency students

 Aleksandra Malicka and Mayya Levkina



Chapter 3.  Measuring task complexity 

Table 4.  Impact of Task Complexity on learners’ performance: Wilcoxon signed-rank test Dependent Variable

Fluency

Unpruned Speech Rate A Pruned Speech Rate B Lexical Guiraud’s Complexity Index Tokens/Types Nº of types Structural Words/ASU Complexity Words/clauses ASU/SN Accuracy Errors/ASU Errors/Clause Spatial Expressions Errors/ASU Spatial Expressions Errors/Clause

High proficiency students

Low proficiency students

Simple Task vs. Complex Task

Simple Task vs. Complex Task

Z

p

Z

p

  –.82

.41

–2.63

   .01*

  –.86

.39

  –2.27*

  0.02*

–2.84

0.01*

–1.40

  .16

  –.78 –3.08 –2.46 –2.25   –.68 –1.83   –.78 –2.56

.43   .01* 0.01* 0.02* .49 .07 .43   .01*

  –.59 –1.71   –.98   –.64   –.36   –.73   –.52 –1.50

  .55 0.88   .33   .52   .72   .46   .60    .134

–3.10

  .00*

–2.25

   .02*

Task complexity significantly influenced accuracy, and lexical and structural complexity, which all improved in the complex task performance in the high proficiency group. The complex task also triggered significantly positive effects on fluency in the low proficiency group, but with a simultaneous decrease in accuracy.

Discussion The aim of the present study was to investigate whether students’ L2 proficiency may have an effect on their perception of task difficulty and on aspects of their oral production on tasks with different levels of designed cognitive task complexity (± spatial reasoning and ± few elements). In this discussion, we consider possible interpretations of the findings for each of these questions in turn.



Aleksandra Malicka and Mayya Levkina

Research Question 1: Effects of L2 proficiency on the perception of task difficulty Research Question 1 addressed the effects that L2 proficiency may have on the perception of task difficulty. Two different instruments were used to answer this question. The Affective Variable Questionnaire did not display any statistically significant differences in perception of task difficulty for any of the groups. However, the overall tendency, as observed in descriptive statistics, was to identify the more complex task as more difficult to perform, which corresponds to the expected results based on previous studies. Moreover, the high proficiency group found the complex task less difficult than the lower proficiency group, which may be associated with their proficiency level interfering in task difficulty estimation (or with the actual reduction in difficulty of both tasks as a result of their proficiency). The fact that the low proficiency group found the complex task more difficult than the simple one could be directly related to their proficiency level. Hence language proficiency could be the factor determining task difficulty perception. The second instrument employed in the study was a Time Estimation Task, in which the participants were asked which task took them longer to complete. According to some previous studies in cognitive psychology (Block et al, 2010), people tend to fail in guessing the time they take to complete a cognitively more complex task and also they are likely to consider a cognitively more complex task as the one that requires more time to complete. That finding is explained by the involvement of a high cognitive load which affects participants’ attention, creates a more stressful situation, and therefore makes them misestimate and/or exaggerate the real time of task completion. The present measure is a new tool in applied linguistics and TBLT studies, first used only recently by Baralt (2010). In the present study, a Pearson correlation along with qualitative analysis was used to compare the relationships between estimated and actual time in each group, and it showed that, on the one hand, in the high proficiency group the perception of task difficulty (i.e., time required) did not correlate with task complexity to the same degree as in the lower proficiency group. This finding suggests that the higher proficiency group had greater difficulties in perceiving task complexity. At the same time, qualitative analysis suggests that most low proficiency participants correctly pointed to which task required more time to be completed, whereas higher proficiency participants were less accurate in their judgment. This finding is partially in line with Baralt’s study (2010) and also with a body of psychological research on the topic for higher proficiency participants, where a significant impact of task complexity on time estimation was observed. Simultaneously, no similar results were detected in the lower proficiency group, which suggests that learners’ proficiency plays a certain role in task complexity perception.

Research Question 2: The impact of L2 proficiency on performance The second research question asked if there are differences in how task complexity affects high versus low proficiency speakers’ speech. The results of our study suggest that



Chapter 3.  Measuring task complexity 

designed cognitive task complexity may have affected high and low proficiency speakers in different ways. In the following paragraphs this result will be interpreted in terms of the theoretical underpinnings of the study. In particular, we discuss how the findings provide insights into the issues of attention allocation and trade-off effects, and the role of language proficiency in light of the two hypotheses will be discussed. The results of this study lend partial support to both hypotheses described at the beginning of the paper. In the high proficiency group on the complex task, lexical and structural complexity and accuracy were boosted, to the detriment of fluency. This finding is in line with the predictions of Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis, which states that as tasks are made more complex, learners stretch their interlanguage (in terms of lexis, syntax, and accuracy) to meet the cognitive demands of the task, with fluency being potentially negatively affected. In turn, in the case of the low proficiency participants, the cognitive complexity of the task enhanced this group’s performance in the area of fluency, the other areas remaining intact irrespective of cognitive task complexity (except for one specific accuracy measure, on which these participants performed better on the simple task than on its complex counterpart). This finding is partially in line with Skehan’s Trade-off Hypothesis, which states that complex tasks trigger better performance in one area of production to the detriment of others. In our study, however, the other areas (all except fluency) were not negatively affected; rather, they were found not to be influenced by cognitive task complexity. For this reason the Trade-off Hypothesis is only partially supported in the low proficiency group. We believe that the results obtained for the two groups of speakers may be due to different patterns of attention allocation during task performance, triggered at least in part by different L2 proficiency levels in the two groups. The more advanced English speakers, due to their quite rich lexical and syntactic repertoires, were able to simultaneously attend to multiple performance areas, it seems. In other words, in the case of this group, attention drew on various resource pools due to their advanced L2 level, resulting in overall enhanced performance on the complex task. The low proficiency speakers on the other hand, given their limited linguistic resources in the L2, when faced with the more complex task, had to prioritize one area of performance over the others (a finding consistent with the predictions of the Trade-off Hypothesis). In terms of attention allocation, these participants’ attentional capacity was insufficient for them to be able to simultaneously pay attention to more than one aspect of performance. A proficient L2 speaker has attentional control over multiple areas of performance, while for low-proficiency speakers attention may need to be more selective, permitting only limited control of the language. Interpreted in this way, the findings might indicate that the capacity of human attention is a dynamic process rather than a stable system: as proficiency in the second language develops, attentional capacity stretches to meet the cognitive demands of the more challenging complex task. Given that the study provides some evidence that proficiency plays a role in attention allocation, what we observed is that trade-off effects are perhaps more pertinent to lower L2 proficiency learners, and they become less marked, if not disappear, as

 Aleksandra Malicka and Mayya Levkina

proficiency increases. This observation, again, lends partial support to both hypotheses. In light of these findings, we may speculate that the Trade-off Hypothesis holds true for speakers of limited proficiency, while the Cognition Hypothesis explains phenomena occurring when more advanced L2 speakers engage in task-based performance. This pattern indicates that the different psycholinguistic accounts depicted by the two hypotheses may hold true for speakers at different points in their interlanguage development. We might argue that, in the same way as there exists a continuum of proficiency levels, we might see the two hypotheses not as a dichotomy, but rather a continuum of shifting attentional capacities and interactions with other phenomena like task design.

Limitations and conclusion This study explored the role of only two proficiency levels, and those levels were not two extremes of proficiency, but rather two groups of relatively different proficiency levels (low-intermediate vs advanced learners). A different pattern of task performance could be found if the same tasks were administered to a number of proficiency levels, ranging from beginner to native-like levels. Additionally, a comparison of L1 baseline data, contrasted with a range of proficiency levels of L2 speakers, would probably provide further valuable insights into the issue of attention allocation and the nature of trade-off effects. The findings reported in the current study come from an EFL setting. It has to be born in mind that the major variable in the study – language proficiency – was EFL, and not ESL proficiency. Different attention allocation, perception, and performance patterns could have been found had the study been carried out in an ESL context. To make any definitive statements about the role of proficiency, both EFL and ESL proficiencies would need to be investigated in relation to task-based performance. The role of L2 proficiency in task-based performance is an under-researched area, but the small-scale study reported here raises the issue of whether L2 proficiency should be considered as one of the crucial variables in the Cognition Hypothesis and similar frameworks. Further research, involving more participants, more proficiency levels, and different task types is needed to further explore the role of proficiency in various settings and under a variety of research paradigms.

References Baralt, M. (2010). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University. Becker, A., & Carroll, M. (1997). The Acquisition of spatial relations in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.



Chapter 3.  Measuring task complexity  Block, R. A., Hancock, P. A., & Zakay, D. (2010). How cognitive load affects duration judgments: A meta-analytic review. Acta Psychologica, 134, 330–43. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Lingustics 21 (3), 354–375. Gilabert, R. (2005). Task complexity and L2 narrative oral production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Barcelona. Gilabert, R. (2007a). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics 45(3), 215–240. Gilabert, R. (2007b). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and (±here-and-now): effects on L2 oral production. In M. P. García-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning (pp. 44–68). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gilabert, R., Baron, J., & Levkina, M. (2011). Manipulated task complexity across task types and modes. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity (pp. 105–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Guiraud, Pi. (1954). Les caractères statistiques du vocabulaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Meara, P., & Milton, J. (2005). X-Lex: The Swansea Levels Test [CD-ROM]. Newbury, UK: Express Publishing. Meara, P., & Miralpeix, I. (2006). Y-Lex: the Swansea Advanced Vocabulary Levels Test. v2.05. Swansea: Lognostics. Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 52–83. Michel, M. C., F. Kuiken, & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 241–259. Michel, M. (2011). Cognitive and interactive aspects of task-based performance in Dutch as a second language. ‘s-Hertogenbosch: Uitgeverij BOXPress. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long, (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 716–761). London: Blackwell. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in Instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148. Recio, M. (2011). The effects of task complexity on L2 oral production as mediated by differences in working memory capacity. Unpublished Master dissertation, University of Barcelona. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43(1), 1–32. Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 193–213.



Aleksandra Malicka and Mayya Levkina Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 161–176. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Learning (pp. 183–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239 – 277). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and L2 performance. Language Learning, 58(2), 429–473. Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17(1), 65–83. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24 (1), 1–27.



Chapter 3.  Measuring task complexity 

Appendix A Simple task “COCINA” Acabas de mudarte a un nuevo piso en Londres. Ya tiene algunas habitaciones amuebladas, pero todavía faltan la cocina y la habitación individual por amueblar. Hagamos, primero, la cocina. Abajo tienes una lista de objetos que te gustaría colocar allí: Una nevera

Cuatro sillas

Un fregadero

Armarios

Una campana

Un horno

¿Qué es lo que tienes que hacer? Imagínate en tu nuevo piso a punto de colocar los nuevos muebles y utensilios en su sitio. Por favor, lo más detalladamente posible explica al repartidor de muebles (I) dónde quieres que él ponga cada uno de los objetos en tu cocina y (II) justifica tu decisión. A la hora de explicar, puedes hacer referencia a dos objetos que ya están en la cocina. Tienes 1 minuto de preparación antes de empezar.



Aleksandra Malicka and Mayya Levkina

Complex task “Habitación Individual” Ahora vamos a amueblar la habitación individual. Esta vez todavía no tienes decidido lo que vas a colocar allí. Abajo tienes una lista de objetos que podrían quedar bien en la habitación:

400 €

300 € (por UNidad)

400 €

1500 €

1500 €

900 €

1200 €

150 €

800 €

200 €

600 €

1700 €

2400 €

800 €

600 €



Chapter 3.  Measuring task complexity 

Primero, escoge 5 objetos de los 15 ofrecidos. Ten en cuenta que tienes (I) 4000 € de presupuesto, (II) te gusta mucho el azul y (III) te gustan cosas modernas. Segundo, explica al repartidor de muebles, qué objetos quieres comprar y dónde piensas colocarlos y justifica tu elección. Tienes 1 minuto de preparación antes de empezar. ¿Qué es lo que tienes que hacer? Plan of the apartment Plano de tu piso•

Cocina•

Habitación individual•

Baño• Sala de estar• Habitación doble•

Baño•



Aleksandra Malicka and Mayya Levkina

Appendix B Affective variable questionnaire and time judgment task 

Name:  ________________________________

Anxiety and Perceived Difficulty Questionnaire Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statements by circling a number from 1 to 6: Strongly disagree

Disagree

Slightly disagree

Slightly agree

Agree

Strongly agree

1

2

3

4

5

6

“Cocina” 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

This task was easy. I had enough time to prepare myself to do the task. I was relaxed and comfortable completing the task. I enjoyed doing the task. I could complete the task easily.

123456 123456 123456 123456 123456

“Habitación individual” 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

This task was easy. I had enough time to prepare myself to do the task. I was relaxed and comfortable completing the task. I enjoyed doing the task. I could complete the task easily.

123456 123456 123456 123456 123456

Time judgement questionnaire Please circle the task you think it took you longer to complete: “Cocina”

“Habitación individual”

chapter 4

Effects of strategic planning on the accuracy of oral and written tasks in the performance of Turkish EFL learners Zubeyde Sinem Genc

Uludag University, Turkey This study investigates the effects of strategic planning on the accuracy of EFL learners’ performance on oral and written narrative tasks. The study addresses the complex relationship between the planning process and accuracy in task performance. Data collected from 60 learners in a Turkish EFL educational setting showed that strategic planning did not significantly affect accuracy on the oral task, and that it had an adverse effect on the written task. Modality (oral or written) made a significant difference under unplanned conditions. On the other hand, a post-task questionnaire revealed that we need to examine what learners attend to during the strategic planning phase to understand how they actually use the planning time and whether they change their focus of attention during the task performance phase. Through its focus on these aspects of task-based language teaching (TBLT) and learning, including planning time, accuracy, and oral and written modalities, this study brings to the fore these important aspects of how TBLT works in EFL settings.

Introduction One of the main areas of research in task-based language learning and teaching is the relationship between task variables and language production, with a growing body of research focusing on language production in terms of different aspects of L2 performance. Skehan (1996) presents three aspects of language production: fluency, accuracy, and complexity, which have been used to examine the effects of various task variables. These variables can be classified under two main categories: task design variables and task implementation factors. A task implementation factor that has attracted a lot of interest among researchers is planning. As Ellis (2005) points out, this may take the form of pre-task or within-task (i.e., online) planning. Pre-task planning, in turn, includes rehearsal and strategic planning. The subtypes that Ellis identifies for pre-task



Zubeyde Sinem Genc

planning provide a basis for the present study as it aims to investigate the effects of strategic planning on an important aspect of language production, namely, accuracy. The effect of strategic planning has been investigated by other researchers, but results have been mixed. For instance, in their study of the effects of strategic planning on language production, Foster and Skehan (1996) used three different task-types and found that task-type was a main factor such that learners were more fluent and more accurate on personal information and decision-making tasks than on a narrative task. In other words, the effects of strategic planning varied depending on the task-type. In addition, the difference between guided and unguided strategic planning was significant for fluency but not accuracy. However, the results in Skehan and Foster’s (1997) study were not consistent with these findings in their 1996 study because they found that planning affected accuracy positively on the narrative task, but not on the other two tasks. Interestingly, in a more recent study, Skehan and Foster (2005) found that the effect of planning was not uniform even on the same task, namely, the decisionmaking task. Gilabert (2007), on the other hand, found no interaction between tasktype and planning where accuracy was concerned, in contrast to Foster and Skehan’s (1996) study. More critically, Wendel’s (1997) study produced no evidence of whether planning had any effect on the accuracy of learners’ production. More mixed findings were provided by other studies too. Wigglesworth (1997) found that planning time improved the complexity and accuracy of highly proficient learners’ production, especially on tasks with a high cognitive load. However, low-proficiency learners did not benefit from the opportunity to plan the tasks. The finding that advanced-level learners can better benefit from planning was supported by Ortega’s (1999) study as well. Subsequent studies have also found the proficiency level of learners to be an important factor determining the effects of strategic planning (e.g., Kawauchi, 2005; Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005). However, unlike Wigglesworth’s and Ortega’s findings, Kawauchi found that low-level learners did benefit from planning more in terms of accuracy, which was in contrast with advanced-level students who did not gain any significant increase in accuracy and complexity under the planned condition. Learner orientation too has been found to affect the interaction between planning and language performance. Learners have been found to produce more fluent, more complex, and more accurate language if they have positive attitudes towards planning. For example, Tajima (2003) showed that planning time resulted in more fluency, more accuracy, and more lexical complexity because learners were positively oriented towards the planning time. Learner orientation has also been studied in terms of learners’ focus of attention. Sangarun (2005) found that the focus of guided planning affected learner performance because “learners do best when they engage in strategic planning that is focused jointly on meaning and form” (p. 131). Similar conclusions were made by Ortega (2005), who reported that learners did not necessarily separate attention to form versus meaning during pre-task planning. On the other hand, Mochizuki and Ortega (2008) found that pre-task planning affected accuracy positively when it was guided planning, that is, when learners’ attention was drawn to form



Chapter 4.  Performance of Turkish EFL learners 

during the phase of strategic planning. In sum, previous research findings provide mixed support for the effect of strategic planning on the accuracy of L2 learners’ performance, which calls for more research.

Modality of language production and accuracy In the last 10–15 years, there has been growing interest in written tasks, and more recent research shows that written tasks allow for a significant reduction in errors and the production of lexically more varied texts, especially when task complexity is manipulated (e.g., Kuiken & Vedder, 2007). The interest in written as well as oral tasks can also be observed in the work of Ellis and Yuan (2005), who investigated the effects of on-line planning on written and oral tasks and found that L2 learners were more accurate in written than in oral production under both careful on-line planning and no-planning conditions. They reported that these differences were greater across modality than in planning conditions. In other words, the type of modality affected learners’ production of accurate language more than planning did. Another study on the role of modality was conducted by Adams (2005) who examined whether learners’ orientation to form would vary between oral and written subtasks and whether writing would make learners more likely to focus on form. The results of her study revealed that writing increased learners’ orientation to form and that the links between engagement in tasks and development of forms was most obvious when a writing component was included. Part of the importance of these research findings is that one of the major objectives of TBLT is to promote focus on form (i.e., accuracy) in the context of meaningful communication. However, learners may or may not be oriented towards form during the communicative tasks they are involved in. Hence the two variables of planning condition and modality appear to be two important factors capable of mediating learners’ attention to form and affecting accuracy in learners’ performance. Following the empirical study of the effects of on-line planning in Ellis and Yuan (2005), the present study seeks to explore the effects on form of strategic planning in tasks of different modalities and to examine whether learners’ production is similar or different in terms of accuracy with respect to these modalities. Indeed, the mixed findings regarding the effects of strategic planning on accuracy (see above) make it even more compelling to examine learners’ performance on tasks of different modalities in an EFL setting, an underrepresented territory in the majority of TBLT research. We would therefore want to see whether the modality of tasks makes any difference on the impact of strategic planning on accuracy in such a context. A related issue is how L2 learners actually use the planning time they are given. Previous studies have pointed to the importance of the role of learners’ attention in task-based language learning (Ellis, 2005; Kuiken & Vedder, 2007; Ortega, 1999, 2005; Skehan & Foster, 2001). How learners’ attentional resources are allocated during



Zubeyde Sinem Genc

planning time and task completion is considered to have crucial effects on task performance. For instance, Ellis (2005) states that “Even when asked to engage in form-focused planning they [learners] may not do so, preferring to use the time given [to] them to sequence ideas and to work out the semantic linkages among propositions” (pp. 23–24). Ortega (2005) agrees that it is the learner who determines the focus of attention and how the planning time is actually used. Based on the findings of her study, Ortega (2005) states that “[i]n spite of holding a meaning-oriented interpretation of the task, learners paid attention to form during planning without any specific instructions to do so” (p. 106). Bygate and Samuda (2005) indicate that learners may not be able to carry over the forms they plan into their performance of tasks. On the other hand, Skehan’s trade-off effects suggest that learners have to choose what aspect of production to focus on during planning because of their limited processing capacity. He states that learners may focus on fluency and complexity at the expense of accuracy or vice-versa. It is obvious that we need to observe what learners actually attend to in order to understand their focus of attention during pre-task planning and during the completion of tasks of different modalities, which will be the focus of this study.

Research questions Based on the various considerations outlined above, this study aims to investigate the effects of strategic planning on accuracy in written and oral performance of learners in a Turkish EFL setting. The study also tries to tap into the focus of learners’ attention during the pre-task planning time and during their performance of tasks. Within this framework, the following research questions were formulated for the current investigation:

Research Question 1: Do EFL learners produce more accurate oral language when they have time for unguided strategic planning?



Research Question 2: Do EFL learners produce more accurate written language when they have time for unguided strategic planning?



Research Question 3: Does the modality of EFL learners’ productions (oral vs. written) have any effect on the accuracy of their language output when they have time for unguided strategic planning?



Research Question 4: Does the modality of EFL learners’ productions (oral vs. written) have any effect on the accuracy of their language output when they do not have time for any planning?



Research Question 5: What do EFL learners actually attend to during pre-task planning and task completion phases?



Chapter 4.  Performance of Turkish EFL learners 

The first research question examines learners’ performance on oral tasks under planned and unplanned conditions. The second question examines learners’ performance on written tasks under planned and unplanned conditions. The third question compares learners’ performance on written and oral tasks under planned conditions. The fourth question compares learners’ performance on written and oral tasks under unplanned conditions. The fifth question examines what learners attend to most during the pretask planning time and during their performance of the tasks.

Method Context and participants This study was conducted in a classroom setting at a one-year intensive EFL program at a university in Turkey. A total of 60 EFL learners participated in the study, 36 (60%) of these were female and 24 (40%) were male. Students enrolled in the program have to improve their proficiency in English before being allowed to start their undergraduate studies. The 60 students had been placed in the low-intermediate level through an institutional placement exam administered by the university. At the time of the study, these students were receiving 25 hours of English instruction each week taught by native Turkish-speaking instructors: 7 hours for grammar, 4 for reading, 2 for writing, and 12 hours for integrated skills that included listening, speaking, and vocabulary. Prior to enrolling in the program, these students had studied English as a foreign language for 9 years. The age range of the students who participated in the study was between 18 to 22 years, with an average of 19 years. The 60 students were divided into four equal groups of 15 students each and randomly assigned to one of the four groups shown in Table 1 below. As Table 1 displays, the study employed a between-subjects design with two levels of pre-task planning conditions and two levels of modality. In order to make the text reader-friendly, the groups shown in Table 1 will be referred to as follows: – – – –

Group 1: S + P (i.e., oral task with planning) Group 2: S – P (i.e., oral task without planning) Group 3: W + P (i.e., written task with planning) Group 4: W – P (i.e., written task without planning)

Table 1.  Design of the study

Oral task Written task

Planning

No planning

Group 1 (N = 15) Group 3 (N = 15)

Group 2 (N = 15) Group 4 (N = 15)



Zubeyde Sinem Genc

Tasks As stated earlier, this study sought to investigate the written and oral performance of 60 students in an EFL setting. A narrative monologue task was considered appropriate for both types of modalities. A monologue task was selected in order to avoid the risk that had been observed in previous studies (e.g., Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1999) using interactive tasks whereby some students’ performance was found to be less active as a result of their interlocutor’s patterns of talk, such as their use of comprehension checks, confirmations, and clarification requests. Ellis and Yuan (2005) warn that using two tasks with two different sets of pictures to elicit oral and written narratives needs to be considered a serious limitation because “it is ... possible that the differences attributed to modality were in part, at least, the result of task differences” (p. 191). In order to cater for this limitation, the same set of six pictures was used to elicit stories from the learners in all four groups, which ensured consistency in terms of task complexity and encoding difficulty. This, of course, required that the separate groups perform under different planning conditions: one for the oral tasks, and the other for the written tasks.

Data collection procedures The participants performed the tasks as an activity in their regular classroom situation with their regular instructor guiding the process. The activity was designed to fit with their regular program of study. The researcher was not present during data collection so as not to distract the learners and influence their performance. The classroom instructor was briefed about the study and the processes involved. Before using the tasks with the target groups, she piloted the tasks with a different group of students. This also ensured her familiarity with the procedure. The data were collected on four different days, each day with a different group. The instructions were given in the students’ first language, Turkish (see Appendix A for task instructions). The participants were given a set of six pictures (Appendix B). Following Yuan and Ellis (2003), the students were encouraged to produce at least 4 sentences for each of the six pictures, and asked to be prepared to tell or write the story in the pictures with or without planning. Under the no-planning condition, students were not given any time before task performance as they were asked to start telling or writing the story right within a minute of seeing the pictures. Under the strategic planning condition, they were given 10 minutes for planning for both oral and written tasks. During task performance, the time given for completing the written task was adjusted to suit the written mode. In other words, students had 8 minutes for their performance of the oral task and 15 minutes for the written task. The amount of time allowed for each task was determined based on the performance of the students in the pilot study on the tasks. The students’ performance was recorded for transcription and analysis.



Chapter 4.  Performance of Turkish EFL learners 

In addition to that, and in order to answer the fifth research question of the study, each student filled out a questionnaire immediately after completing the task (Appendix C). The post-task questionnaire, adapted from Yuan and Ellis (2003), solicited information about how students spent their time before and during the tasks. In other words, it aimed to obtain self-report data from the students about how they allocated their attention during pre-task planning and during task completion. Students were asked to give a priority order for grammar, vocabulary, and organization. They were asked to put these three component areas in an order of priority according to the time and attention they paid for each one during the strategic planning and task performance phases. Data collected through the questionnaire only focused on the students’ reports: in other words, actual allocation of students’ attention was not measured.

Accuracy measures and coding of data The measures used most widely in the literature to examine accuracy include percentage of error-free clauses, percentage of correct verb forms, target-like usage of plurals, target-like usage of articles, number of self-corrections or repetitions, target-like usage of verb tenses, lexical errors (or target-like usage of vocabulary), errors per T-unit, errors per 100 words, and target-like usage of negation. Previous studies differ in their choice of measure. For instance, Skehan and Foster (1999) define accuracy as “[t]he ability to avoid error in performance, possibly reflecting higher levels of control in the language as well as a conservative orientation, that is, avoidance of challenging structures that might provoke error” (p. 96). Skehan and Foster used the global measure of percentage of error-free clauses to assess accuracy, arguing that prior studies had found global measures of accuracy to be sensitive for detecting differences between experimental conditions. Another commonly accepted global measure of accuracy is the percentage of correct verb forms. These measures were used in the studies by Ellis and Yuan (2005), Foster and Skehan (1996), Sangarun (2005), Tajima (2003), Yuan and Ellis (2003), and Wendel (1997). Following these studies, the current investigation measured accuracy in terms of error-free clauses and correct verb forms. Error-free clauses refer to those clauses that do not contain any errors of syntax, morphology and/or lexical choice. Correct verb forms refer to all accurately used finite verbs in terms of tense, aspect, modality, and subjectverb agreement (Ellis & Yuan, 2005). To check for interrater reliability of measures, two raters, the researcher and a native English teacher, independently coded a sample of 40% of the data (i.e., six learners in each group). There was a 93% agreement between the two raters. The rest of the data were then analyzed and coded by the researcher.

Analysis of data The normal distribution of the data collected was tested by the Shapiro-Wilk test, a test sensitive to both skewedness and kurtosis. The test verifies whether or not the data



Zubeyde Sinem Genc

collected came from a normally distributed population and is accepted as one of the most reliable tests for normality for small to medium-sized samples (Conover,1999; Royston, 1995). After checking that the data met the criteria for normality, parametric and non-parametric tests were then applied. A series of t-tests on the accuracy data and Mann-Whitney U tests on the questionnaire data were used for the comparisons between the groups to address the research questions under investigation. The alpha level for statistical significance was set at p < .05. When the parametric tests (i.e., t-tests) were used, descriptive statistics were given as mean scores and standard error of mean (SEM). Descriptive statistics included median scores, minimum, and maximum values with non-parametric tests (i.e., Mann-Whitney U tests) were used. It is necessary to note that the results of this multiple t-testing need to be read with caution because it is usually not acceptable to run a series of t-tests without first running an ANOVA or MANOVA test. The reason why a series of t-tests and MannWhitney tests were run in this study is because the data analysis did not include comparisons between all four groups investigated. In other words, Groups S – P and W + P (i.e., unplanned group on the oral task versus planning group on the written task) were not compared. Besides, Groups S + P and W – P (i.e., planning group on the oral task versus unplanned group on the written task) were not compared either because these comparisons would not be related to any of the research questions that guided this study.

Results Results are reported in light of the five research questions that guided this study. Specifically, the results will be reported with respect to the construct of accuracy (research questions 1–4), and with respect to the post-task questionnaire (research question 5), respectively.

Accuracy Table 2 presents a summary of the descriptive results for accuracy. It illustrates the percentages of error-free clauses (EFC) and the percentages of correct verb forms (CVF) for all groups, and Table 3 reports the inferential results showing whether there were any significant differences between the groups. The effects of planning condition and modality on the accuracy of the students’ performance are discussed separately. Table 2 shows that the planning group on the oral task produced more accurate clauses and verb forms than the no-planning group. The planning group produced 36.07% error-free clauses whereas the no-planning group produced 28.12% accurate clauses. In terms of correct verb forms, the planning group produced 58.74% correct verb forms while the no-planning group produced 42.86%.



Chapter 4.  Performance of Turkish EFL learners 

Table 2.  Descriptive results for accuracy on oral and written tasks with and without planning Planning Oral Task   Mean   SEM Written Task   Mean   SEM

No Planning

EFC% 36.07% 0.02

CVF% 58.74% 0.05

EFC% 28.12% 0.03

CVF% 42.86% 0.05

37.78% 0.04

48.38% 0.05

39.52% 0.03

62.29% 0.02

Planning, however, had adverse effects on accuracy on the written task. Table 2 shows that the no-planning group produced more accurate clauses and verb forms than the planning group on the written narrative task. The planning group on the written task produced 37.78% error-free clauses whereas the no-planning group produced 39.52% error-free clauses. In the case of verb forms, the planning group achieved 48.38% of accuracy while the no-planning group’s accuracy was 62.29%. Table 3 presents the inferential results for the accuracy data and shows whether there were any differences between the groups on oral and written tasks under the planning and no-planning conditions. As shown in Table 3, the differences between the planning and no-planning groups on the oral task were not significant (that is p = 0.066 for the error-free clauses (EFC) and p = 0.053 for the correct verb forms (CVF)). Thus, although the differences between the two conditions came very close to a level of significance, pre-task planning did not significantly affect students’ accuracy on the oral task. Table 3 also shows that modality did not affect accuracy significantly in the planned groups. There was no significant difference between the planned oral group (S + P) and the planned written group (W + P) in terms of error-free clauses (p = 0.728) or correct verb forms (p = 0.212). However, effects of modality on accuracy were observed on Table 3.  Differences between groups for accuracy on oral and written tasks with and without planning Groups compared S + P vs. S – P S + P vs. W + P S – P vs. W – P W + P vs. W – P *p < .05

EFC

CVF

p-value 0.066 0.728 0.026* 0.754

p-value 0.053 0.212 0.004* 0.046*



Zubeyde Sinem Genc

tasks under the unplanned condition, with the learners producing more accurate language in writing than in speaking under the unplanned condition. The difference was statistically significant for both error-free clauses (p = 0.026) and correct verb forms (p = 0.004). Turning to the difference between the planning and no-planning groups on the written task, this was statistically significant only in the case of correct verb forms (p = 0.046), but not that of error-free clauses (p = 0.754). For the sake of convenience, a summary of these results is provided below: – Modality made a significant difference under the unplanned condition. The students were more accurate on the unplanned written tasks than the unplanned oral tasks. – Modality did not affect accuracy significantly under planned conditions. The difference between the two planned groups was not statistically significant. – Strategic planning did not have any significantly positive effects on students’ accuracy for the oral task. However, the differences were very close to the level of significance. The planned group produced more accurate language than the unplanned group on the speaking task. – Strategic planning had an adverse effect on accuracy for the written task. The unplanned group produced more accurate language than the planned group on the writing task.

Students’ priority ordering of grammar, vocabulary, and organization Table 4 presents the descriptive results for students’ priority order for grammar, vocabulary, and organization before and during task phases as reported by the participants in the post- task questionnaire. Median score 1 indicates that the item was the first in the order, meaning that the students reported giving it the greatest amount of time and attention. Median score 2 indicates that the item was in the second place in the order, and Median score 3 indicates that the students gave the least amount of time and attention to the given item. The unplanned groups did not have median scores for the Before Task column because they were not given any strategic planning time. Thus, these groups could only report orders for their use of time and attention in the During Task column only. The planned groups were able to report orders for both the Before Task and During Task columns. It is important to note that we are discussing self-report data here because we did not have direct evidence of how much time the participants actually used for grammar, vocabulary, or organization before or during these tasks. We relied on the priority order as reported by the students themselves in the post-task questionnaire. As Table 4 shows, the participants on the planned oral group reported that before the task they spent most time and attention on organization, followed by vocabulary, and finally grammar. During the task, grammar and vocabulary received equal amounts of time and attention from the participants in the planned oral group, and



Chapter 4.  Performance of Turkish EFL learners 

Table 4.  Results of students’ priority ordering of grammar, vocabulary and organization before and during task performance Planning Oral Task

Median Minimum Maximum

Before Task

During Task

During Task

G

V

O

G

V

O

G

V

O

3 2 3

2 1 2

1 1 3

2 1 3

2 1 2

3 1 3

3 1 3

1 1 2

2 1 3

Written Task

Median Minimum Maximum

No Planning

Before Task

During Task

During Task

G

V

O

G

V

O

G

V

O

2 2 3

2 1 3

1 1 3

3 1 3

2 1 3

1 1 3

3 1 3

2 1 3

1 1 3

Key: G = grammar, V = vocabulary, O = organization

organization was lowest for the amount of time allocated. The participants in the unplanned oral group reported giving the greatest amount of time and attention to vocabulary, followed by organization and finally grammar during the task. The order of the items in terms of amount of time allocated for the groups performing the written task under planned and unplanned conditions was almost the same: Organization was in first place, followed by vocabulary, and finally grammar. The only difference was that the planned written group reported paying an equal amount of attention to vocabulary and grammar before the task, but still put organization at the top of their list. Table 5 presents the inferential results for the data regarding the priority ordering of grammar, vocabulary, and organization. It reports the results of a Mann-Whitney U analysis of the differences between the groups, in terms of the priority of attention which the participants reported allocating to grammar, vocabulary, and organization before the task (i.e., during the strategic planning time) and during the completion of the tasks phase. Table 5 shows that there was a statistically significant difference only between the unplanned oral and unplanned written groups in terms of attention to vocabulary (p = 0.021). In other words, under the unplanned condition, the participants reported giving significantly more time to vocabulary when speaking than when writing. There were no significant differences between the other groups. A summary of the priority ordering as reported by all groups is given in Table 6 below:



Zubeyde Sinem Genc

Table 5.  Differences between groups for priority ordering of grammar, vocabulary, and organization before and during task Groups compared

S + P vs. S – P S + P vs. W + P S – P vs. W – P W + P vs. W – P

Before Task (p-value)

During Task (p-value)

G

G

V

O

0.098 0.148 0.653 0.806

0.367 0.683 0.021* 0.325

0.539 0.217 0.217 0.713

0.217

V 0.539

O 0.713

*p < .05

Table 6.  Overall summary of students’ priority ordering of grammar, vocabulary, and organization Group

Before Task

During Task

S+P

Organization Vocabulary Grammar

Grammar = Vocabulary Organization

S–P

W+P

W–P

Organization Vocabulary = Grammar

Vocabulary Organization Grammar Organization Vocabulary Grammar Organization Vocabulary Grammar

Discussion A summary of the results of the study is first provided in Table 7 in relation to the four research questions that concern the effect of pre-task planning and modality on students’ accuracy. The first research question asked whether learners would produce more accurate oral language when they have time for strategic planning. The results showed that the difference between the planned and unplanned groups on the oral task was not statistically significant, though coming quite close to the level of significance. This result supports findings obtained in previous studies including Gilabert (2007), Rutherford



Chapter 4.  Performance of Turkish EFL learners 

Table 7.  Overall effect of pre-task planning and modality on students’ accuracy Research question

Groups compared

Explanation

1 2

S + P vs. S – P W + P vs. W – P*

3 4

S + P vs. W + P S – P vs. W – P*

No significant differences observed W – P was significantly more accurate in CVF (p = 0.046), but not in EFC (p = 0.754) No significant differences observed W – P was significantly more accurate in both EFC (p = 0.026) and CVF (p = 0.004)

(2001), Wendel (1997), and Yuan and Ellis (2003) which also found no significant differences for the effect of strategic planning on accuracy measures in oral performances of learners. Foster and Skehan (1996) too found that planning promoted accuracy on personal information and decision-making tasks, but not on the oral narrative task used in their study. The second research question asked whether EFL students would produce more accurate written language when they have time for strategic planning. The results revealed that strategic planning had an adverse effect on accuracy on written narrative tasks. Students produced more accurate written language when they did not have time for planning. This finding supports those studies, which are few in number, that have investigated the effects of planning on written language. For instance, Wiggleworth’s (2001) study found adverse effects of planning on the students’ oral performances on both structured and unstructured tasks. In contrast, Ellis and Yuan (2005) examined the effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written performance. They found that careful on-line planning promoted accuracy and stated that “the careful group produced more correct clauses and verbs than the pressured group, differences that were statistically significant and reflected in large effect sizes for both modalities” (p. 188). Their results are not consistent with the findings of this study, maybe in part because Ellis and Yuan investigated the effects of within-task planning, which is different from the present study which examined the effect of pre-task planning on oral and written tasks. The third research question sought to find out whether the modality of the students’ production (oral vs. written) has an effect on the accuracy of their language output when they are given time for strategic planning. The results found no significant differences between the planned oral and planned written task performances of the students in terms of accuracy. In other words, modality did not lead learners to produce more accurate language under strategic planning conditions. This finding is similar to the results obtained by Ellis and Yuan (2005) who also found that the difference between the two careful groups was not statistically significant. The fourth research question asked whether the modality of learners’ production (oral vs. written) has an effect on the accuracy of their language output when they do not have planning time. The results indicate that the difference between the groups of



Zubeyde Sinem Genc

unplanned oral and unplanned written tasks was significant in terms of both correct clauses (p = 0.026) and correct verb forms (p = 0.004). Students produced more accurate written language than oral language under unplanned conditions. This finding is consistent with the results of Ellis and Yuan (2005) who found that “the participants’ language was more accurate when writing than when speaking” (p. 186). The fifth question sought to shed light on what the learners actually attend to during the planning and task completion phases. Results of the post-task questionnaire showed that the students reported putting more emphasis on the organization of the story during planning time, and more emphasis on vocabulary and organization during the task performance phase. Grammar seemed to draw the least attention from the learners. This might explain the differential effects of planning and modality on accuracy observed in this study. These learners were more concerned with vocabulary and organization than with the grammatical accuracy of their output. The findings of this study are in line with the results in Wendel (1997), who interviewed the learners to understand what they actually did when they planned. He found that all learners focused on sequencing the narrative events, with only three of them reporting attention to grammar. Similarly, students in this study said they preferred to use their planning time for organizing their production, but that they also attended to vocabulary and organization during task performance. They paid the least attention to grammar. This could be seen as a strategic response on the part of the learner to the conditions created by the teacher/materials writer. It is also consistent with Skehan’s (1998) account of trade-off effects, suggesting that learner choice may be to some extent determined by the external conditions of the task. Skehan’s limited capacity hypothesis proposes that demanding tasks “consume more attentional resources ... with the result that less attention is available for focus on form” (p. 97). In other words, the students may have traded off attention to one aspect of production, that is, vocabulary and organization, to the detriment of the other, that is, grammar, due to limitations in attentional resources.

Pedagogical implications Perhaps the most important implication of this study is that it extends research on important aspects of TBLT and learning research (planning time, accuracy, and oral and written tasks) to EFL settings, settings not well represented in much of the existing literature on TBLT (see also Sasayama & Izumi, this volume). The study has shown that strategic planning does not necessarily lead students in EFL settings to produce more accurate language on oral narrative tasks. A related implication is that these students may not always need pre-task planning time in order to produce more accurate language on written tasks; this study revealed that learners actually were more accurate on written tasks under unplanned conditions and significantly less accurate when they were given time for planning. A related implication is that learners may choose to



Chapter 4.  Performance of Turkish EFL learners 

spend their planning time focusing on vocabulary and organizational matters. In this respect, it is recommended to hold guided planning sessions with the students in which they are specifically asked to pay attention to the accuracy of the target structures. However, it does not guarantee more accuracy because, as this study has shown, the modality of the task may also influence whether or not planning time has an impact. This might be again due to the attention and time students spend on organization and vocabulary rather than on grammar during strategic planning. Thus, teachers may find guided planning time to be quite beneficial when their aim is to foster accuracy, but only under certain circumstances. The positive effects of guided planning on learners’ accuracy have been documented by previous research as well. For example, Mochizuki and Ortega (2008) found that guided planners produced more accurate relative clauses than unguided planners. The results of this study point to the likely importance of the students’ orientation towards the task and the planning time. Although written modality naturally allows for more opportunities to focus on form, students’ orientation towards the organization of the story during the written task might obscure a more accurate performance on written modality. In this sense, teachers might need to guide their students to focus on form during planning. However, the students’ own focus will also be significant in determining the outcome.

Limitations of the study and directions for further research This study is not without its limitations. First, the sample size investigated was relatively small. When single phase data collection is conducted in studies, greater numbers of participants need to be secured in order to obtain more reliable findings and be able to make stronger generalizations. Besides examining larger groups, another option for obtaining more reliable results would be to conduct a longitudinal study where the individual learner’s performance is examined over a lengthy period of time, which may reveal different and more comprehensive findings. It is worth noting that the results obtained for the groups investigated here may not reflect the performance of individual learners. This is a well-known limitation for averaging group data. For instance, Larsen-Freeman (2009) states that “the average length of error-free T-units work[s] well at the group level, but not necessarily for individuals. Averaging group data has its limitations” (p. 585). This is an important issue for research on TBLT in particular where individual learner variables affect learner performance. Another limitation is that the study only examined the accuracy of learner performance and did not look at other dimensions of language production (such as fluency and complexity). This focus was chosen because accuracy, unlike fluency and complexity, was the dimension of language production which has shown the least consistent results in previous studies. However, complexity, accuracy, and fluency interact and exist in an organic relationship with one another (see Norris & Ortega, 2009;



Zubeyde Sinem Genc

Sasayama & Izumi, this volume), so it may be that factors unexamined in the current study were exerting a causal influence on the language production of the learners. Similarly, only low-intermediate learners were investigated in the current study, and it may well be that learners at other levels of proficiency would respond differently to the opportunity for pre-task planning. One way to cater for these limitations is to conduct longitudinal, multivariate studies in the future in order to better explore learner performance on tasks under different conditions over lengthy periods of time. EFL settings would indeed be ideal contexts for such research because students usually remain for a lengthy period of time in classroom instruction. Such research would address a gap in current TBLT research and application. For instance, Ellis (2009) states that one major limitation in the majority of existing research “is the lack of a longitudinal study of the effects of strategic planning. This is obviously desirable to establish whether any benefit gained from planning a task at one time carries over to a later time” (p. 505). Such research would also enable us to examine the effect of individual learner variables on language production over time. It is obvious therefore that further research is needed in these important areas of TBLT and learning. Despite these limitations, this study has helped to extend TBLT research into new territory, showing that EFL students were more accurate on unplanned written tasks than unplanned oral tasks. In other respects, the study found no differences in accuracy levels – when seen in terms of the effects of modality under planned conditions and in terms of the impact of strategic planning for the oral task. Strategic planning had an adverse effect on accuracy for the written task. In terms of their reports on their focus of attention, learners apparently spent more attention and time on vocabulary and organization than grammar during the planning time before and during the task performance phases. Confirming or contesting these findings in other authentic FL educational contexts awaits further research.

References Adams, R. (2005). L2 tasks and focus on form: A role for modality? Paper presented at the International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, September 21–23, 2005, Leuven, Belgium. Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use task-repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.) Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Conover, W. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.



Chapter 4.  Performance of Turkish EFL learners  Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.) Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324. Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and (± Here-and-Now): Effects of L2 oral production. In Garcia-Mayo (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44–68). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 143–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. IRAL, 45, 261–284. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 579–589. Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12, 11–37. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148. Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Royston, J. P. (1995). A remark to algorithm AS 181: The W test for normality. Applied Statistics, 44, 547–551. Rutherford, K. (2001). An investigation of the effects of planning on oral production in a second language. Unpublished MA Thesis. University of Auckland, New Zealand. Sangarun, J. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 111–141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task-type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.) Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 193–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.



Zubeyde Sinem Genc Tajima, M. (2003). The effects of planning on oral performance of Japanese as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Purdue University, USA. Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–273). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Temple University, Japan. Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 21–44. Wigglesworth, G. (2001). Influences on performance in task based oral assessments. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.). Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 186–209). London: Pearson. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.



Chapter 4.  Performance of Turkish EFL learners 

Appendix A Instructions for each task Oral Task – With Strategic Planning: “You have seen a set of pictures. These pictures tell us a story. In a short while, I would like you to tell this story in English. Before you tell the story, you have 10 minutes to plan what you are going to say. Tell the story in as much detail as you can. You can take some notes on the paper I gave you. But don’t write a complete sentence in Turkish or English. When you begin to tell the story, I will take the paper and the pictures away. You have 8 minutes to tell the story. You must produce at least 4 sentences for each of the 6 pictures. If you like, you can produce more than 4 sentences for each picture. Please prepare now. (After 10 minutes) Now, it is time for you to begin telling the story. Oral Task – No Planning: “You have seen a set of pictures. These pictures tell us a story. Now, I would like you to tell this story in English. Please tell the story in as detailed as you can. You have 8 minutes to tell the story. You must produce at least 4 sentences for each of the 6 pictures. If you like, you can produce more than 4 sentences for each picture. Please begin telling the story. Written Task – With Strategic Planning: “You have seen a set of pictures. These pictures tell us a story. In a short while, I would like you to write this story in English. Before you write the story, you have 10 minutes to plan what you are going to write. Write the story in as much as detail you can. You can take some notes on the paper I gave you. But don’t write a complete sentence in Turkish or English. When you begin to write the story, I will take the paper and the pictures away. You have 15 minutes to write the story. You must produce at least 4 sentences for each of the 6 pictures. If you like, you can produce more than 4 sentences for each picture. Please prepare now. (After 10 minutes) Now, it is time for you to begin writing the story. Written Task – No Planning: “You have seen a set of pictures. These pictures tell us a story. Now, I would like you to write this story in English. Please write the story in as detailed as you can. You have 15 minutes to write the story. You must produce at least 4 sentences for each of the 6 pictures. If you like, you can produce more than 4 sentences for each picture. Please begin writing the story.



Zubeyde Sinem Genc

Appendix B Set of pictures used in tasks



Chapter 4.  Performance of Turkish EFL learners 

Appendix C Post-task questionnaires Oral Task – With Strategic Planning: Name: Proficiency level in English: Age: Major: I. During the 10-minute planning period, how did you plan? Did you think more about grammar, vocabulary, or the best way to organize your story? Put these in an order of priority according to time and attention you spent for each during the10-minute planning period before you told the story. II. While you were telling the story, did you think about grammar, vocabulary, or the best way to organize your story? Put these in an order of priority according to time and attention you spent for each while you were telling the story. Oral Task – No Planning: Name: Proficiency level in English: Age:

Major:

While you were telling the story, did you think about grammar, vocabulary, or the best way to organize your story? Put these in an order of priority according to time and attention you spent for each while you were telling the story. Written Task – With Strategic Planning: Name: Proficiency level in English: Age: Major: I. During the 10-minute planning period, how did you plan? Did you think more about grammar, vocabulary, or the best way to organize your story? Put these in an order of priority according to time and attention you spent for each during the10-minute planning period before you wrote the story. II. While you were writing the story, did you think about grammar, vocabulary, or the best way to organize your story? Put these in an order of priority according to time and attention you spent for each while you were writing the story.



Zubeyde Sinem Genc

Written Task – No Planning: Name: Proficiency level in English: Age:

Major:

While you were writing the story, did you think about grammar, vocabulary, or the best way to organize your story? Put these in an order of priority according to time and attention you spent for each while you were writing the story.

chapter 5

Effects of task instructions on text processing and learning in a Japanese EFL college nursing setting Yukie Horiba and Keiko Fukaya

Kanda University of International Studies, Japan and Tsuda College, Japan This study investigated the effect of task instructions on text processing and learning. Seventy limited L2 proficiency college nursing majors in a Japanese EFL context read a text in English and recalled the content of the text. Some students were told in advance to expect a recall task in a particular language which they later did in the same language (the L1-only and the L2-only conditions). Others were told to expect an L1 recall task which subsequently they were actually asked to do in the L2 (the L1-L2 condition). All students took an unplanned vocabulary test on unfamiliar words contained in the text. The results suggest that the L1-only condition enhanced content recall while the L2-only condition was more conducive to vocabulary acquisition, with the L1-L2 condition being ineffective on both measures. Results of the study are discussed in terms of resource allocation and levels of representations. An important contribution of this study is that it addresses major questions like ‘whether limited L2 proficiency learners can learn both content and language simultaneously in the L2’, and ‘how task conditions can influence students’ text processing capacity and subsequent learning’ in EFL within the principles of TBLT.

Introduction Processing and comprehending texts (or discourse) for professional purposes is an important skill for individuals, whether the text is presented in the first language (L1) or the second/foreign language (L2). People acquire knowledge about the content of the texts and later use that knowledge when they perform various tasks that require information about it, such as recall/retelling, answering questions, making decisions, and carrying out professional activities. Students in EFL classrooms are often given similar tasks for practice. They are asked to process a text written in the L2 for comprehension so that they learn what the text is all about (e.g., a topic about the target culture/society, a subject matter, or professional domain). Oftentimes students are also

 Yukie Horiba and Keiko Fukaya

expected to acquire knowledge of the target language in which the text is written. Given the limitations of human beings’ cognitive capacity, to what extent can students learn both content and language through processing a text that is presented in the L2? How does task condition influence students’ text processing and subsequent learning? The present study was designed to provide some answers to these questions in the context of an English as a foreign language (EFL) program for college nursing majors in Japan.

Theoretical framework Text comprehension is an active process in which the reader engages in both bottomup and top-down processing in order to construct a coherent representation of the text in memory (Graesser, Gernsbacher, & Goldman, 2003). It is generally agreed among researchers that the resulting representation of the text in memory consists of multiple levels. Major levels are the surface code, the propositional textbase, and the situation model (Kintsch, 1998; van Oostendorp & Goldman, 1999). The surface code level represents the memory of the surface linguistic code of the text such as word order and spelling, and this memory decays fast. The meaning of the text is represented as textbase and situation model. The textbase represents the propositional content of the text (i.e., basic ideas explicitly asserted in the text); it consists of a microstructure (i.e., local propositions) and a macrostructure (i.e., gist of the text). The macrostructure is sometimes directly signaled in a text, but often it must be inferred by the reader. The situation model level (sometimes called the mental model) concerns the memory for the referential content (i.e., people and objects, events, ideas and opinions) or micro-world that the text is describing (Zwaan & Radvansky, 1998). The result of comprehension is the textbase only in rare cases. Usually in order to understand a text, comprehenders supplement the textual information with various information (i.e., inferences) from their knowledge and experience (long-term memory), so as to achieve a personal interpretation of the text that is related to other information held in long-term memory. Thus, the mental representation of a text a reader constructs includes text-derived propositions (the textbase, not necessarily complete) plus varying amounts of knowledge elaboration and knowledgebased interpretations of the text – the situation model. The representation of the text will be retrieved and used in later tasks, such as answering questions and recall/retelling that requires the use of information about the text. Hence, the construction of the textbase and the situation model is considered particularly important for learning from texts (Kintsch, 1998; McNamara, 2007). Because of the limitations of human beings’ cognitive capacities, allocating cognitive resources during text processing is important for successful comprehension. Allocation of cognitive resources during text processing depends in part on the reader’s goal and strategy use in a given situation (Alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1996; Kintsch,



Chapter 5.  Text processing and learning 

1998; McNamara, 2007). Reader goal and strategy use are often influenced by task requirements. Research has shown that L1 readers generate different patterns of inferences depending on the task instructions (e.g., whether reading is to explain, predict, or understand) (Magliano, Trabasso, & Graesser, 1999). Even with the same text, readers process and represent the text differently when they are told to read a news story as opposed to a literary text (Zwaan, 1994) or when they are told to read for entertainment rather than for study (van den Broek, Lorch, Linderholm, & Gustafson, 2001). The general model of text processing and representation described above has been increasingly accepted among L2 reading researchers. Research has shown that L2 readers generate inferences and construct text bases and situation models of texts (Barry & Lazarte, 1998; Horiba, 1996). L2 readers allocate cognitive resources differently and construct different patterns of text representation depending on task type (i.e., to read freely vs. for coherence) (Horiba, 2000). However, L2 text processing tends to be constrained by level of language proficiency (Lee & Schallert, 1997), in particular vocabulary knowledge (Koda, 2005), as well as the text’s linguistic features (Barry & Lazarte, 1995; Sasayama & Izumi, this volume; Stevensen, Schoonen, & de Glopper, 2003; Zwaan & Brown, 1996). In this connection, research has shown that the use of the L2 in recall, as opposed to the use of the L1, may reduce the amount of content information recalled (Donin & Silva, 1993; Lee, 1986), which may be related to language proficiency and L1-L2 distance (Chen & Donin, 1997). However, it is not yet clear whether the disadvantage of recall in L2 is caused by the difficulty of producing sentences in L2 recall (i.e., the problem of output) or whether it is also caused by the difficulty of encoding content information into memory, even when students are given advance notice of an L2 recall task before reading. Furthermore, it has not been made fully clear how the effect of a recall task may interact with the effect of language proficiency and vocabulary knowledge in L2 text comprehension. As for language learning through text processing, research has shown that L2 students may learn new words incidentally through reading (Hulstijn, Hollander, & Greidanus, 1996). Incidental vocabulary acquisition is influenced by various factors such as the reader’s vocabulary knowledge and topic familiarity (Pulido, 2009), item characteristics (Hulstijn et al., 1996), as well as task type (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Kim, 2006). Regarding the task effect, Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) propose that incidental vocabulary learning may be largely explained by the degree of cognitive and motivational involvement while processing the word in a given situation. Ellis (1997) claims that the mapping of form to meaning for a new word is strongly affected by how much the learners elaborate, integrate, and engage with the new semantic and conceptual knowledge. In SLA research it is repeatedly argued that attention must be allocated to the processing of form as well as meaning of the language, in order for an item to be learned (Long & Robinson, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 2001; VanPatten, 1996; among many others). Due to the limitations of cognitive resources or attention, there may be a trade-off in performance between different aspects of L2 processing or production



Yukie Horiba and Keiko Fukaya

(e.g., complexity, accuracy, and fluency) (Skehan, 1998; see also Sasayama & Izumi, this volume). Recently, some researchers (Bygate, 2001; Izumi, 2003; Skehan, 2009; Tavakoli & Foster, 2008) have started to use ideas from Levelt’s (1989) psycholinguistic model of L1 speaking in order to describe the effect of task variables (e.g., planning time, repetition, task complexity) on L2 production as a function of resource allocation during processing. However, historically speaking the mainstream SLA research has been largely uninformed by cognitive or psycholinguistic research on text comprehension, and there is little research so far on the connections between text processing and learning in L2 context – how L2 text (as input) processing results in memory representations (as changes in long-term memory), from which information is retrieved for use in retelling/recall (as output).

The study: Setting and task In the present study, a task is conceptualized as a goal-oriented activity, which involves a meaningful, real-world process of language use, and which can engage any or all of the four language skills as well as cognitive processes (Ellis, 2003; Skehan, 1998). According to Nunan (2004), tasks can be best analyzed in terms of three elements: goals, input, and procedures. The type of task investigated in this study is a task in which an individual reads a text (the input) for comprehension and later recalls the content of the text as if to inform someone who has not read it (the goals). The task consists of a sequencing of two (sub)tasks: first reading a text for comprehension, and second recalling its content. College students majoring in nursing processed passages about a health-care case selected from a professional journal of nursing written in the L2. It is reasonable to claim that the task is a type of authentic classroom activity which resembles a real-life communicative task in the target profession. During the read-and-recall procedure, students received task instructions regarding the language of their recall on two occasions. Before reading the text, students were given a first set of instructions: they were told to read the text and were informed of a later recall task and which language (L1 or L2) they should use for the recall task. After reading, the students were given a further set of instructions: they were told to recall what they understood of the content of the text (without referring back to the text) and again, which language they should use for their recall. However this time, one of the three groups was told to carry out the recall in a different language from the one they had been initially primed to use. Upon receiving the encoding instructions, students were expected to set their plans and start executing their strategies in order to process the text for a later recall task in the language they had been told to expect to use. Upon receiving the retrieval/output instructions, the researchers expected the students either to proceed by executing their plans and strategies to recall in the originally primed language (i.e., the L1-only condition and the L2-only condition) or to have to reset



Chapter 5.  Text processing and learning 

their plans and strategies in order to produce a recall in the different language (i.e., the L1-L2 condition). In this study, content recall and vocabulary acquisition were examined as a function of task condition. Students receiving a different set of task instructions were expected to allocate cognitive resources differently to various levels of text processing which further influence the memory representation of the text. By examining and comparing students’ performance in content recall and vocabulary acquisition under these task conditions, this study attempts to shed light on how strategic text processing induced by task instructions is related to resource allocation and subsequent learning for these EFL learners. Based on the objectives of the study and the considerations above, the specific research questions posed for the present study were as follows: Research Question 1: Is there a significant relationship between task condition and the amount of content information recalled from the target text? Research Question 2: Is there a significant relationship between task condition and the number of new words incidentally acquired from the text? Research Question 3: Is each given task condition equally effective for content learning and incidental vocabulary acquisition?

Method Participants As stated above, the study was conducted in the context of the learning of English as a foreign language. The target population was college undergraduates who were native speakers of Japanese and were enrolled in a professional college of nursing in their home country Japan. As with many other EFL contexts in the world, the importance of the English language has been increasingly recognized for educational, social, economical, and political considerations, both in society in general, and in some professions like health care, in particular. Seventy Japanese-speaking EFL students who were college nursing majors participated in the study. They consisted of 68 females and 2 males. Of these 70 students, 31 were freshmen, 14 sophomores, 16 juniors, and 9 seniors. The students had six years of English training in high schools. They were enrolled in a small prestigious private college in Japan which offers undergraduate and graduate programs in nursing. All courses are taught in Japanese, except for English language courses, which are taught by three instructors (two native speakers of Japanese and one native speaker of English). Students are required to take four English courses (about three hours per semester)



Yukie Horiba and Keiko Fukaya

each during the first two years and none during the remaining two years. The participants were paid volunteers.

Task conditions Each participant read a text written in English and later recalled the content of the text. Three different task conditions were manipulated through a combination of instructions given before reading, and instructions given after reading at the time of recall regarding the language (L1 or L2). Before reading, some students were informed that they would later be asked to recall the content of a text using the L1, while others were informed that their recall task would be in the L2. After reading, the students first solved some arithmetic problems (given as a distracter to erase the contents of their short-term memory) and then did the recall task. At the time of recall, the students who were given advanced notice of the recall-in-L2 task were asked to recall in the L2 (i.e., the L2-only condition; N = 23). Half of the students who were earlier informed of the recall-in-L1 task were asked to write their recall in the L1 (i.e., the L1-only condition; N = 24), whereas the remaining students were – unexpectedly – asked to produce their recall in the L2 (i.e., the L1-L2 condition; N = 23). Participants were encouraged to write down as much as possible of what they remembered from the content of the text as if to inform someone who had never read the text before.

Materials The L2 proficiency and vocabulary knowledge measures. Because there is ample evidence in the literature that the level of L2 proficiency and of L2 vocabulary knowledge can affect text comprehension and learning (Bernhardt, 1991; Grabe, 2009), the proficiency level of these participants and their level of L2 vocabulary knowledge were measured using a TOEFL-ITP test and the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) (Nation 2001), respectively. The scores on these tests were used to check whether the participants were distributed equally in terms of L2 proficiency across cells. The TOEFL-ITP test consisted of reading and structure sections. The VLT test consisted of words from the 2000, 3000, 5000 levels and academic vocabulary. (In this study, words from the 10,000 level were not used.) There were 10 questions for each level and 12 for the academic vocabulary. Reading materials. Two short English-language narrative texts (about 430 words in length), the Decision text and the Hope text, were used in the study (see Appendix). Each text describes a medical case of a patient and his relationship to his family and the medical professionals. The texts were originally selected from the American Journal of Nursing and adjusted so that the two texts would be similar in length and linguistic difficulty. Each text contained 25 words which were identified to be potentially unknown to the participants on the basis of the results of pilot tests. Each of these 25 words was underlined with the L1 translation provided underneath. This type of glossing is commonly



Chapter 5.  Text processing and learning 

used in L2 reading materials and therefore was considered appropriate for the present study. Among the 25 underlined words, 15 words were selected as targets; all the target words were at the 5000-word level or above, listed in Mosby’s Medical and Nursing and/ or Steadman’s Medical Dictionary and considered of educational importance. Among the remaining 10 underlined words five were related to health care and five were not. The text adaptation was made through discussion with a group of applied linguists, EFL instructors, and a native English professor of nursing. The target words and the other unknown words were selected through pilot tests with other groups of EFL learners (including a group of 56 students) whose linguistic competence and educational background were similar to the participants in the present study. The recall test. In the recall test, participants were asked to write down everything that they remembered of the content of the text that they had just read as if to inform someone who had not read the text. In the L1-only condition, they wrote their recall in the L1 (Japanese). In the L1-L2 condition and the L2-only condition, they wrote their recall in the L2 (English). Vocabulary acquisition test. After the recall task, the participants took an unplanned vocabulary test, the purpose of which was to examine their incidental learning of the target words contained in the text. The test consisted of two production and two reception subtests. In the production-in-isolation subtest, participants were asked to write the target word for each L1 translation (i.e., translate from L1 to L2). In the productionin-context subtest, they were asked to complete the target word form given the first syllable of the word provided in its original sentence context. In the form-recognition subtest, they were asked to judge whether or not they thought each of the given words had appeared in the passage they had just read. In the meaning-recognition subtest, they were asked to write in L1 the meaning of each of the given words (i.e., translate from L2 to L1). In addition, they were asked to report whether or not they had known each of the given words prior to the reading. For the production-in-isolation and the two recognition subtests, the 15 target words plus 20 fillers (10 other words from the same passage and 10 words from outside) were presented in a random order.

Procedure After the general purpose and experimental procedures were explained in their L1, the participants signed a consent form and filled out a basic learner-profile questionnaire. First, the participants took the TOEFL (80 min.). Second, they were randomly assigned to one of the three task conditions described earlier and one of the two passages each by receiving an envelope that contained the reading materials. They read a text (12 min.), solved some arithmetic problems (given as a distracter to erase the contents of their short-term memory), and wrote their recall (30 min.). After the recall task, they took a vocabulary acquisition test (20 min.) and then the VLT (25 min.). A total of five meetings were scheduled to accommodate as many students as possible within a two-month period.



Yukie Horiba and Keiko Fukaya

Analysis of data and scoring L2 proficiency and vocabulary knowledge. Responses on the TOEFL-ITP test were scored by the TOEFL office. Responses on the VLT test were scored independently by two judges using predetermined answer keys. Interrater reliability for scoring the VLT responses was 1.00. Recall. Each text was first parsed into statements or events (each statement representing an action, a state, or an event) (Trabasso, Secco, & van den Broek, 1984; Trabasso, van den Broek, & Suh, 1989); 59 and 48 events were identified for the Hope text and the Decision text, respectively. Using this list of events as a template, each recall protocol was scored independently by two judges. Interrater reliability for the scoring of recall was .93; all the discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Vocabulary acquisition. First, “genuine” new words for each participant were identified based on his/her prior-knowledge report as part of the meaning-recognition subtest. Then the number of target words was adjusted for each participant, ranging between 10 and 15 (M = 12.8, SD = 1.6). Individuals had similar numbers of target words regardless of task condition, F(2,69) = .138, p = .87, and to text topic, F(1,69) = 1.918, p = .17. Responses on the two production subtests and the meaning-recognition subtest were scored by awarding one point for a correctly produced word and a half point for a partially correct word. Responses on the form-recognition subtest were scored by subtracting the number of falsely recognized dummy words which were not in the passage from the number of correctly recognized target words. The maximum score for each subtest ranged between 10 and 15 points. All the responses on the vocabulary acquisition test were scored independently by several judges and inter-rater reliability of over .90 was achieved. All the disagreements were resolved by another scoring by one of the raters.

Results Results of the study will be presented for level of language proficiency, recall, and vocabulary acquisition. For both recall and vocabulary acquisition, the main results will be reported first and then the results of an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with task and text as between-subjects factors will be reported.

Overall language proficiency and vocabulary knowledge First of all, the mean and the standard deviation of the percentage scores on the TOEFL were M = 65.7 and S.D. = 7.6. In order to see if the participants were equally distributed across cells, a two-way ANOVA with task and text as between factors was conducted. There were no significant main effects of task, F(2,69) = .449, p = .64, and text,



Chapter 5.  Text processing and learning 

F(1,69) = .187, p = .67. The interaction between task and text was not significant, F(2,69) = 2.351, p = .10. In other words, the students’ levels of language proficiency were not significantly different across the three groupings for task condition and across the two texts. As for the VLT, the mean and the standard deviation were M = 67.5 and S.D. = 14.9. A two-way ANOVA showed similar null results. There were no significant main effects of task, F(2,69) = .601, p = .55, and text, F(1,69) = .032, p = .86. The interaction between text and task was not significant, F(2,69) = 1.311 p = .28. Thus, the participants were equally distributed across task conditions and between texts in terms of overall language proficiency and of vocabulary knowledge. There was a relatively high correlation between TOEFL and VLT, r = .689, p = .0001.

Recall Table 1 shows a summary of the percentage for events recalled for each text by task condition. Overall, those in the L1-only condition performed best, followed by those in the L1-L2 condition, and those in the L2-only condition did poorest. The content of the Decision text was recalled better than that of the Hope text. A two-way ANOVA revealed that task, F(2,69) = 23.710, p = .0001, and text, F(1,69) = 28.438, p = .0001, had a significant effect on recall, and that the effect of the interaction between task and text did not reach a significant level, F(2,69) = 2.594, p = .08. Tukey-Kramer HSD tests (α = .05) conducted for comparison between task conditions indicated that the L1-only condition produced significantly more content information than the L1-L2 condition and the L2-only condition. The difference between the L1-L2 condition and the L2-only condition was not significant.

Vocabulary acquisition Table 2 shows a summary of the total scores on the vocabulary acquisition test by text and task condition. On average, those in the L2-only condition outperformed those in the L1-only condition and the L1-L2 condition. The target words in the Hope text were scored higher than those in the Decision text. A two-way ANOVA revealed that the Table 1.  Percentage of events recalled by text and task condition Task

L1-only L1-L2 L2-only All

the Decision text

the Hope text

Total

n

M (SD)

n

M (SD)

n

M (SD)

11 12 10 33

62.7 (22.9) 38.1 (14.7) 27.0 (15.5) 42.9 (23.0)

13 11 13 37

37.0 (12.5) 16.5 (8.2) 19.5 (7.3) 24.8 (13.2)

24 23 23 70

48.4 (22.0) 27.8 (16.1) 22.8 (11.9) 33.3 (20.5)



Yukie Horiba and Keiko Fukaya

Table 2.  Vocabulary acquisition (total scores) by text and task condition Task

L1-only L1-L2 L2-only All

the Decision text

the Hope text

Total

n

M (SD)

n

M (SD)

n

M (SD)

11 12 10 33

5.1 (2.9) 3.6 (2.1) 6.3 (6.3) 4.9 (4.1)

13 11 13 37

5.9 (4.3) 6.4 (6.5) 10.0 (6.9) 7.5 (6.1)

24 23 23 70

5.5 (3.7) 5.0 (4.8) 8.4 (6.8) 6.3 (5.4)

Table 3.  Vocabulary acquisition (subtest scores) by task condition Task

L1-only L1L2 L2-only All

Productionin-isolation

Productionin-context

Formrecognition

Meaningrecognition

n

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

24 23 23 70

.23 (.47) .26 (.47)   .74 (1.32) .41 (.87)

.44 (.54) .43 (.75)   .87 (1.28) .58 (.92)

3.04 (2.16) 2.83 (2.57) 4.04 (1.94) 3.30 (2.27)

1.81 (1.67) 1.43 (1.91) 2.76 (3.11) 2.00 (2.34)

effect of task, F(2,69) = 2.481, p = .09, and of text, F(1,69) = 2.880, p = .05, approached significance, and the effect of the interaction between task and text was not significant, F(2,69) = 0.496, p = .61. The vocabulary acquisition test consisted of four subtests. A summary of the subtest scores is shown in Table 3. The patterns of the subtest scores were similar across task conditions. Recognition scores were higher than production scores. Regardless of the type of subtest, those in the L2-only condition performed better than those in the L1-only and the L1-L2 conditions. Separate ANOVAs conducted for each subtest showed that there were no significant effects for task.

Discussion The results reported above will be discussed in light of the research questions that guided the study. The first research question asked if there is a significant relationship between task condition and amount of content information recalled of the text. The recall results showed that those in the L1-only condition recalled significantly more content information of their text than those in the L1-L2 and the L2-only conditions. In fact, this effect of task condition on recall was found even when the effects of overall language proficiency and vocabulary knowledge were statistically controlled as



Chapter 5.  Text processing and learning 

covariate. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that these L2 students processed, represented, and recalled their text differently depending on the kind of task instructions they received. During the read-and-recall task, they were given task instructions on two occasions. The first set of instructions was given before reading a text, and the second at the time of recall. How did the two sets of instructions affect their cognitive processes and strategies during the course of encoding textual information into memory and retrieving it for output? Presumably, when students received the first set of task instructions, they set a goal and plans for the read-and-recall procedure. Those who were informed of a later L1-recall task may have focused on the conceptualization of the content of a text, actively utilizing background knowledge and generating knowledge-based inferences, while progressing through the text. Emphasis on conceptual processing would result in stronger textbase and stronger situation model representations. When they received an L1-recall task instruction at the time of recall (i.e., the L1-only condition), students presumably continued executing their plans, retrieving content information of the text from long-term memory. This would explain their superior content recall. In contrast, those in the L2-only condition, who were informed of an L2 recall task, were expected to set a different goal and employ different strategies, compared to those who were informed of a forthcoming L1 recall task. Presumably students in the L2-only condition would have allocated a large portion of their cognitive resources to linguistic processing and hence engaged less actively in conceptual processing while progressing through the text. Their resulting representation of the text would likely be less coherent at the textbase and situation model levels. At the time of recall, they received an instruction to carry out the recall in the L2 and therefore continued following their plans, retrieving text memory for output. This L2 orientation likely was the reasons for poor content recall. As suggested in previous studies (e.g., Donin & Silva, 1993; Lee, 1986), the superiority of the L1-only condition over the L2-only condition in recall might also be explained, at least in part, by the fact that L2 students with limited language proficiency could express what they understood of the text by using L1 much better than by using L2. However, the comparison between the L1-L2 condition and the L2-only condition and between the L1-only condition and the L1-L2 condition in this study suggests that task instructions may have influenced the encoding and construction of representation of the text in memory. Those in the L1-L2 condition, who were told to expect an L1 recall task before reading, likely processed and represented their text in memory in a similar manner to those in the L1-only condition. When they were given the second task instructions (i.e., recall in L2) at the time of recall, they needed to change their plans and strategies to perform the recall task using L2 instead of L1. Assuming that their text memory contained little surface code information, since they had been working towards L1 recall, they therefore likely had to reconstruct L2 forms mostly on the basis of their content information in memory. This reconstruction of the L2 linguistic code would

 Yukie Horiba and Keiko Fukaya

be relatively easy where a stable, coherent (textbase and situation model) representation of the text exists in memory, but it would be more difficult where the representation of the text is underdeveloped. The two narrative texts used in the study differed in terms of comprehension difficulty. Those in the L1-only condition recalled 62.7% of the content information of the Decision text while those in the same condition recalled only 37% of the content of the Hope text. Therefore, for the easier Decision text, those in the L1-L2 condition were able to produce a greater amount of content information from an L1 processing base, even though using L2 in the recall phase, compared to those in the L2-only condition. For the more difficult Hope text, those in the L1-L2 condition could not produce much content information. The second research question asked if there is a significant relationship between task condition and number of new words incidentally acquired from the text. The results of the vocabulary acquisition test showed, descriptively speaking, that those in the L2-only condition performed better than those in the L1-L2 and the L1-only conditions. The effect of task condition on vocabulary acquisition was very close to significance. Although strictly speaking non-significant, this result is worth discussing. First, it appears that those who processed their text with the intention of recalling in L2 and wrote their recall using L2 (i.e., the L2-only condition) may turn out to be in a better position to learn target words than those in other conditions. If this turns out to be the case, it might be because those in the L2-only condition constructed a relatively stronger surface code of the text including the target words. When they produced their recall using L2 words and sentences, the surface code information of the text was reactivated and the opportunities to (re)process the formal information of the words in the text increased. This continued attention to the surface code of the text and increased opportunities to process linguistic (L2) information throughout the read-and-recall procedure may prove to help incidental learning of form and form-meaning relations for the target words. In contrast, students in the L1-only condition and the L1-L2 condition may be emphasizing conceptual processing and allocating fewer resources to linguistic processing during reading. Their resulting representations of the text would then contain little surface code information. Those who recalled in their L1 (i.e., the L1-only condition) did not have the opportunity to (re)process the formal information of the words during recall. Those who were given the opportunity for output or recall in L2 (i.e., the L1-L2 condition) likely found it harder to recover much of the surface linguistic information. This may cause students in the L1-only condition and the L1L2 condition to do poorly on the vocabulary acquisition test. As suggested in prior research, the connection between form and meaning for the new target words may be affected by the amount of elaboration and integration (Barcroft, 2004; Ellis, 1997). The finding in this study that those in the L1-L2 condition did not perform better on vocabulary acquisition than those in the L1-only condition may point to the importance of the encoding stage (over the retrieval/output stage) of text (input) processing for learning.



Chapter 5.  Text processing and learning 

Second, it is possible that the target words were perceived as important by these L2 students regardless of task condition. The target words were all related to health care and presented with the L1 glossing. In each text, there were 25 unfamiliar words with the L1 glossing provided, among which 20 words were related to health care (including 15 target words). It may be that these nursing majors found these health care related words relevant and tried to encode the information of the words in memory, even though they were not told in advance of a vocabulary acquisition test. This would reduce the effect of the task condition. The third research question asked if the same set of task instructions was equally effective for content learning and incidental vocabulary acquisition. The results of recall and vocabulary acquisition tests together suggest that a task condition that facilitates the learning of the content information of a text may turn out to be less effective for incidental acquisition of new words contained in the text. Likewise, a task condition that is more conducive to vocabulary acquisition may not be as effective for the learning of the content of the text. However without a significant result on the vocabulary acquisition test, responses to this question cannot be conclusive. Based on these findings, it is reasonable to consider that there may be some kind of trade-off between conceptual processing and linguistic processing during text processing for these students whose L2 proficiency is limited. As already mentioned, students in the L1-only condition seem to have strategically emphasized the conceptual processing aspect of the text and may (although this has not been shown) have allocated fewer cognitive resources to the linguistic processing aspect during the course of readingand-recalling, resulting in superior content learning and little incidental vocabulary acquisition. In contrast, students in the L2-only condition may have allocated more of their cognitive resources to the linguistic processing aspect of the text during reading and recalling, resulting in poor content learning but performing relatively better on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Thus, different sets of task instructions may have induced different sets of strategic processing, resulting in different learning outcomes between the various conditions. The idea of a trade-off in resource allocation leading to different learning outcomes in the context of this study is in line with cognitive research on text processing and learning, and seems to corroborate the limited-attention model proposed by Skehan (1998, 2009) and task repetition research (Bygate & Samuda, 2005; see also Genc, this volume; Sasayama & Izumi, this volume). How was level of L2 proficiency related to text processing and learning in a particular task condition? Additional analysis indicated that there were reliable, moderate to relatively high correlations between the VLT and recall in all three conditions (r = .42–.61) and between the VLT and vocabulary acquisition scores in the L1-only and the L2-only conditions (r = .52–.53; c.f., the L1-L2 condition, r = .18). Furthermore, there were reliable moderate correlations between recall and vocabulary acquisition in the L2-only condition (r = .43; c.f., the L1-only and the L1-L2 conditions, r = .10, –.18). These correlation results indicate that the effects of L2 proficiency on text processing and learning were not the same across the three conditions. The correlations

 Yukie Horiba and Keiko Fukaya

between recall and vocabulary acquisition for the L2-only condition suggest that those who were more successful in conceptualizing the content of a text, through analysis of the linguistic information presented as text, and in recalling or reconstructing the text (no matter how fragmented it might be) using the L2, had a better chance to develop in their L2 knowledge some new connections for the unfamiliar words contained in the text. On the other hand, the lack of correlations between recall and vocabulary acquisition in the L1-only and the L1-L2 condition, and the lack of correlations between the VLT and vocabulary acquisition in the L1-L2 condition, seemed to suggest that language proficiency is particularly important at the encoding stage of text processing. Further, they may indicate that vocabulary knowledge used when processing a text for comprehension, which should involve knowledge of many words and word relations, may not correspond to the kind of vocabulary knowledge used when performing on the vocabulary acquisition test, the focus of which was on a small number of words contained in the text. Thus, level of language proficiency, in particular vocabulary knowledge, intervened in the effect of task condition on L2 students’ content recall and vocabulary acquisition from the text. The way language proficiency influences L2 students’ text processing and learning seemed to be partly explained by how cognitive resources were allocated under specific task conditions.

Conclusions and implications of the study Based on the results obtained in this study, the following conclusions can be made. First, the cognitive processes and strategies EFL students employ under a particular task condition can affect the recall of content of a text and may affect incidental learning of unfamiliar words contained in the text. Second, a task condition which emphasizes conceptual processing can facilitate content learning, but may not be effective for incidental vocabulary learning. In contrast, a task condition which involves heavy linguistic processing may turn out to be more effective for incidental vocabulary learning than a task condition emphasizing conceptual processing, but may not be beneficial for content learning. Third, the level of language proficiency, in particular vocabulary knowledge, affects students’ processing and learning from the text. Fourth, due to the limitation of the cognitive capacity, it is unlikely that simultaneous learning of content and language from text takes place automatically when limited-L2 proficiency students engage in a read-and-recall task.

Pedagogical implications A number of pedagogical contributions and implications may be drawn based on the findings of the study. The most important contribution of this study is that it sought to explore whether limited L2 proficiency learners can learn both content and language



Chapter 5.  Text processing and learning 

simultaneously in the L2, and how task conditions influence students’ text processing capacity and subsequent learning in an EFL setting within the framework of TBLT. The results of this study suggest that the type of learning from an authentic, professional text written in the L2 is influenced by task instructions and that content learning and language learning may not occur simultaneously in a single task. Task design and implementation, including task instructions, needs to be carefully conceived in terms of goals, input and procedures by taking into account the limitation of cognitive capacity as well as level of L2 proficiency. For content learning, the implication is that teachers could explore ways in which EFL students can be encouraged to conceptualize what is described in a text. For students with limited L2 proficiency, it looks as though the use of their L1 in recalling or retelling of the content of a text can be beneficial. At the same time, vocabulary learning through reading a text is not automatic (Hulstijn et al., 1996). Given the limitation of cognitive capacity, students might benefit from recycling or a cyclical use of reading tasks (c.f., Bygate & Samuda, 2005; Lynch & Maclean, 2000). Through repetition of the read-and-recall activity, students may be better able to identify more ideas and relations in a text, constructing more coherent textbase and situation model representations (Horiba, 1996). Once they have understood what the text is all about, students may be better able to identify specific words used in the text or analyze how ideas or concepts are linguistically presented. Task instructions can be used to guide students’ cognitive processes and strategies to achieve a particular learning goal. Another implication concerns the design of material. It seems that the use of L1 glossing can facilitate EFL students’ text processing and learning (c.f., Hulstijn et al., 1996). In this study, target words in a text – infrequent healthcare related words including technical terms – were underlined with L1 translations provided underneath. This kind of presentation can free L2 students from cognitive overload of word recognition, and make it easier to process the words together with other parts of the sentences containing them and to build representations of the content of the text. Although the number of new words learned was low, as shown in the vocabulary acquisition test scores in this study, there was some evidence of incidental vocabulary learning. If the target words had not been presented without L1 glossing, these students would have been not only unsuccessful in guessing the meaning of the words from context, but also their comprehension and learning from the text would have suffered greatly.

Implications for future research This study raises a number of questions that need to be addressed in future research. First, because students’ cognitive processes and strategies are often influenced by their prior experiences with processing and communicating in L2, it is important to extend the findings obtained here to other EFL or ESL settings, with different levels of language proficiency, and with greater exposure to L2 input and interaction. This is

 Yukie Horiba and Keiko Fukaya

important because this enables us to know whether and in what way the specific setting (EFL or ESL), the proficiency level of the learners, and the amount of exposure to L2 impact the way learners process content and language in L2, and what task conditions can influence students’ processing capacity and subsequent learning. Second, this study examined and compared the effects of three task conditions in which recall task instructions were manipulated. A fourth condition, the L2-L1 format in which individuals are informed of an L2 recall task and later produce their recall in L1, was not used. Inclusion of this fourth condition may help elucidate the effect of task instructions on resource allocation involved in text (or input) processing and retrieval/recall (or output). This awaits further investigation. Finally, the relation between a text (as input) and what is learned through working with the text can be scrutinized by more focused research. For instance, qualitative analysis of the relation between text and recall (or output), the vocabulary learned, and the examination of online processing during the read-and-recall procedure, might shed light on the connection between input, output, and learning.

Acknowledgement The study reported in this chapter was supported by a grant-in-aid for scientific research (B2) No.15320071 from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

References Alexander, P. A., Jetton, T. L., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1996). Interrelationships of knowledge, interest, and recall: Assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 559–575. Barcroft, J. (2004). Theoretical and methodological issues in research on semantic and structural elaboration in lexical acquisition. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, & S. Rott (Eds.), Formmeaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 219–234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. A. (1995). Embedded clause effects on recall: Does high prior knowledge of content domain overcome syntactic complexity in students of Spanish? Modern Language Journal, 79, 491–504. Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. A. (1998). Evidence for mental models: How do prior knowledge, syntactic complexity, and reading topic affect inference generation in a recall task for nonnative readers of Spanish? Modern Language Journal, 82, 176–193. Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.). Researching pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.



Chapter 5.  Text processing and learning  Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chen, Q., & Donin, J. (1997). Discourse processing of first and second language biology texts: Effects of language proficiency and domain-specific knowledge. Modern Language Journal, 81, 209–227. Donin, J., & Silva, M. (1993). The relationship between first- and second-language reading comprehension of occupation-specific texts. Language Learning, 43, 372–401. Ellis, N. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition: Word structure, collocation, word-class, and meaning. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 122–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Greasser, A. C., Gernsbacher, A., & Goldman, S. R. (2003). Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Horiba, Y. (1996). Comprehension processes in L2 reading: Language competence, textual coherence, and inferences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 433–473. Horiba, Y. (2000). Reader control in reading: Effects of language competence, text type, and task. Discourse Processes, 29, 223–267. Hulstijn, J., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. Modern Language Journal, 80, 327–339. Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558. Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168–196. Kim, Y. (2006). Effects of input elaboration on vocabulary acquisition through reading by Korean learners of English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 341–373. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26. Lee, J. F. (1986). On the use of recall tasks to measure L2 reading comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 201–212. Lee, J. W., & Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713–739. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Yukie Horiba and Keiko Fukaya Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221–250. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615–629. McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pulido, D. (2009). How involved are American L2 learners of Spanish in lexical input processing tasks during reading? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 31–58. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–532. Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R., & de Glopper, K. (2003). Inhibition or compensation? A multidimensional comparison of reading processes in Dutch and English. Language Learning, 53, 765–815. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 99–118). New York, NY: Longman. Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439–473. Trabasso, T., Secco, T., & van den Broek, P. W. (1984). Causal cohesion and story coherence. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.). Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 83–111). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Trabasso, T., van den Broek, P., & Suh, S. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in the representation of stories. Discourse Processes, 12, 1–25. Van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Jr., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081–1087. Van Oostendorp, H., & Goldman, S. R. (Eds.) (1999). The construction of mental representations during reading. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Effects of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 920–933. Zwaan, R. A., & Brown, C. M. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation-model construction. Discourse Processes, 21, 289–327. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.



Chapter 5.  Text processing and learning 

Appendix The Decision text is shown below. In the test passages, each target word (*____) or non-target word (____) was underlined with its L1 translation provided underneath. Who Decides the Treatment? Michael Cantos, a 15-year-old who has recurrent *metastatic Ewing *sarcoma, has been hospitalized with fever and *neutropenia, common complications of his recent chemotherapy. Michael lives with his parents, two younger siblings, and his paternal grandmother. His parents and grandmother were born in the Philippines and emigrated to the United States about 30 years ago; all three of the Cantos children were born in this country. When Michael was first diagnosed, he was told that this type of cancer was aggressive and had already spread from the primary site in his *pelvis to his *bronchi and parenchyma. Treatment consisted of surgical *resection, a year of chemotherapy, and six weeks of *radiation. During the past year, whenever Michael asked if the cancer was fatal and what was the mortality rate, the *palliative team members have responded both with veracity and reassurance, declaring, “Some patients die, but we’re all fighting very hard to cure you.” Michael hasn’t forgotten a word. On this admission, a routine chest X-ray reveals a large *lesion in his right lung. Additional X-rays reveal multiple smaller lung lesions and a large pelvic *neoplasm. Just two months earlier his routine *surveillance scans were normal. Now, on learning the results of the chest X-ray, Michael asks if his mother can stay overnight in the hospital with him. Michael also tells his parents that he wants to hear his scan results and treatment options at the same time they do. His parents are shocked. They’d prefer withholding such “dismal news” from Michael, but they agree to honor his wishes. This decision deeply upsets Michael’s grandmother, however, and on their next visit Michael says, “Why does Grandmother always have to pray the rosary over me – doesn’t she know it doesn’t work?” In the team conference, a new registered nurse expresses frustration with the grandmother’s “constant interference”; she says that by praying the rosary over him, the grandmother may be upsetting Michael further. The nurse says she can’t support the grandmother and the boy at the same time, and asks the team for help. The team decides to meet every two weeks, or more often if necessary. The team also schedules a meeting to discuss Michael’s *prognosis and communication within the family. As usual, the patient and his parents are encouraged to bring anyone they want. Michael immediately says that he wants only his parents present, and his parents agree. At the meeting the *pediatric *oncologist initially presents information, with the palliative care nurse practitioner summarizing or restating important points to ensure that everyone understands. Decisions are made by consensus.

chapter 6

Task structure and patterns of interaction What can we learn from observing native speakers performing tasks? James Hobbs

Iwate Medical University, Japan Most EFL learners in Japan have few opportunities to observe native speakers (NSs) performing in task-like scenarios, and consequently struggle to access the lexical phrases and formulaic chunks that facilitate fluent communication in goal-oriented conversation tasks. This often results in the use of the L1 during tasks. This chapter reports the findings of a study of native-speaker task interaction over a range of task types, focusing on the ways in which patterns of interaction are influenced by task design, and showing how recordings of NS task interaction can be used to better equip learners to perform similar tasks without recourse to L1. Findings of the study imply that valuable insights can be obtained by analyzing NS task performance, enabling L2 researchers to obtain a deeper understanding of how task design and task selection can influence interaction. As a consequence, this will enable researchers to make principled recommendations to materials writers, syllabus designers, and classroom teachers for a reasoned TBLT implementation and practice in the classroom regarding issues such as task selection and design, sequencing of tasks, control of task complexity, and identification of task demands.

Introduction For almost three decades an unbroken thread linking varied and sometimes conflicting perspectives on the role of tasks has fed the belief that meaning-focused interaction is a driving force of language acquisition, not simply an end product facilitated by language learning (e.g., Ellis, 2003; Long, 1985; Nunan, 1989, 2004; Prabhu, 1987; Samuda & Bygate, 2008; Willis, 1996). This argument is supported by the evidence that spontaneous, fluent, nativelike discourse consists mostly of chains of multi-word chunks of meaningful language acquired mainly through natural exposure and stored in subconscious memory (Becker, 1975; Lewis, 1993; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992; Pawley &

 James Hobbs

Syder, 1983). If we want learners to produce more language in this way, and become less dependent on paying conscious attention to language form, it seems logical to encourage them to experiment freely with language while performing tasks. Thus, while a focus on specific forms may be embedded in a meaningful task, it is vital that learners’ conscious attention be focused primarily on meaning while performing tasks. Many teachers new to task-based language teaching (TBLT) are unconvinced by this argument, and wonder why it is not better simply to place tasks at the end of a presentation-practice-production (PPP) cycle. If we want a task to elicit a specific structure, they argue, surely it is better to make this explicit and encourage learners to focus conscious attention on using this structure while performing the task. However, to believe this is to miss a fundamental point in the case for TBLT: learners can indeed be frustratingly adept at sidestepping the language forms to which tasks are designed to direct them, but if teachers respond by imposing lexical shackles on them (Say it this way, please!), then they may be diluting the focus on meaning that drives language development, and denying learners valuable opportunities to experiment with alternative language forms. Instead, teachers committed to TBLT should respond by seeking a deeper understanding of how task design influences interaction, and by developing ways to identify the appropriate task language for form-focused instruction. This language should emerge from tasks, not be imposed on them. An approach accessible to individual teachers in local contexts is to observe how native speakers (or advanced nonnative speakers) perform tasks that resemble those to be performed by learners. Hobbs (2005) used this approach to discover that much of the language that supports interaction in opinion-exchange interview tasks consists of interactive lexical phrases: Learners perform better if they can access appropriate fixed and semi-fixed L2 phrases to discuss task procedure (I’ll go first; Shall we start by ... ing...?), agree and disagree (Yeah, right; I’m not sure), give feedback (OK; Really?), and so on. This chapter focuses on a larger study of native speaker (NS) performance on a range of structurally diverse tasks, and addresses three questions that should interest TBLT researchers and practitioners of TBLT: – How do patterns of NS interaction vary between different kinds of tasks? – To what extent can NS use of interactive lexical phrases be predicted on the basis of task design? – How can insights obtained by observing NS interaction be presented to learners to help them improve their own performance on tasks?

Research into task interaction The issue of how task structure influences NS interaction appears to be a largely unexplored area, and analyses of NS task performance are often small-scale investigations by lone teachers in EFL contexts (e.g., Baigent, 2005; Cox, 2005; Hobbs, 2005). This is



Chapter 6.  Task structure and patterns of interaction 

surprising, for if NS norms are to form the basis of what is taught in class, there appear to be significant risks involved in deciding the target language and behaviours for given task scenarios without actually looking at how NSs perform in such situations. Indeed, Cox (2005) found that in the case of open tasks (without a fixed outcome/solution), relatively inexperienced teachers trained in PPP methodology made largely inaccurate predictions about the language used by NSs in a set of tasks. Of course, this is not to deny the equal or perhaps greater importance of understanding the many variables that influence learner output. The heavy focus on learner output in the research literature is understandable, and has generated valuable insights into how learner output is influenced by factors such as task repetition (e.g., Bygate, 2001), planning time (e.g., Foster & Skehan, 1996; Gilabert, 2007), corrective recasts (e.g., Nicholas, Lightbown, & Spada, 2001), and corrective precasts that anticipate learner difficulties before they occur (Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001). Research has also shown that we can influence learner performance in predictable ways by altering task design. For example, Loschky and Bley-Vroman (1993) show that some tasks naturally elicit particular structures, and describe how changes in task design can make particular language more or less likely to appear. Mackey (1999) describes how a series of tasks successfully elicited targeted question forms. Tavakoli and Foster (2008) and Skehan and Foster (1999) show that narrative tasks elicit more fluent and accurate language when incorporating a tighter structure with clear time sequences. Interestingly, related research also shows that this variation in fluency is not seen when native speakers perform such tasks (Foster & Tavakoli, 2009). However, such comparisons of learner output with the performance of native speakers in similar situations are still comparatively rare, and much remains to be done to help researchers and teachers understand not only how task structure and lesson procedures are likely to influence learner output, but also how NS task performance can inform the identification of target language associated with a particular task, and how NS recordings can best be used in class. Practical guides for implementing TBLT encourage teachers to make room in the lesson cycle for examples of native or advanced speakers performing tasks that mirror those that learners will subsequently perform (Nunan, 1989, 2004; Willis, 1996; Willis & Willis, 2007). However, few reports are available of what has actually been discovered by observing NS task performance, and fewer still of how valuable such data can be for teachers in EFL settings. Carter (1998) notes that the language that learners encounter in the classroom often consists largely of contrived dialogues lacking the very features that identify discourse as nativelike. This is a particular concern if learners have few opportunities outside the classroom to compare their own output with that of NSs. However, given evidence that learners notice salient features of transcribed talk even when their attention is not formally directed to them (Takahashi, 2005), it would seem important for teachers to expose learners to examples of NS task performance, not only through pre-task listening, but also in materials for post-task formfocused study.

 James Hobbs

Methodology Context Task interaction between NSs can generate predictable discourse patterns featuring recurring lexical chunks. Previous research (e.g., Hobbs, 2005) showed that questionbased opinion-exchange tasks typically included (1) an opening move (Are you ready?), (2) question markers (Now I’m going to ask you about...), (3) feedback (That’s interesting), (4) a move to return the question (How about you?), (5) pause fillers and vague language (Let me think..., ...or something), and (6) an ending move (Let’s stop there). However, when such tasks were used with low-intermediate Japanese university students, many of these moves were either performed in the L1 or simply omitted. A question about summer holiday plans, for example, was seen by most not as a springboard for discussion, but as a prompt to simply take turns to compose and deliver a grammatically accurate sentence (e.g., I want to go to the beach). Kumaravadivelu (2003) notes how such perceptual mismatches can cause learners to fail to match teachers’ expectations, but perhaps another reason why learners frequently revert to the L1, or avoid particular interactive moves, is that they simply lack the lexical resources needed to perform these moves smoothly in the L2. Hobbs (2005) goes on to describe how this problem was addressed, for these particular opinion-exchange tasks, by using NS recordings in class within the task-based learning (TBL) framework proposed by Willis (1996). In the pre-task, learners answered meaning-focused questions based on an NS recording. After the task, they listened again and studied the transcript, focusing on the use of interactive lexical phrases. After only a few lessons, significant improvements were noted; not only did the learners show more fluent use of lexical phrases, but also the near-elimination of code-switching, and topic development beyond the previously ubiquitous one-sentence answers. While Hobbs (2005) investigated only question-based pair interview tasks, the encouraging results suggested that NS performance on other types of task might also reveal distinct patterns of interaction and lexical choice that could form a basis for classroom instruction. Moreover, these results invite speculation that common features of otherwise distinct tasks might exert a predictable influence on interaction. The current study, larger in scope and scale, sought to investigate these issues using transcripts of NS performance on nine different tasks, seeking connections between task structure, interaction patterns, and lexical phrases associated with specific interactive moves, as well as considering ways to present findings to learners.

Participants Three pairs of NSs of English participated in the present study. Two speakers were resident in Japan. Two others were friends of the researcher in the UK and the USA,



Chapter 6.  Task structure and patterns of interaction 

Table 1.  English native speaker participants

Pair 1 (USA) Pair 2 (UK) Pair 3 (Japan)

Speaker A Speaker B Speaker A Speaker B Speaker A Speaker B

Nationality (Gender)

Age

Language-teaching experience

Experience living in Japan

American (F) American (M) British (M) Irish (F) American (F) American (M)

30s 30s 30s 30s 30s 30s

Yes No No No Yes Yes

Yes No No No Yes Yes

respectively, and each solicited the help of a friend. Finding six volunteers among colleagues in Japan would have been easier, but I wanted to include speakers who were neither language teachers nor were familiar with characteristics of Japanese learners. Participant details are summarized in Table 1. With only six speakers it was clear that it would be difficult to draw firm conclusions about native speaker language, and the sample was certainly too small to investigate variations between different standard varieties of English. It may have been unrealistic to expect the study to do more than simply open up avenues for future research on the issues of how patterns of NS interaction vary between tasks, and the extent to which the use of interactive lexical phrases can be predicted based on task design. However, with regard to the third research question – how insights gained from observing NS task performance can help learners perform better on tasks – the potential was considerably greater. With regard to this third question in particular, the research described here is offered as an example of what is achievable by lone researchers working with limited resources in parts of the world where access to NS volunteers may be limited, and where teaching duties may place significant restrictions on the amount of time that can be devoted to research.

Tasks The three pairs of NSs each performed nine tasks fitting the description of “an activity that requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective” (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001, p. 11). Care was taken not only to include a range of structurally distinct tasks but also to pose a genuine cognitive challenge for NSs, and so to avoid simple tasks that might tempt speakers to consciously act out the roles of imaginary students. As one goal was to compare interaction between different task types, I chose nine tasks based roughly on Prabhu’s (1987) three task categories of reasoning-gap, information-gap, and opinion-gap.

 James Hobbs

1.

Reasoning-gap activities (tasks 1–3): These were “ordering and sorting tasks” (Willis, 1996, p. 26), which involve organizing given information. Task 1 required speakers to arrange historical events in chronological order:

TASK 1: The events below occurred during 1980–89, one for each year. Arrange them in chronological order. A nuclear disaster occurs in Chernobyl, USSR John Lennon is assassinated by Mark David Chapman Michael Jackson releases the album “Thriller” Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives win a third consecutive UK general election The Berlin Wall falls The first compact discs are released Prince Charles marries Diana Spencer Ben Johnson is stripped of Olympic gold after testing positive for steroids Live Aid takes place simultaneously in London and Philadelphia The AIDS virus is discovered (Task created by researcher) Task 2 (from Jones & Kimbrough, 1987, p. 54) gave the statement I don’t understand. Do you speak English? translated into 12 different foreign languages, together with a list of the 12 languages, and asked speakers to match them. Task 3 involved ordering pictures to make a story (Appendix 1). 2. Information-gap activities (tasks 4–6) required speakers to exchange given information. In task 4 speakers took turns defining words: TASK 4: The words below are all connected with health and fitness. Explain each word on your paper to your partner without saying the word. For the spaces in your list listen to your partner’s explanation and guess the word. Student A START: doctor →______→diet→______fever→______→AIDS→______ FINISH←←hangover←←exercise←______←smoking (Student B words: nurse-gym-hospital-vitamins-dentist-aerobics-cigarettes-drugs) (Adapted from Bunday & Randell, 1996, p. 93) In task 5, one speaker saw a 100-word summary of the life of Abraham Lincoln, the other a similar text about John F. Kennedy, and they were asked to identify coincidences and similarities through discussion only, without looking at each other’s text (from Jones & Kimbrough, 1987, p. 7). Task 6 was a picture-based spot the differences



Chapter 6.  Task structure and patterns of interaction 

task (Appendix 2). For all three tasks in this category the term information gap signals a need for the exchange of information between speakers, but it should be noted that Prabhu (1987) uses the term slightly differently to identify tasks in which information is changed from one form to another. 3. Opinion-gap activities, which were all decision-making tasks. These required the exchange of opinions, and had no correct solution. In task 7 speakers discussed the desirability of hypothetical laws: TASK 7: Imagine you have the power to enact the following laws, but only if you both agree. Which laws will/won’t you enact? 1.  Doubling the tax on cigarettes in order to discourage people from smoking. 2.  Doubling the tax on alcohol in order to discourage people from drinking. 3.  Requiring all school students to wear a school uniform. 4.  Raising the driving age to 21 in order to reduce traffic congestion and road accidents. 5.  Legalising the use of marijuana. (Task created by researcher) Tasks 8 and 9 were also created by the researcher. Task 8 asked speakers to discuss the relative merits of printed reference books as compared with reference materials on CD-ROM, and agree on three advantages of each; in task 9 each speaker was asked to suggest three interesting places to visit in his/her country of birth, and the listener in each case then decided which of the suggested places he/she would most like to visit. The similarities between the tasks in each group provided a basis for analysis, but the variety was felt to be sufficient that any common patterns of interaction observed would be significant. For example, task 4 differs in many ways from tasks 5 and 6, so it would be interesting if patterns of interaction reflected the common need to exchange given information. However, it was necessary to record several pairs performing each task in order to confirm that findings did not reflect only the conversational style of a particular speaker. Overall, the project had a 3x3x3 structure: three pairs of speakers, three task categories, three tasks per category.

Data collection procedures The researcher did not attend any recording sessions. Each pair received printed instructions and task papers. They knew that the recordings would be analysed carefully, but knew nothing of the research goals. Each pair recorded their own unrehearsed performance of all nine tasks, in one or more sessions. Although no order was specified, all pairs performed the tasks in order 1–9, each pair taking roughly 60 minutes in total. The recording was then sent to the researcher.

 James Hobbs

Coding and analysis of data The recordings were transcribed by the researcher, yielding a research corpus of some 16,000 words, including all the interaction except for a few utterances that could not be clearly discerned. Analysis was also performed by the researcher, and began with simply browsing transcripts for recurring features in three areas: interactive structure (e.g., initiationresponse-feedback), specific interactive moves (e.g., seeking agreement; commenting on task progress), and lexical choices (e.g., I think...). In some cases, potential areas of interest were decided in advance by intuition and investigated by analyzing transcripts (e.g., in tasks without a fixed order/procedure, how do speakers go about deciding this? In tasks requiring agreement, how is agreement/disagreement expressed? etc.). At other times the researcher simply noticed a word or phrase encountered elsewhere in the transcripts, or recognized a particular interactive move or pattern seen earlier. Where such features were identified, comparisons were made with other pairs and other tasks to determine the degree to which the feature correlated with the task category, as opposed to being associated only with a particular task and/or speaker. Frequency counts (e.g., of specific lexical items) were performed by computer where possible, but analysis of interactive structure was necessarily carried out manually using printouts of transcripts. It did not seem prudent to fix an arbitrary value for a quantitative definition of recurrence, as the items being considered were often quite disparate in nature, with frequency not necessarily the best indicator of significance. For example, a particular interactive move appearing only once in a transcript might nevertheless be significant if also appearing once in several other transcripts for tasks of a similar type, while conversely a specific lexical item encountered 20 or more times might be less interesting if used by only one speaker, and hence clearly not something that could easily be predicted. In short, the aim was not simply to validate or disprove specific predictions, but rather to keep a sharp eye open for any way in which task design appeared to have influenced the interaction, to identify features that offer a basis for predicting performance by other NS on similar tasks, and to consider ways that learners could be exposed to recordings and transcripts of such interaction in order to perform better on their own classroom tasks.

Results Findings of the study are presented by task category, focusing on the most striking features common to tasks within each category, as well as on notable differences that appear related to specific features of individual tasks.



Chapter 6.  Task structure and patterns of interaction 

Reasoning-gap activities (Tasks 1–3) At first glance, transcripts of unplanned NS interaction often appear as a confusing jumble of half sentences, restarts, interruptions and overlaps, and vague language (you know; whatever). For reasons discussed later, this is especially true in the case of decision-making activities (tasks 7–9). For example: Extract 1 (pair 1, task 8) A: you just find what your/what your word is whereas a book you can find. you know. other things. B: it makes you more cur/it makes me more curious. A: yeah. how can we explain that? B: well picture curiosity. A: ok. B: ...if you don’t have a computer. A: it’s.. yeah. B: I mean books will do fine. A: books are/books are/books don’t require. uh. you know. power. or expensive upgrades or whatever. you know. all of that. However, a focus on the overall structure of the interaction often reveals useful insights surprisingly close at hand. This is very evident in the case of the reasoning-gap activities. For example, on beginning task 1 two pairs made strikingly similar pragmatic and linguistic choices: Extract 2 (pair 2, task 1) A: task one..............[comment to tape?/initiating interaction] ok.. shall we put down the ones we know. and then try and take a guess at the others? [suggesting procedure] B: yes. [agreeing] A: um. [pause filling/stalling] well John Lennon was assassinated in nineteen eighty. [suggesting answer] I remember that [reasoning] .......uh [pause filling]. the Berlin Wall fell in nineteen eighty-nine....[suggesting answer] Charles and Di married in. eighty-one? [suggesting answer/seeking agreement] B: yeah. eighty-one. [agreeing] Extract 3 (pair 3, task 1) B: A: B: A: B: A: B:

ok. here we go. [initiating interaction] here we go. [confirming] how do we get started? [asking about task procedure] so let’s start with the ones we know for sure. [suggesting procedure] ok. [agreeing] then we can/the other ones we’ll...guess. [suggesting procedure] ok. [agreeing]

 James Hobbs

A: B: A: A:

so we know that John Lennon was/that was nineteen...eighty. [suggesting answer] ok. nineteen eighty. [agreeing] right.[closing discussion of that item] right. [confirming] and then the Berlin wall that’ll be eighty-nine. [suggesting answer]

Besides recurring lexical items such as the ones we know and guess, we find here we go meaning let’s start; rising intonation used to signal uncertainty and seek agreement (eighty-one?); yeah and ok signalling agreement; ok and right used as discourse markers (ok. here we go; right. and then...); and so on. However, while even the shortest and apparently simplest of extracts can offer useful insights, we must resist the urge to immediately reveal to our students the way to approach a particular task, or the correct phrases to use. As noted earlier, the essence of TBLT lies in not imposing such demands, and moreover a look at how the third NS pair begins this task reveals a quite different approach: Extract 4 (pair 1, task 1) A: in chronological order...oh God!...Live Aid was nineteen eighty-one...I think. ‘cause I remember fully. B: this is eighty-four eighty-five. so Live Aid had to be after that. I think the AIDS virus is first. While even a mere two lines here show pertinent examples of I think used to hedge commitment to an answer, and (be)cause and so signalling reasoning, clearly this extract shows a path of interaction quite different from that followed by pairs 2 and 3. Nevertheless, the full transcripts for this task do reveal a range of interactive moves related to task structure, all of which could be highlighted in post-task language-focus activities: 1. Task organizers, addressing progress and task procedure: So there’s one for each year; What have we got left? etc. 2. Suggesting an answer: (I think) that’s eighty-eight; That was nineteen eighty; That’ll be eighty-four, etc. 3. Seeking agreement: It had to have been eighty-one, right?... That was eighty-six...do you reckon? etc. 4. Agreeing: ok (35 instances), yes/yeah (21), right (5). Significantly, though, the high frequency of one lexical chunk is often due to one speaker or pair. Sometimes this may simply reflect speaker characteristics; for example, there is no obvious reason why 23 of 35 occurrences of ok should have come from pair 3. In other cases, though, task characteristics appear to be a crucial factor. It is probably no coincidence that the use of I think to hedge commitment to answers was most evident with pair 1 (19 occurrences), who found the task more difficult than did other pairs, and achieved the lowest number of correct answers. This is precisely the



Chapter 6.  Task structure and patterns of interaction 

sort of connection between tasks and interaction that a busy teacher selecting a task might fail to anticipate – the harder the task, the more learners will want to hedge their commitment to answers. Some similar patterns appear in task 2, reflecting the shared focus on ordering given information. First, task organizers:

so what are we up to? ([Pair]1[Speaker]B] so we’ve got Danish Greek Finnish and Swahili (2B) we’re left with Swahili Finnish and Greek (2B) where’s the other one then? (2B) we’ll just do the ones we know first (3A) so we’ve got Finnish Greek and Polish. and Swahili (3A) that leaves us with Swahili Finnish and Polish (3A) which leaves...Finnish (3B) etc.

The chunk the ones we know is familiar from task 1, occurring here again in various combinations that can be summarized as follows:

(shall we/we’ll just/let’s) (do/put down/start with) the ones we know

Similarly, we’ve got (left) often appears in comments on progress:

we’ve got (all the ones in the middle/eighty-one/Finnish/Danish/an empty space) what have we got left?

We can also note variations of the verb leave:

that leaves us with Swahili Finnish and Polish which leaves...Finnish we’re left with Swahili Finnish and Greek what have we got left?

Drawing attention to all these possible variations might not be an urgent priority with lower level learners, but more advanced learners could easily expand their own lexical repertoire by analysing such features in transcripts. Turning to instances of suggesting an answer, task 2 shows considerably less variation in the form of the verb be as compared with task 1, and the significant factor seems to be that task 1 focuses on the past. In task 2, 31 of 53 suggested answers are variations of the pattern

(I think) (this/this one/that/German, etc.) is (maybe/probably)....

Resembling task 1 are the many examples of seeking agreement, although expressions range from what do you reckon? to ’that seem right? The transcripts also mirror task 1 in the frequency of yeah/yes, right, and ok used to signal agreement, with agreement often signalled even if not actively sought:

 James Hobbs

Extract 5 (pair 1, task 2) B: this is probably Greek. A: yeah. I think you’re right. it is Greek....Finnish is this one. B: ok. Task 3, with no correct solution, also features task organizers, again seemingly connected with the ordering and sorting requirements of the task:

so we can arrange the pictures first. (1A) you start off with number one and then you can do odd numbers. (2B) shall we do numbering? and then we’ll just ad lib our story as we go along. (3A)

However, other striking features relate to the storytelling element of this task. During the discussion phase all pairs use short, often elliptical, narrative phrases in the present tense, for example:

well I think. they take off. the world explodes. falls to a new planet. meets the guy. they do a/....... (3A)

When speakers present their story at the end, they use complete sentences, but frequent pauses suggest that the cognitive challenge of linking a series of events, and the associated simultaneous focus on meaning and language form, poses a significant challenge even for a native speaker:

and having landed on Saturn...it came across a...two-eyed. four-handed. twolegged...thing called Bob. who wasn’t very happy to see the rocket from Stoke-onTrent. because it had landed in his flower bed. (2A)

Other storytelling language that might deserve post-task attention includes openings (it all started with..., once upon a time), temporal adjuncts (then, as soon as), and comment adjuncts (fortunately, unfortunately). Clearly, then, interaction reflects the ordering and sorting element in the tasks, but in task 3 the elements related to storytelling are more striking.

Information-gap tasks (Tasks 4–6) Tasks 4, 5, and 6 require speakers to exchange given information, but show variety in other respects. Tasks 5 and 6 focus on similarities and differences, unlike task 4; task 6 uses visual stimuli, the other two tasks written information; task 4 has a fixed procedure, while the other two are flexible. Task 4, unsurprisingly, features three-part exchanges – clue, answer, feedback – resembling the initiation-response-feedback (IRF) pattern common in teacher-learner interaction: Extract 6 (pair 3, task 4) A: ...............something that you smoke. [clue]



Chapter 6.  Task structure and patterns of interaction 

B: A: B: A: B:

cigarette? [answer] yes. [feedback] ....................what you have the day after you’ve been drinking too much. [clue] hangover? [answer] yes. [feedback]

While recurring lexical phrases typically reflect the choice of one particular speaker, some patterns recur in task 4 in ways that could be highlighted in post-task activities, as in the following examples:

someone who cures your ailments. (2A) something you get....which makes you come down in a sweat. (2A) something that’s not very good for your health. (2B)

Task 5 reveals a similar IRF interaction pattern: Extract 7 (pair 3, task 5) B: what day of the week was Lincoln killed? A: Friday. B: it was a Friday. that’s the same. However, this could be reduced to a series of two-part statement + feedback exchanges: Extract 8 (pair 2, task 5) B: A: B: A:

they were both presidents. yes. of the United States. that’s very true.

The IRF pattern is again dominant in task 6: Extract 9 (pair 3, task 6) A: and next to that is a flower shop? B: no. it goes café. travel agency. newsstand. A: ok. I have a flower shop. The need to describe a scene naturally results in the pattern there is/are being the most noticeable lexical chunk, appearing some 50 times in the transcripts. Even here, though, there are clear alternatives:

do you have a guy playing a violin? (1B) does your market have the fruit stand outside? (1A) I’ve got a lamp post (1B)

The influence of the need to exchange information is thus clearly evident, but predicting specific lexical chunks is again difficult, and striking features in the transcripts also

 James Hobbs

reflect more specific aspects of each particular task: the need to define words (task 4), compare written facts (task 5), or describe a scene (task 6).

Opinion-gap tasks (Tasks 7–9) The opinion-gap tasks also share features while remaining structurally distinct. Task 7 (proposed legislation) and task 8 (CD-ROMs vs. books) both require agreement, but the latter is less likely to involve disagreement. In task 9 (places to visit) agreement is unnecessary. Unsurprisingly, instances of expressing an opinion and agreeing are common, while vague language and pause fillers to maintain fluency are far more common than in earlier tasks. In opinion-gap tasks we expect to find variations of I think. However, interestingly these appear more in task 7 than in tasks 8 and 9, with 52 instances of I (don’t) think in the task 7 transcripts, but only 8 in task 9 (also compare think used to mark opinions with [especially in task 1] think used to hedge commitment to answers). We also find a rich array of expressions to state opinions in task 7, including I do believe that, I have a feeling that, and I definitely have a negative reaction to, plus discourse organizers that weaken commitment to opinions: some people would maintain that; I guess one of the arguments in favour of...is. The potential for face-threatening disagreements thus appears to have a significant affect on the interaction in task 7. Using entire transcripts to reveal such features to learners can be difficult, but often short extracts can be used to illustrate relevant features. In all three tasks, agreement is signalled by simple utterances such as yes, ok, or right, although that’s true also appears in all three transcripts for task 9 alone, along with phrases such as I agree and that’s a good one. Task 7 shows speakers occasionally choosing more complex patterns such as I don’t have a problem with that, I think we can both go along with that, and that’s exactly what was going through my mind. The use of fluency devices and vague language is striking in the opinion-gap tasks (see Extract 1), but task 3 (picture story) is the only other task in which they are notable. Silence is frequently avoided by false starts, pauses are filled with uh and you know, and vague terms such as whatever and all of that abound. These features appear in all three opinion-gap tasks, and appear to result from the cognitive challenge involved in formulating opinions and simultaneously finding ways to express them. The same double focus of attention is required in task 3 (story task). This contrasts markedly with information-gap tasks, in which speakers need only find ways to express given meanings, leading to a corresponding reduction in the use of pause fillers and vague language. Again, though, trends are clearly not rules, as there are few such examples in the transcripts for pair 2, who seem to pay more conscious attention to their choice of words (which may be connected with nationality, may reflect personal characteristics, or may simply be a subconscious effort to speak correctly while being recorded).



Chapter 6.  Task structure and patterns of interaction 

Discussion and implications Overall, a number of interactional features related to the themes of reasoning, exchanging information, and making decisions can be identified by this study. These include: – task organizers in reasoning tasks that require ordering/sorting; – Initiation-Response-Feedback exchanges in information-gap tasks; – many lexical chunks associated with expressing opinions found in decision-making tasks; – pause fillers, false starts, and vague language in decision-making tasks. However, the study also revealed features unique to each particular task: – A focus on past events (task 1) elicited far more grammatical variety than did a structurally similar task with no time element (task 2). – In ordering and sorting tasks, increased difficulty (i.e., greater uncertainty) correlates with the use of I think to hedge commitment to answers (task 1). – Task 3 (picture story) elicits many lexical patterns associated with storytelling. – In opinion-gap tasks, hedging opinions with variations of I think is common only when there is clear potential for disagreement (task 7). The relationship between task design and patterns of interaction is thus more complex than we might imagine, and even a very close look at the structural details of a particular task may often not put us in a position to make reliable predictions about the lexical choices that task participants will make. Indeed, the data seem to confirm the importance of considering the many different ways speakers can choose to convey similar meanings. Furthermore, as van Lier and Matsuo (2000) note, with nonnative speakers (NNS), the symmetry of learner interaction – turn lengths and the adoption of leader/follower roles – will be influenced by differences in language ability. The current data also show that unless the order of speaking turns is specified (e.g., task 4), then even with NSs it is likely that cooperative tasks will elicit a leader/follower pattern. In task 1, pairs 1 and 2 each have a leader who suggests answers, and a follower who simply agrees or disagrees until the leader has considered all the items. Speakers’ linguistic needs may thus be quite different, even in the same task. Findings of this study show that valuable insights can be obtained by analyzing NS task performance, leading us to question why NSs usually appear in research data only as task interlocutors, such that “it is rather unusual for their own performance to be subject to scrutiny” (Foster & Tavakoli, 2009, p. 867). By the same token, the widespread acceptance of Willis’s (1996, p. 88) claim that learners benefit from listening to NS (or advanced nonnative speakers) performing tasks similar to the ones they perform implies that extracts of NS task performance can make effective teaching materials, and that this is particularly important in EFL contexts. Indeed, data obtained from NS task performance, as was the case in the present study, might enable L2 researchers to obtain a deeper understanding of how task design and task selection can influence

 James Hobbs

interaction, which will enable them to make principled recommendations to materials writers, syllabus designers, and classroom teachers for more successful TBLT implementation and practice in the classroom including the selection, design, and sequencing of tasks, and the structuring of task-based lessons. Above all, learners whose ultimate goal is to perform tasks as a native speaker would perform them need opportunities to listen to and analyse examples of native speakers speaking freely in task-like scenarios.

Classroom applications The question now arises regarding how to present findings from NS recordings to learners in ways that help them improve their own performance on tasks. In this respect, it is relatively easy to isolate relevant features of NS interaction in areas where learners have difficulty. For example, my own Japanese EFL students often neglect to discuss progress and task procedure in English: The Japanese ikimasu, roughly translated as here I go, is common in tasks requiring distinct turn-taking (e.g., task 4), and ordering and sorting tasks often begin with discussion of procedures in the L1 or (if the teacher is listening) with a long silence until someone suggests an answer. Classroom Activity 1, using extracts 2 and 3 discussed above, illustrates one possible way to address this issue. Classroom Activity 1 Listen to the dialogues. In each dialogue: –  Who suggests how to start? a.  the woman b.  the man –  How do they start? a.  They discuss each year in turn: 80, 81, 82, etc. b. They discuss the events in the order listed on the paper. c.  They discuss the ones they are more certain of. Listen again: –  Which phrase do the speakers use to suggest how to start? a.  Let’s... b.  Why don’t we...? c.  Shall we...? Follow-up: Look at the transcript and find the exact phrase each speaker used. Learners need not have performed the exact same task, as an activity like this could benefit learners who have recently performed any task requiring discussion of task procedure. Nor do learners always need printed handouts. In my own teaching context, for instance, factors including class size, student level, and available time affect whether I provide a handout and/or transcripts, write questions on the whiteboard, or simply pose questions orally before playing the extract. Especially in larger classes,



Chapter 6.  Task structure and patterns of interaction 

learners may be surprised, even shocked, to learn just how much they use the L1, and there is much to be gained from allowing learners to compare NS recordings with recordings of their own performance. The benefits can often be significant and almost immediate, as learners reconsider the parameters of task interaction, and realize that a simple ok or a basic follow-up question can be enough to keep the conversation flowing naturally without using the L1. The following excerpt is from an opinion-exchange task involving two learners who only a few lessons before this recording was made had signalled each and every new question with ikimasu and had delivered most feedback comments and follow-up questions in Japanese. S1: Next question. S2: OK. S1: What are your favorite summer activities? S2: ...First exercise. S1: Ah ok. S2: Second...barbeque...three.. third...eeto* ...swimming. S1: Ohhh I like swimming too. S2: Can/can you swim? S1: Yes I can. S2: Great. S1: Thank you...next...Is travelling abroad important to you? *Japanese pause filler My students have benefited greatly from activities focusing on feedback (I see; Right; That’s true, etc.), as their previous learning experiences in teacher-centred classrooms, and their lack of opportunities to use English outside class, make this an aspect of task performance that does not come naturally to them. As noted earlier, the nature of feedback may vary according to the task. For learners struggling to offer much more than ok, yes, and no as feedback in tasks requiring them to compare information, an activity such as Classroom Activity 2 (based on part of one NS pair’s performance on task 5) could be useful. Classroom Activity 2 Listen to the recording, noting how speakers respond when they find similarities. –  Which three phrases from the list below were used? That’s true That’s very true That’s the same That’s exactly the same That’s a good one –  If necessary, listen again and check. –  Follow-up: Think of more ways to give feedback during this task using “That’s.....”

 James Hobbs

Even when learners are accustomed to a particular task type, activities using NS transcripts can encourage them to experiment with alternative expressions. The following extract, used with Classroom Activity 3, could be used to highlight feel/feeling as alternatives to think, while learners might also be able to decipher no brainer from context: Extract 11 (pair 3, task 7) B: number two doubling the tax on alcohol in order to discourage people from drinking......well...it would seem like a no brainer. just to say yes. if you feel like it’s a similar issue. A: is it though? I feel that...no study backs up/my feeling is that cigarettes cause more health problems than drinking. B: uh-hmm.....................for the person who smokes. A: for the person who smokes but then there’s those/those costs are/are built into like the/into the health care system. and non-smokers. that’s why I don’t feel that drinking...necessarily causes the same number of health problems. Classroom Activity 3 Listen to the extract: –  Would the woman like to double the tax on alcohol? Why or why not? After you listen: –  Which word featured four times in statements of opinion? a.  ...think... b.  ...opinion... c.  ...feel/feeling... d.  ...believe/belief... –  Now check what the speakers said in the transcript. –  What do you think ‘(like) a no brainer’ means? a.  difficult b.  obvious c.  stupid d.  unusual Follow-up: –  Do you think the man will agree with the woman? Listen to the next part of the discussion and find out. Again, such an activity need not require a handout, especially if used with small groups of motivated learners.

Limitations and suggestions for further research Clearly, then, there are several ways in which recordings of NS task performance can benefit research on TBLT and be used to assist teachers implementing TBLT in an EFL setting: (a) as a way to test intuitions about the language a task will elicit, (b) as a way to uncover other appropriate task language and identify areas of potential difficulty, and (c) as a source of input for both meaning-focused and form-focused study within



Chapter 6.  Task structure and patterns of interaction 

a TBLT framework. This is especially important in EFL settings, in which the classroom is often the only place where learners can have opportunities to compare their own performance with NS models of the kind they aspire to emulate. However, we cannot make many broad generalizations about native speaker discourse based on the small sample of research participants in the current study, in which factors including age, sex, nationality, professional experience, and personality, as well as a partner’s characteristics, may all have affected speakers’ linguistic choices in ways that were not obvious. Moreover, we have seen that the most striking features of interaction may often relate to factors other than the focus on reasoning, exchanging information, or exchanging opinions. To name some: – Is there only one possible outcome (task 4), or a range of possible outcomes (all other tasks)? – Is the presentation of a solution/result required (task 3)? – Are discrete items handled in a fixed order (tasks 4, 7) or is the order negotiable (tasks 1, 2)? – Do speakers first have to identify the relevant information (tasks 5, 6)? – Is there a correct solution/outcome (tasks 1, 2, 4)? – How tight are instructions? Is there more than one way to structure the task (tasks 3, 5, 6, 8, 9)? Such distinctions could form the basis of further study, and there is nothing to prevent EFL researchers and teachers with limited resources using similar research procedures in a bid to confirm or refute some of the tentative findings presented here. However, there is no guarantee that research would reveal patterns of interaction as clear and predictable as those found in Hobbs (2005), and it remains possible that the interaction elicited by question-based pair interview tasks just happens to be more predictable, both structurally and lexically, than is the case with many other task types. Moreover, the data presented here show that even where particular interactive moves recur, speakers often use a range of phrases to perform the same function, and frequently-occurring items are often short, fixed expressions with limited pedagogic potential. There is nothing wrong with directing attention to short, simple expressions that help keep learners in English (e.g., Let’s start; Here we go), but the main focus of instruction should be on showing learners the range of options available and to allow them to slowly expand their own repertoire of lexical phrases. Teachers who instruct learners to perform tasks by reproducing the exact forms they have just listened to in an NS recording will have completely missed the point of incorporating NS recordings into lessons.

Conclusions TBLT researchers and language professionals seeking connections between task structure and target language can learn much from analyzing NS task performance.

 James Hobbs

Whatever aspects of interaction researchers and teachers investigate, it is likely that, besides developing a deeper understanding of factors that influence interactive structure and lexical choices, they will also find ways to use recordings to benefit learners. Consciousness-raising activities need not necessarily have a tight linguistic focus. If students focus on accuracy to the detriment of fluency (i.e., speaking in complete and accurate sentences, but with many pauses) transcripts can show that disjointed, ungrammatical discourse is commonplace in NS conversation, especially when exchanging opinions (see Extract 1). You can even challenge students to clean up a dialogue by removing false starts and interjections, and rewriting it in complete sentences – not to imply that whole sentences are always preferable, but to draw attention to this oftenoverlooked aspect of NS discourse. Teachers may still complain that NS recordings are too fast for learners, and that interesting features are usually buried deep in discourse which, as a whole, is too complex for learners to process. Such problems can sometimes be mitigated by pairing older speakers with younger ones when collecting data, by recording speakers who do not know each other well, or by recording advanced nonnative speakers. Another option is to re-record an edited version of an authentic transcript to make it more accessible to learners without detracting too much from its authenticity. In these and other ways, teachers sensitive to connections between task design and task interaction can overcome obstacles, and can help learners by presenting examples of task interaction, not only as models to copy, but also more importantly as opportunities to explore the variety of communicative moves that lead to successful interaction, and the range of lexical options available in a given situation. The three classroom activities described above are examples, and this is exactly how writers such as Willis (1996) suggest that recordings and transcripts be presented: after the task, in a way that allows learners to compare their own performance with that of native speakers or more advanced learners. Teachers who can learn what to look for in transcripts of task interaction will be surprised and encouraged by the range of possibilities that emerge for focused classroom activities.

References Baigent, M. (2005). Multi-word chunks in oral tasks. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 157–170). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Becker, J. D. (1975). The phrasal lexicon. In B. L. Nash-Webber & R. Schank (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1975 workshop on theoretical issues in natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics Bunday, D., & Randell, N. (1996). Kick off. Tokyo: MacMillan Languagehouse. Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks – Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.



Chapter 6.  Task structure and patterns of interaction  Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks – Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Carter, R. (1998). Orders of reality: CANCODE, communication and culture. ELT Journal, 52(1), 43–56. Cox, D. (2005). Can we predict language items for open tasks? In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 171–186). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 35(3), 407–32. Foster, P., & Skehan, S. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–324. Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866–896. Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and [± here-and-now]: Effects on L2 oral production. In M. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44–68). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hadfield, J. (1990). Intermediate communication games. Walton-on-Thames, UK: Nelson. Hobbs, J. (2005). Interactive lexical phrases in pair interview tasks. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 143–156). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Jones, L., & Kimbrough, V. (1987). Great ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kay, S. (1997). Move up elementary resource pack. Oxford: Heinemann ELT. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications. Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hylstenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.),Tasks in language learning (pp. 123–163). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study on question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587. Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–58. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). London: Longman. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.

 James Hobbs Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120. Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 90–120. Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–473. van Lier, L., & Matsuo, N. (2000). Varieties of conversational experience: Looking for learning opportunities. Applied Language Learning, 11(2), 265–287. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.



Chapter 6.  Task structure and patterns of interaction 

Appendix 1: Task 3

(Pictures from Hadfield, J. [1990])

 James Hobbs

Appendix 2: Task 6



Chapter 6.  Task structure and patterns of interaction 

(Pictures from Kay, S. [1997])

section ii

Implementation of task-based language teaching

chapter 7

Patterns of corrective feedback in a task-based adult EFL classroom setting in China Noriko Iwashita and Huifang (Lydia) Li The University of Queensland, Australia

This chapter reports on a study that investigated patterns of corrective feedback observed in teacher – student and student – student interaction in a task-based EFL class at a medium-sized university in China. Eight hours of classroom interaction data were analyzed for various types of feedback and uptake. Despite the large class size and the students’ unfamiliarity with a teaching methodology that is very different from the traditional Chinese way of learning and teaching the study found frequent interaction in the classroom characterized by teacher feedback to the students’ non-target-like utterances and students’ response to the feedback. These findings were interpreted in terms of characteristics of task-based interaction observed in the study, the principles or practices of TBLT in the context of the current study, and the factors affecting the classroom interaction. The main implication of this study is that active student participation was enhanced by the students’ willingness to accept new methodologies and modes of learning that are vastly different from their past learning experiences, from their beliefs about learning, and from the traditional methodologies they were accustomed to.

Introduction In response to the initiative taken by the central government of China to revise the existing foreign language curriculum to a more communicatively oriented one, taskbased language teaching (TBLT) has been introduced in many classrooms across the curriculum. Although teachers are aware of the need for the innovation, implementation has not always been successful. For this reason, recent English Language Teaching research in China has mainly been concerned with the factors that hinder the implementation of this new curriculum. However, little research to date has been undertaken in authentic settings to examine and identify the characteristics of actual classroom interaction that may ensure the successful implementation of TBLT and may also enhance L2 development. Within TBLT research generally, a substantial

 Noriko Iwashita and Huifang (Lydia) Li

volume of research has been devoted to corrective feedback episodes in teacher-student and student-student interaction, and some studies have found a facilitative role of certain types of feedback in SLA. Despite the large volume of research of this kind, to date little work has been undertaken in Chinese classrooms where the impact of factors such as context, learner proficiency, and linguistic target on characteristics of interaction are in need of consideration (e.g., Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Oliver & Mackey, 2003; Sheen, 2004). Furthermore, although many studies on corrective feedback in classroom interaction were undertaken in TBLT-oriented classrooms, there is need for sustained attention to the characteristics of interaction associated with task-based instruction. The current study sought to examine how task-based instruction may be facilitative of learning by identifying feedback episodes in teacher – student and student – student interaction in an EFL classroom situation at a university in China.

Communicative, task-based language teaching in China Over the past two decades, English language education in China has witnessed waves of top-down reforms promoting communicative, and more recently, task-based language teaching (Adamson & Morris, 1997; Hu, 2002b; Yu, 2001). Communicative tasks of various kinds have been presented as shaping opportunities for enhancing classroom communication. This can be seen in several widely used textbooks, such as Junior/Senior English for China published by the People’s Press and New College English published in 2008 by the Press of Shanghai Foreign Language Studies (Hu, 2002b; P. Li, 2009). These textbooks include a variety of meaning-focused tasks in the format of listening, speaking, reading, and/or writing activities (Hu, 2002b; P. Li, 2009). Promoting communicative language teaching (CLT) through implementing TBLT has long been discussed in the literature in second language teaching and learning (e.g., Littlewood, 2007; Long, 1985; Nunan, 2004). The key concept of CLT, which has been widely accepted, is that the goal of teaching is to develop learners’ competence in real-life communication. However, interpretations of CLT have varied widely in terms of creating optimal conditions for developing learners’ communicative competence (Hiep, 2007). This is partly because CLT has included a broad range of methods and curricula that “embrace both the goals and the processes of classroom learning, for teaching practice that views competence in terms of social interaction and looks to further language acquisition research to account for its development” (Savignon, 1991, p. 263). TBLT is often regarded as a more thoroughly articulated, recent development within the overall approach of CLT (Littlewood, 2007; Nunan, 2004). Communicative tasks have been claimed to provide opportunities for learners to use the L2 to interpret, express, and negotiate meaning, and therefore constitute a major component of teaching methodology. Further, in TBLT, tasks can constitute syllabus units around which a course may be designed (Nunan, 2004).

Chapter 7.  Patterns of corrective feedback in a task-based adult EFL classroom setting in China 

In spite of the efforts made to promote a communicatively oriented curriculum, the prevalent teaching and learning style in China remains teacher-centred and grammar-focused (Yu, 2001). This is clearly shown in the core intensive reading course taught in most secondary schools and colleges across the country (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996a). In this course, the teacher proceeds sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph in order to explain every likely grammar point or word meaning which may arise. Teachers who are familiar with Western notions of CLT may include some communicative tasks which provide opportunities for negotiation of meaning, but this usually takes a very small portion of class time and is somewhat teacher-directed or teacher-centered (Jin & Cortazzi, 1998). For instance, two students stand in the front of the classroom and one asks the other questions while the rest of the class listens and is seldom engaged in spontaneous communication. Despite the government’s strong advocacy of CLT, teachers have encountered a number of difficulties in the successful implementation of a communicative curriculum. For that reason, ELT research in China has focused primarily on investigating the factors hindering the successful implementation of CLT and/or TBLT in the classroom (Anderson, 1993; Hu, 2002a, 2005a; Liao, 2000; Littlewood, 2007; Yu, 2001). The factors often cited in research and commentaries are large classes, public demand for assessment, the Chinese culture of teaching and learning, and teacher agency. According to Cortazzi and Jin (2001), for instance, class size in primary and high schools in China ranges from 20 to 80 students, with the average being 50 to 60. In a large class, classroom management is difficult too. For example, Ng and Tang (1997) reported on teachers’ complaints about management in a large class as follows: “We have 50 students in a class, and if each student speaks one sentence, it will take up the whole lesson” (p. 77). Similarly, C. Li (2003) identified a teacher’s frustration that students did not value group work without the teacher monitoring them and considered such work a waste of time. The second factor is that China has a long history of public assessment, which can be traced back to the Han Dynasty (206 BC–220 AD). In the modern society of China, several English tests, such as the National Matriculation English Test, the College English Test and the Graduate School Entrance English Examination, play a key part in the pursuit of personal well-being and future employment opportunities. According to Cheng (2008), the high status of English tests does not support teaching but drives it. Furthermore, Littlewood (2007) found that the public assessment system in East Asian countries usually fails to keep pace with curricular innovation. As has been pointed out by English teachers in China, the uniform test, which emphasizes grammar, vocabulary, and reading comprehension, can be an obstacle to the implementation of TBLT (Ng & Tang, 1997). The third factor hindering the successful implementation of a communicatively oriented curriculum is the Chinese culture of teaching and learning. Teaching in China is often interpreted as a process of transmitting knowledge, information or skills from the teacher to the student. Correspondingly, knowledge is for the student to receive

 Noriko Iwashita and Huifang (Lydia) Li

and retain. Therefore, a good teacher is expected to possess a deep knowledge of the subject area and to be able to explain difficult points clearly to students, while a good student is expected to listen carefully to the teacher, take notes to review later, and memorize the knowledge transmitted by the teacher (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996b, 2001; Hu, 2002a; Rao, 1996). For instance, Hu (2002a) argues that the most serious problem hindering the implementation of TBLT may lie in the Chinese culture of learning that is based on deep-rooted perceptions of teaching and learning that clash with the tenets and practices of a communicatively oriented curriculum. That is, while Chinese culture favours the epistemic mode of being mentally active in receiving knowledge, the interactive mode of being verbally active is the crucial part of a communication-based curriculum for English language teaching. Hu argues that, due to these fundamental differences, any pedagogical innovation that disturbs or threatens Chinese learners’ deep-rooted belief systems about learning will not help them learn effectively. The last factor is teacher agency. In the early stages of rebuilding English language education at school, which began after the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1977, the proficiency of English teachers was generally low. Due to the dire lack of English teachers, Russian teachers were recruited to teach English language after receiving in-service training that varied in length from several weeks to several months (Cowan, Light, Mathews, & Tucker, 1979). Over the years, the government has continued to put more effort into providing in-service training programs and revising the curriculum of teacher training courses at universities and teacher training institutions in order to improve teacher proficiency (Hu, 2005a). Although substantial progress has been made, teacher qualification remains a major concern in the promotion of pedagogical innovations such as TBLT. According to Hu (2005b), this is mainly attributed to the pre-service teacher education curriculum. Hu points out critically that theoretical language acquisition courses intended to improve teachers’ English proficiency take up the largest portion of curricular time. The method employed in the majority of these language acquisition courses is teacher-fronted and knowledge-based, which provides few opportunities for the student teachers to develop their communicative competency. The teacher training program itself offers very few opportunities for the student teachers to explore pedagogical and psychological issues in a domain-specific manner. For these multiple reasons, several commentators (e.g., Xiao, 1998; Yu, 2001) have expressed their concern that these student teachers will continue to apply in their future teaching the method with which they themselves were trained.

Task-based interaction in the classroom and SLA A substantial amount of research has investigated task-based interaction in both classroom (observational) and laboratory (experimental) settings focusing on negotiation of meaning and more recently on corrective feedback. This research agenda is largely initiated by classroom researchers, who stress the importance of using tasks to enhance

Chapter 7.  Patterns of corrective feedback in a task-based adult EFL classroom setting in China 

communication in the foreign language curriculum (e.g., Van den Branden et al., 2009; Pica & Doughty, 1985; Pica et al., 1989). In perhaps the first serious claim along these lines, Long and Porter (1985) argued that task-based interaction observed in group work enhances language opportunities and improves the quality of students’ talk. The theoretical foundation of most studies on interaction rests in Long’s (1981, 1983) Interaction Hypothesis. Long proposed that conversational interactions, which occur in a variety of forms as interlocutors respond to their conversational partner’s request for clarification or confirmation, promote L2 learning even though the immediate purpose of such modifications in conversation is to make speech comprehensible. Based on the Interaction Hypothesis, a number of studies have examined which tasks are more likely to generate opportunities for the negotiation of meaning. Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993) classified tasks according to types of goals, and directions of communication. They claimed that closed two-way tasks provide the most opportunities for negotiation. In closed-two way tasks, information flows in two directions as each participant is expected to share the information he/she has and there is only one outcome to complete the task, unlike in open tasks where participants are expected to interact with each other to obtain the necessary information or achieve the outcome. A further finding was that one-way tasks lead to more individual input and much less negotiation work than two-way tasks (Brown & Yule, 1983). More recent studies on task-based interaction have focused on feedback moves arising within the interaction, observed between a teacher or NS and students, or between students. The shift of the research focus was motivated by the increasing criticisms of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis that comprehensible input alone is not sufficient for SLA (e.g., Long, 1991; Swain, 1985). The attention to form needs to be incorporated into meaning-focused activity which is referred as focus on form. Focus on form occurs incidentally in meaning-focused interaction in form of various types of feedback (Long, 1991). This was further articulated in Long’s updated version of the Interaction Hyothesis. Long (1996) stressed the facilitative role of implicit negative feedback in conversational interaction as such feedback draws learners’ attention to mismatches between input and output. Observational studies have examined instances of feedback (e.g., negotiation moves, explicit corrections) given by teachers in classroom interaction and many of the studies have also investigated learner response to the feedback. The findings of these studies show a high frequency of recasts given by teachers (e.g., Ellis, Basturkman & Loewen, 2001, 2002; Lyster, 1998a, 1998b; Lyster & Mori, 2006; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Sheen, 2006; Wei, 2002).1 However, in general, learner responses to recasts were found to be not as frequent as their responses to other conversational moves, such as clarification requests.

1. Definitions and examples of different types of feedback are provided in the methodology section.

 Noriko Iwashita and Huifang (Lydia) Li

The teaching methodology employed in classrooms where these observational studies were conducted was communicative. A variety of communicative tasks, including information gap, jigsaw, discussion, were used based on the assumption that taskbased conversation provides interaction. Although the recent studies above revealed characteristics of task-based interaction and the utility of various types of feedback for L2 development, compared with studies conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s the recent studies, while investigating opportunities for negotiated interaction, make little mention of tasks and task types. It appears that the recent studies have been undertaken with the underlying assumption that communicative tasks generate opportunities for interaction in which various types of feedback are frequently provided. Apart from the observational studies cited above, a number of factors which may affect the occurrence of feedback during task-based interaction have also been studied: classroom vs. dyads (Oliver, 2000); EFL in Japan and immersion in Canada (Lyster & Mori, 2006); French immersion program in Canada vs. a language school in New Zealand (NZ) vs. a large EFL classroom in Korea (Sheen, 2004); and learner factors such as teaching context, interactional focus (Oliver & Mackey, 2003) and linguistic target (e.g., Lyster, 1998a, 1998b). Sheen (2004) analysed the interaction in an EFL classroom in Korea and compared the results reported in previous studies (i.e., Loewen, 2005; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002) in four settings, that is, French immersion in the earlier study, ESL in Canada, ESL in New Zealand, and EFL in Korea. The results showed that recasts were the most frequent feedback type in all of the four contexts, but significant variations among the four settings were observed. Interpreting the results, Sheen (2004) suggested that the influence of context (e.g., meaningfocused or form-focused, class size, course content) on corrective feedback and uptake should be considered. Additionally, though, it should be noted that Sheen does not mention how contextual variables in terms of use of tasks might have impacted on the nature of the interaction.

The study In summary, TBLT has been introduced as a way of implementing CLT principles in many EFL classes in China, despite strong resistance from teachers. Also, because of the difficulties teachers face in implementing a more communicatively oriented approach, most existing research has been about identifying the issues that hinder successful curriculum innovation rather than evaluating the newly introduced curriculum. To date, little research is available documenting the classroom implementation or effectiveness of CLT/TBLT. Within TBLT research, one approach to investigating interaction is to examine various types of corrective feedback episodes in teacher-student and student-student interaction. Despite a substantial volume of related research in the field, few studies have been conducted in China. Nevertheless, recent research (e.g., Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Sheen, 2004) has shown the importance of contextual variables in the

Chapter 7.  Patterns of corrective feedback in a task-based adult EFL classroom setting in China 

investigation of the nature of classroom interaction. Hence the present study was undertaken to fill the gap in the research of teacher – student and student – student interaction in a Chinese EFL TBLT class. Based on these considerations, the following research question was addressed in this study: What are the patterns of corrective feedback in teacher-student and student – student interactions in a TBLT university class setting in China? Underpinning this research question is the fact that, despite a growing awareness of the need to enhance learners’ communicative competence among English language teachers in China, because of the difficulties teachers have encountered in implementing CLT/TBLT, interaction between teacher and students may not be frequent, even in a TBLT class. For that reason, the current study collected data from a TBLT classroom and examined the instances of corrective feedback and response to the feedback in order to establish whether and in what ways these teacher – student and student – student interaction patterns were consistent with the basic tenets of TBLT. As such, the study was expected to provide empirical evidence of the challenges raised by the implementation of TBLT in China, and provide concrete suggestions on how to meet these challenges.

Methodology Participants Fifty students participated in this study. They were first-year students majoring in the English language. The participants had commenced university studies just before the data were collected. Their age ranged from 17 to 19 years old. The ratio of females to males was 4:1. The students had studied English for six years at middle school, where they had received a one-hour lesson every day and a one-hour reading lesson (during which students read aloud in order to practise pronunciation by memorizing words and reciting a text) two or three times a week. As Hu (2003, 2005b) explains, EFL teaching and learning in undeveloped regions2 of China is more traditional in terms of curriculum and pedagogical practices. This was obviously the case for a majority of the students in the current study. Because they were from remote areas of the province where the university was located, they had benefited little from recent developments and innovations in English language teaching led by the government’s initiative in the middle school English curriculum. According to a substantial number of the students in the study, English lessons in the middle school were taught in Chinese and were mostly teacher-centred, with a heavy focus on grammar, vocabulary, and reading. 2. The developed regions are the coastal provinces and the capital cities of the inland provinces. Examples of such cities are Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. The rest of the provinces and cities are regarded as undeveloped regions. The university where the current study was conducted is located in an undeveloped region.

 Noriko Iwashita and Huifang (Lydia) Li

The teacher of the class involved in this study (henceforth referred to as Debbie) was born in Romania. Debbie had obtained an undergraduate degree in French and English language in her home country and a Master’s degree in TESOL in the USA. According to colleagues, her English proficiency was considered to be near-native. She had been teaching for one year in the university at the time of data collection. Her classes were chosen as a research site based on the class size (i.e., a typical Chinese English language class of approximately 50 students) and her view of teaching and training. Informal conversations with her revealed her belief that language learning was for real-life communication and her strong support for a task-based approach to teaching. This belief, Debbie said, had made her use a variety of communicative tasks in her oral lessons that she developed from various resources, as there was no need for her to follow a prescribed syllabus. In addition, she had no objections to having her classes video-taped for the purposes of this study.

Instructional setting The class observed for the study was taking an oral English course offered as part of a four-year teacher training program in the English department of this medium-sized university north-west of Beijing. Although the university was established to provide preservice teacher training for middle schools across the country, the curriculum was focused strongly on English language courses. Therefore, the program included only a few courses that introduced basic knowledge of education, psychology, and second language acquisition. Hu (2005c) points out that the curriculum for the teacher training program in China has a heavy focus on language skills and knowledge. The courses in the first two years are designed to enhance basic language skills, including intensive and extensive reading, listening, grammar, and oral English. The subjects in the last two years of the program focus on imparting specialized knowledge of English as a language and as a carrier of cultural information. Topics treated in such courses can be related to lexicon, textual stylistics, literature, and cultural knowledge about the USA and the UK. Even with the Chinese government’s advocacy of a communication and TBLT oriented curriculum, it is difficult to evaluate how closely the courses offered by the university’s English department adhere to the basic principles of TBLT, apart from the fact that the department uses the most current CLT-based textbook. For example, from 1999 to 2003, the department used New College English (Zhejiang University Press) in its intensive reading course. In the textbook, the reading lessons had pre-reading tasks, during-reading tasks, and post-reading tasks. However, as few teachers understood the rationale for this lesson design, most reverted to the traditional method of intensive reading prevalent in most classes. Although most English courses offered at the research site followed a teacher-centered design, a practice identified by many researchers (e.g., Rao, 1996; Xiao, 1998; Yu, 2001), the oral English course was a possible exception: there was a chance that it would adopt TBLT methodology. It was usual at the university for native or near-native speakers to teach the oral English course.

Chapter 7.  Patterns of corrective feedback in a task-based adult EFL classroom setting in China 

Furthermore, no textbook was prescribed, and the teacher was able to plan the lessons and develop most of the class materials herself. The activities the teacher designed in the current study included debates, role plays, and chain story-telling.

Data collection and coding In order to investigate how the teacher and students interacted in a TBLT class, eight hours of oral interaction lessons in total were video-taped by the second investigator over a four-week period (i.e., two hours per week). Just before the recording, students were informed by the teacher about the data collection. The video-taped lessons were transcribed by two research assistants and checked again by the second investigator. Building on empirical studies on classroom interaction (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Sheen, 2004), error treatment episodes were identified and coded using the coding taxonomy developed by Lyster and Ranta (1997). Error treatment episodes identified in many observational studies cited earlier and in the current study incidentally occurred during meaning-focused interaction, and are fundamentally different from error correction observed in teacher-centered classrooms. That is, quite distinct from classrooms following a structure-based syllabus, this type of error treatment episode does not occur unless students participate in communication activities. Although there are many other ways to document classroom interaction, in this study we focus on corrective feedback episodes as feedback that occurred incidentally during meaning-focused interaction to draw learners’ attention to communicatively important forms, the basic claim being that these episode have been found to be facilitative of L2 development (e.g., Lyster, 2004).

An episode of error treatment An episode begins with a learner’s non-target-like utterance, which is addressed by a type of feedback, and ends with a change in topic focus, either back to the meaning or to another linguistic form (Ellis et al., 2001). In practice, an episode of error treatment consisted of a non-target-like utterance by a student, the feedback from the teacher or peer student, and a response by the student or topic continuation. Sometimes there were several turns of teacher feedback and student response until the episode ended, as shown in Example 1 below. Example 1: T: S: T: S: S: T: S:

Do your parents have fun? Yeah. What do they do? Chat. Play card. Play what. Chest.

 Noriko Iwashita and Huifang (Lydia) Li

T: This is chest. S: Chess. T: Chess, chess. In this episode, the teacher was trying to find out what the students’ parents did in their leisure time. In response to the question, two students answered ‘chat’ and ‘play card’. However, the pronunciation of the word in the second student’s answer was not clear and the teacher asked for clarification. In response to the teacher’s request for clarification, the student was finally able to say the word ‘chess’, pronouncing the word in a way that the teacher was able to comprehend.

Definitions of feedback types Five types of feedback can be identified in episodes of error treatment: explicit correction, teacher recast, student recast, clarification request (CR), and elicitation. Definitions of these types are provided below and are derived from previous studies (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Sheen, 2004). Illustrative examples are taken from the data from the current study. Explicit correction refers to feedback that indicates clearly to the interacting student which error is being corrected. It may or may not contain a correct form, as in Example 2. Example 2: S: Some people say that if you eat out, it suggests that you are not full, the host is not, hospi, er, er. T: Hospitable, hospitality. Hospitality is the noun, hospitable is the adjective. Recasts are reformulations of the whole or part of the learner’s erroneous utterance, but without changing its meaning (Long & Robinson, 1998). In the present study, recasts were distinguished according to the feedback provider. Thus, if the reformulation was made by a peer, it was labelled as student recast, but if it was produced by the teachers, it was labelled as teacher recast, as in Examples 3 and 4, respectively. Example 3: →

T: S 1: S 2: T:

What? Fruit. Fruits. Anything else?

Example 4: My brother is forty; he’s married with two shilderen.3



S:

3.

Pronunciation of the word ‘children’ was not correct.

Chapter 7.  Patterns of corrective feedback in a task-based adult EFL classroom setting in China 

→ T: S:

Children Children.

Clarification requests are phrases such as ‘Sorry’ and ‘I beg your pardon’ that indicate to the student that his/her message has been misunderstood or that the utterance was incomprehensible in some way, as in Example 5. Example 5: →

S: T: S: Ss: T: Ss: T:

Is it well-known? [Pronunciation error] er? Well-known? [Pronunciation error] Well-known. Very what? Well-known. Ah, well-known, famous.

Finally, elicitation contains direct questions such as ‘Can you say that again?’, or repeating the learner’s previous utterance up to the error and waiting for the learner to supply the correct form, as in Example 6. Example 6: S: yesterday we have a basketball match. T: yesterday we S: we had, yesterday we had a basketball match, but we couldn’t win, so it made me sad T: ok, good, it made me sad.

Definition of types of uptake Uptake refers to a student’s verbal reaction to the feedback (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Based on the transcripts, five types of uptake were identified in the data: no chance, ignore (no uptake), acknowledgement, successful uptake, and unsuccessful uptake. No chance means the learner was not given a chance to show uptake, as in Example 7. Example 7: S: Knock the door when coming. T: Knock at the door. Knock at the door before you come in. Something else. Think of your daily life, what things happen, and you think they are wrong because of the bad manner to other people. S: Help stranger. Ignore (no uptake) means that the learner does not show any response to the feedback, as in Example 8.

 Noriko Iwashita and Huifang (Lydia) Li

Example 8: S: she wears jeans. T: a pair of jeans yah and a red... S: she wears red. Acknowledgement means that the learner responds with a simple ‘yes’, for instance, as in Example 9. Example 9: S: T: → S:

because, er. Because everybody else would do it. Yeah.

Successful uptake means that the learner incorporates the linguistic information into his/her subsequent production. Unsuccessful uptake refers to the learner’s failure to incorporate, fully or partially, into his/her production the linguistic information that the feedback was intended to address. It is different from acknowledge, ignore, and no chance in that the learner makes an attempt to modify his/her initial utterance or repeat the teacher feedback. Successful and unsuccessful uptakes were observed in the form of repetition or modification. Repetition is a response in which the learner repeats the utterance in the form of a recast. Modification means that a learner modifies his/ her initial utterance in response to the teacher’s feedback. Examples of successful and unsuccessful uptake are given below. Example 10: Successful uptake – Repetition S: T: → S:

Sometimes that our students leader will keep the will keep the, er. Order. Order.

Example 11: Successful uptake – Modification T: → S: T:

Very what. well known. Ah, well known, ah, famous.

Example 12: Unsuccessful uptake – Repetition S: → T: S:

Uncon, er. Unconditionally, unconditionally. Uncon, er.

Data analysis All transcribed data were imported into the CHILDES program (MacWhinney, 1999) and then coded according to the framework of feedback and uptake types illustrated

Chapter 7.  Patterns of corrective feedback in a task-based adult EFL classroom setting in China 

above. The frequency of occurrence of each type of feedback and uptake was calculated; further details are provided in the results section.

Results To answer the research question about the patterns of corrective feedback in a TBLT classroom in a Chinese educational setting, the eight hours of recorded data were transcribed using standard orthography, and coded according to the feedback-and-response framework illustrated above.

Frequency of feedback Table 1 summarizes the frequency of feedback supplied by the teacher and the students. The results show that more than half of the feedback consisted of recasts (60.87%), followed by clarification requests (13.04%), and elicitations (10.63%). These results reveal that error correction episodes occurred quite frequently in this setting. Indeed, the results suggest that there were approximately 26 error correction episodes per hour, or one every two minutes (480 minutes divided by 207 error correction episodes).

Frequency of feedback according to linguistic category Table 2 summarizes the frequency of the feedback devoted given to different types of linguistic errors. Nearly half of the teacher recasts (56 instances, 44.4%) followed an instance of non-target-like pronunciation, followed by errors related to vocabulary (39 instances, 31%). A similar trend was observed for student recasts. However, the majority of clarification requests (CR) were placed in the category Other (i.e., not specific to any of the linguistic types listed here). Table 1.  Frequency and type of feedback

Explicit correction Recasts Student recasts Clarification requests Elicitation Total

Frequency

%

Frequency per hour

  16 126   16   27   22 207

   7.73   60.87    7.73   13.04   10.63 100.00

2 15.75 2   3.38   2.75 25.88

 Noriko Iwashita and Huifang (Lydia) Li

Table 2.  Frequency and type of feedback according to linguistic category

Explicit correction (%) Teacher Recasts (%) Student recasts (%) Clarification requests (CR) (%) Elicitation (%) Total (%)

Syntax

Morph

Pron

Vocab

Other

Total

1 6.25 5 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.5 7 3.4

2 12.5 21 16.7 2 12.5 3 11.1 8 36.4 36 17.4

1 6.25 56 44.4 7 43.8 9 33.3 2 9.1 75 36.2

12 75 39 31.0 7 43.8 0 0.0 9 40.9 67 32.4

0 0 5 4.0 0 0.0 15 55.6 2 9.1 22 10.6

  16 100 126 100   16 100   27 100   22 100 207 100

Responses to feedback Learners’ responses to the feedback are summarized in Table 3 below. Approximately half of the instances of feedback were responded to with repetitions (62 instances, 29.95%) or modifications (77 instances, 37.2%). It should be noted that students did not have a chance to respond to approximately 20% of the feedback, as the teacher went on after providing the feedback. Repetition and modification responses were further classified into two types (successful or unsuccessful). More than 80% of the repetition responses (52 instances) and more than 70% of the modifications were successful. Table 3.  Frequency and type of responses to feedback Frequency Repetition Successful repetition Unsuccessful repetition Modification Successful modification Unsuccessful modification Ignore No chance Total

%

62

29.95 52 10

77

37.20 55 22

21 47 207

10.14 22.71 100.00

Chapter 7.  Patterns of corrective feedback in a task-based adult EFL classroom setting in China 

In summary, substantial feedback instances (207 cases) were identified during the eight hours of authentic classroom task-based interaction video-recorded for this study. Of the 207 instances, more than half were recasts. A small amount of feedback was supplied by students to other students. While recasts and elicitation were produced mainly in response to utterances that contained non-target-like pronunciation, approximately half of the clarification requests were produced in response to utterances which contained non-target-like features other than syntax, morphology, pronunciation, and vocabulary. Students responded to many instances of teacher feedback by repeating the feedback or modifying their initial utterance. Approximately 50% of the responses to feedback were successful repetitions or modifications of recasts.

Discussion The current study investigated the patterns of corrective feedback in a large, task-based oral English class at a medium sized university in China. As reported in the previous section, the findings of frequent teacher and student interaction characterized by a substantial amount of recast feedback and students’ response to the feedback were rather unexpected, due to the students’ reluctance to participate in whole class discussion and also due to the large class size. Nevertheless, the findings provide further support for the findings of previous empirical research on corrective feedback in classroom interaction (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Loewen, 2004; Sheen, 2004). In this section, these results will be discussed further by referring to characteristics of task-based interaction, the principles or practices of TBLT in the context of the current study, and the factors affecting the classroom interaction.

Characteristics of task-based interaction in the current study As was reported in the results section, a substantial amount of feedback, in particular recasts, was observed in the teacher – student and student – student task-based interaction. These findings were a surprise, considering the large class size and the students’ reluctance to speak, two factors which have been found to hinder the implementation of TBLT (Hu, 2005a). In order to examine closely the characteristics of the interaction observed in the current study, we first compared the results of the current study with the interaction in the four studies reported in Sheen (2004). The contexts of all five studies are very different (see Table 4). In particular, the class size in the current study is much larger than any of the others. The L1 of the participants in the current study is homogeneous like in the Korean research site in Sheen (2004), but while the research site in the Korean study was a private language school where highly motivated learners attended classes to improve their communication skills, the students in the current study were following the course as a requirement of their English language major within the teacher training program. Nevertheless, the activities that Sheen (2004)

 Noriko Iwashita and Huifang (Lydia) Li

Table 4.  Learner background in the four studies in Sheen (2004) and the current study Length of recording hours

Class size (n)

age

18.3 10 12 12  8

24–30 25 12 4–6 50

  9–10 17–55 18–21 29–36 17–19

Canada Immersion Canada ESL NZ ESL Korea EFL China EFL

reported the learners to be engaged in were similar, such as role plays, oral interaction tasks, and comprehension activities. The total number of feedback tokens given by the students in the current study is smaller than in the two Canadian studies, but larger than in the studies conducted in Korea and New Zealand. Because of the different total number of hours of recording, the data reported in Sheen (2004) also calculated the occurrences of feedback given per hour and the frequency of recast feedback (the results are summarized in Table 5). In the EFL class in China, the third largest number of feedback token was given, following the immersion class and EFL class in Canada. The remaining two classes (i.e., NZ ESL and Korea) received similar amounts of feedback. The percentage of recasts given in the Chinese EFL class is smaller than that observed in the classrooms in Korea and New Zealand, but slightly larger than in the immersion and ESL classrooms in Canada. In both those settings, recasts were the most frequently given feedback. Sheen (2004) explains these results by referring to the Korean teacher’s strong emphasis on fluency over accuracy and the advantage of recasts in maintaining the flow of communication in the interview conducted after the data collection. This might be the case also for the current study. In particular, we found that a large amount of feedback (approximately 36%) was given to non-target-like pronunciation. Recasts may be a particularly user-friendly way of providing pronunciation feedback. Table 5.  Frequency of feedback in the current study and the four studies reported in Sheen (2004) Feedback Total Canadian Immersion Canada ESL NZ ESL Korea EFL China EFL

686 412 189 186 207

Recasts Per hour 37.49 41.20 15.75 15.50 25.88

375 (54.7%) 226 (54.9%) 129 (68.3%) 154 (82.3%) 126 (56.8%)

Note. The total amount of feedback includes the instances of recasts (both teacher and students), elicitation, clarification requests and explicit correction.

Chapter 7.  Patterns of corrective feedback in a task-based adult EFL classroom setting in China 

Table 6.  Leaner uptake in the four studies in Sheen (2004) and the current study No

Immersion   (%) Canada ESL   (%) NZ ESL   (%) Korea EFL   (%) China   (%)

Uptake

No uptake

total

376   54.8 192   46.6 152   80.4 153   82.3 107   76.98

310 45.2 220 53.4 37 19.6 33 17.7 32 23.02

686 100 412 100 189 100 186 100 107 100

As for learner uptake, the comparison with the results in Sheen (2004) is summarized in Table 6. As in the frequency of recasts, the proportion of uptake is larger than in the studies conducted in Canada, but smaller than in the Korean and NZ studies. Sheen (2004) explains the higher rate of uptake found in the Korean and NZ studies compared with the studies conducted in Canada by the years of formal instruction which resulted in the likelihood of students’ attending to the teacher feedback. Also, more form-focused recasts were provided to the students in the NZ and Korean studies. This might be the case for the current study too, as all participants had studied English for several years before they began their university study. This is illustrated in Example 13 below. The feedback is focused on pronunciation and the meaning of the word. In the example, the student is not able to pronounce the word ‘unconditionally’ correctly. Debbie, the teacher, provides the correct pronunciation with a recast, but does not give an opportunity for the student to repeat. Instead, she explains the meaning. Example 13 S: Uncon, er T: Unconditionally, do you know. Unconditionally, like friends will say I give you this, but you must give me something else. But your parents will give you this without expecting something else in return, right? As shown in the example below, teacher recasts were followed by unsuccessful uptake of the elicitation feedback in the previous turn. In Example 14, Debbie provides elicitation in the first turn following the student utterance in which the plural morpheme ‘s’ is missing. However, the student does not successfully modify her initial utterance, but repeats the word without the ‘s’, to which Debbie provides recasts.

 Noriko Iwashita and Huifang (Lydia) Li

Example 14 S: T: S: T: S: S: T: S:

yes, I have to learn many course many. (Elicitation) course. courses. courses. courses, I can’t stand some boy always tell lies. telling lies I have a habit of drinking a lot of, a lot of

As Sheen showed in her interpretation of the recasts observed in her data, the feedback provided in the above episodes was explicit. Recasts were often given in a single word utterance with emphasis, which might have contributed to a high rate of uptake as found in Sheen (2004). In interpreting the findings in the context of task-based language teaching, it is important to mention that Debbie’s interaction with her students during the two-hour classes was characterized by a continuum from focus-on-forms, to focus-on-meaning, and focus-on-form. For example, in one of the classes, where she used three tasks, she began with a reading-aloud activity. While the students were reading the text aloud, she corrected their pronunciation while walking around the room. This was followed by her brief explanation of food items and questions to check the students’ comprehension. Before students introduced themselves, she provided 15 basic sentence patterns such as ‘I’m worried about’, ‘I don’t believe in’, and ‘I’m good at’. In these phases of the class, Debbie’s focus was heavily on forms and her approach was far from taskbased, where meaning is primarily focused on communication. However, when students talked about their own family, Debbie’s focus was primarily on meaning, as she asked contingent questions in order for the students to elaborate on the topic, as shown in Example 15 below. Example 15 S: In my father’s family tree, grandpa, grandma.... T: What’s their name? S: My grandpa is ‘Wang Meiqiu’, my grandpa is ... Sorry I don’t know Class: (all laugh) T: You don’t know your grandparents’ names? C: Yeah, yeah T: (to the class) You also don’t know? C: Yeah, Although the focus of the conversation is on meaning, it is questionable whether this kind of activity is qualified as a task, considering the definitions of task in the literature (e.g., Long, 1985).

Chapter 7.  Patterns of corrective feedback in a task-based adult EFL classroom setting in China 

The last part of the class was group work. Students in each group performed a role play before the whole class. The scenario was that Jessica, a 17-year-old girl, finds herself pregnant and is afraid to tell her parents, but Jessica’s parents learn of her pregnancy through her good friend. The group had to simulate a conversation between Jessica and her parents about the pregnancy. Unlike the earlier phase of the class, the focus was primarily on meaning, and shifts to focus-on-form whenever Debbie draws the learners’ attention to the form through recasts, clarification requests, and elicitation. As reported in the results section, frequent interaction was observed when students carried out a role-play and talked about their family with Debbie. From the perspective of TBLT, in the first two phases of the class, where students read the text aloud and Debbie corrected their pronunciation and provided some example sentences for the next phase, it is debatable that such content could be considered task-based. Considering Long’s (1985) definition that a task is, more or less, the things people do in everyday life, such as buying shoes and writing cheques, reading a text for pronunciation correction may not have a relationship to the real world. However, the reading for comprehension represented real-life to an extent, for instance reading the newspaper for understanding. As Littlewood (2004) suggests, it may not always be easy to identify a task with the definition of a focus on meaning. He elaborates that there is not a dichotomy but a continuum along which students may operate, with differing focus on forms and meaning. Furthermore, as suggested by Samuda and Bygate (2008), referring to Bygate (2000) and Shehadeh (2005), Debbie’s use of tasks in her oral English course appears to be closer to task-supported learning and teaching than to task-based learning and teaching. That is, tasks are not exclusively central for learning and teaching, but are meaning-focused activities used for a broad range of purposes, including providing practice, developing fluency, and raising awareness of specific language features (Samuda & Bygate, 2008).

Factors affecting frequent classroom interaction As discussed in the previous section, in China the factors hindering the successful implementation of TBLT that researchers have identified (e.g., Anderson, 1993; Hu 2002a; 2005a; Liao, 2000; Littlewood, 2007; Yu, 2001), such as large class size, and the Chinese culture of teaching and learning in which teachers are characterized as the authority, were also observed in the classroom where the data were collected. Contrary to our expectation, however, it appeared that the considerable amount of interaction measured with frequency of corrective feedback and students’ response to the feedback was not affected by those hindering factors. While other classes at the same university followed the traditional teacher-centred and grammar-focused method, the frequent interaction observed in the oral English class could be attributed to Debbie’s belief in communicative teaching, the positive relationship with her students observed by the researchers, and the subject domain. This suggests that the students were capable of responding to alternative modes of classroom interaction.

 Noriko Iwashita and Huifang (Lydia) Li

The teacher, Debbie, expressed a strong belief that language should be learned through communication. Her belief stemmed from her postgraduate training in the USA, as she explained in the informal interview with the second investigator. She employed TBLT in her oral class and included a variety of tasks, such as information gap discussions and debates on topics chosen for classroom discussion, and interaction. Furthermore, she was open to sharing her belief with her students and encouraged the students’ active participation in classroom interaction, as the second investigator observed in Debbie’s informal interaction outside class. These factors may have contributed to the students’ participation in the classroom interaction observed in the current study. Furthermore, the teacher’s choice of tasks was based on the relevance of the tasks to the students’ lives, such as debating whether college students in China should have a boy/girl friend. The teacher believed also that relevant tasks were easier for the students to do. Lastly, the teacher’s rapport with her students was further illustrated by her social interaction with them outside class time, which included playing Chinese checkers during breaks, for instance. Many students expressed very positive attitudes towards Debbie, noting that they did not feel inhibited from making mistakes in her class. Even if she was respected as a teacher, it appeared that they saw her as a friend. Partly, this may have been the result of the non-threatening, face-saving and non-intrusive way in which she corrected errors, that is, primarily through recasting. The frequent teacher – student and student – student task-based interaction observed in this oral English class may have been attributable also to the subject factor. Pica (2002) found relatively few instances of modified interaction in an investigation of the interaction patterns in several English L2 classes studying thematic units on film and literature. As Cortazzi and Jin (1996b) commented, Chinese students, being influenced by the Chinese culture of learning, tend to enjoy passive learning. This seemed to be true of the intensive reading course and other subjects, but the students in our study welcomed a non-Chinese near-native speaker of English to teach oral English. This may suggest that Chinese students’ perceptions of how language should be learned may differ depending on the focus of study. They may be able to accept a communicative way of learning in the oral English course, leading to more active participation in classroom interaction than in other types of class. However, as the present study did not collect the students’ perceptions, what is discussed here has to remain speculation. Nevertheless, the main implication is that these findings strongly suggest that EFL Chinese students are capable of and willing to respond positively to an alternative mode of classroom methodology, including a task-based approach.

Conclusion and implications of the study The current study investigated how students and teacher interacted with one another focusing on corrective feedback episodes in a task-based oral English class in a

Chapter 7.  Patterns of corrective feedback in a task-based adult EFL classroom setting in China 

medium-sized university in China. Despite the large class size and the students’ unfamiliarity with the teaching method, which is very different from the traditional Chinese way of learning and teaching, active participation in the interaction characterized by the students’ and frequent teacher feedback to the students’ non-target-like utterances was observed. Furthermore, many instances of feedback were found to be recasts, to which students responded successfully. There were also instances of recasts given by peers. These unexpected results were first examined in light of characteristics of the interaction and then further discussed in light of the classroom teacher’s strong belief in teaching and her rapport with the students. Furthermore, although frequent teacher – student and student – student interaction was observed, the content of the class was characterized as ‘task-supported’ rather than ‘task-based’, in that the communicative tasks were introduced to promote interaction but were not treated entirely as units of the syllabus. Nevertheless, the results provide further support for the findings of the empirical research on corrective feedback in classroom interaction (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002; Loewen, 2004; Sheen, 2004) and also for a number of pedagogical implications, including classroom management and task selection. Frequent teacher-student and student-student interaction, despite supposed differences in learning deep-rooted in Chinese culture, may be attributed to the good student – teacher relationship. The teacher chose activities to which students were able to relate easily, and her rapport with the students encouraged them to participate without worrying about making mistakes. It seems that the teacher’s familiarity with communication-based methods and also her stress on establishing a good class relationship were the main driving force for the successful implementation of a communicative curriculum. These aspects or skills could be taught more generally through pre-service and in-service training. The main implication of this study is that, even in large classes and despite these Chinese EFL students’ unfamiliarity with a novel teaching method and their traditional views of teaching and learning, the implementation of TBLT appears to be feasible as evidenced by the frequent and abundant teacher – student and student – student interaction observed in this classroom. As a consequence, we believe that appropriate in-service and pre-service teacher training may help develop teachers’ understanding and appreciation of the potential of TBLT and ways of applying it successfully in similar settings in China or elsewhere. Nevertheless, the challenge remains for instructors in teacher training to consider ways to move on from a task-supported learning mode observed in the current study to full implementation of TBLT. In addition, we believe that establishing a good teacher – student relationship is another factor that enhances students’ participation in the interaction, and helps to shift their beliefs about teaching and learning from traditional, teacher-fronted methodologies to more student-activating, task-based principles. The active student participation found in this study was enhanced by these Chinese students’ willingness to accept methodologies

 Noriko Iwashita and Huifang (Lydia) Li

and modes of learning that are different from their past learning experience, their beliefs about learning, and the traditional methodologies they were accustomed to.

Limitations and suggestions for further research There are a number of limitations to the study. First, the current study was a one-off case study that explored teacher – student and student-student interaction in one EFL classroom in China in terms of patterns of corrective feedback, making the findings difficult to generalize from. It was also a context where the teacher was familiar with TBLT methodology, even a strong supporter of it, and had a good relationship with her students. We recognize that this might not be the case in other educational contexts. Second, our interpretation of the findings was based on the analysis of recorded data. We reported on the teacher’s perceptions of teaching based on one of the investigator’s (Li’s) informal interviews with the teacher to provide further interpretation of the data. Similarly, we observed that the students’ attitudes towards the teacher and their class were positive, but we did not collect data on students’ perceptions. Surveying teachers’ and students’ perceptions in addition to collecting classroom data may provide a deeper insight into the dynamics of the classroom interactions and the factors that lead to the successful implementation of TBLT, or the lack of it. Third, we analyzed the data following the methods employed in earlier studies (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Sheen, 2004) which focused exclusively on specific types of feedback and uptake. Although the results of the analysis illustrate how the teacher and students interacted in a large class in terms of occurrence of feedback and response to the feedback, we acknowledge that there are other aspects of interactions which potentially enhance L2 development as well (see Samuda & Bygate, 2008). Lastly, although the teaching method used in the research site was task-based, a close examination of the data showed that the methodology employed in the course seemed more ‘task-supported’ than ‘task-based’ (Bygate, 2000; Ellis, 2000). In order to evaluate how effectively the TBLT curriculum is being implemented in Chinese classrooms and the extent to which students are benefiting from the new curriculum, close evaluation of the methodology and tasks, in addition to examining aspects of classroom interaction, is crucial.

References Adamson, B., & Morris, P. (1997). The English curriculum in the People’s Republic of China. Comparative Education Review, 41(1), 3–26. Anderson, J. (1993). Is a communicative approach practical for teaching English in China? Pros and cons. System, 21(4), 471–480.

Chapter 7.  Patterns of corrective feedback in a task-based adult EFL classroom setting in China  Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language: An approach based on the analysis of conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bygate, M. (2000). Introduction to special issue: Tasks in language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 185–192. Cheng, L. (2008). The key to success: English language testing in China. Language Testing, 25(1), 15–37. Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996a). English teaching and learning in China. Language Teaching, 29, 61–80. Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996b). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (2001). Large classes in China: ‘Good’ teachers and interaction. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 115–134). Hong Kong and Camberwell, Australia: Comparative Education Research Centre, Australian Council for Educational Research. Cowan, J. R., Light, R. L., Mathews, B. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1979). English teaching in China: A recent survey. TESOL Quarterly, 13(4), 465–482. Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, (special issue, Tasks in Language Pedagogy) 4(3), 193–220. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicate ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus on form. System, 30, 419–432. Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575–600. English Major Syllabus in Higher Education. (2000). Retrieved 6th January 6th, 2010 from http://www.bfsu.edu.cn/chinese/site/gxyyzyxxw/zywj/tyyjxdg.htm. Hiep, P. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 67(3), 193–201. Hu, G. (2002a). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93–105. Hu, G. (2002b). Recent important developments in secondary English-language teaching in the People’s Republic of China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(1), 30–49. Hu, G. (2003). English language teaching in China: Regional differences and contributing factors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24(4), 290–318. Hu, G. (2005a). ‘CLT is best for China’: An untenable absolutist claim. ELT Journal, 59(1), 65–68. Hu, G. (2005b). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 635–660. Hu, G. (2005c). English language education in China: Policies, progress, and problems. Language Policy, 4, 5–24. Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). Dimensions of dialogue: Large classes in China. Interactional Journal of Educational Research, 29, 739–761. Li, C. (2003). A study of in-service teachers’ beliefs, difficulties and problems in current teacher development programs. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies, 7, 64–85. Li, P. (2009). The analysis of instructional design from a task-based language teaching mode. Journal of Hubei TV University, 29(12), 142–143.

 Noriko Iwashita and Huifang (Lydia) Li Liao, X. (2000). How communicative language teaching became acceptable in secondary schools in China. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(10). Retrieved 30th October 2009 from http://iteslj. org/indexPrev00.html. Littlewood, W. T. (2004). Task-based approach: some questions and suggestions. English Language Teaching Journal, 58(4), 319–326. Littlewood, W. T. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243–249. Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386 . Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second-language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–278. Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141. Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language training. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie (ed.), Handbook of language acquisition: Second language acquisition (vol. 2, pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207 – 228. Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyster, R. (1998a). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–92. Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183–218. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction .Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432 . Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. MacWhinney, B. (1999). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ng, C., & Tang, E. (1997). Teachers’ needs in the process of EFL reform in China: A report from Shanghai. Perspective, 9, 63–85. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pair-work. Language Learning, 50(1), 119–151. Oliver, R., & Mackey A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 519–533.

Chapter 7.  Patterns of corrective feedback in a task-based adult EFL classroom setting in China  Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595. Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19. Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: a comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 115–132). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(1), 63–90. Pica, T., Kanagy R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication Tasks for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Rao, Z. (1996). Reconciling communicative approaches to the teaching of English with traditional Chinese methods. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(4), 458–471. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 261–277. Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263–300. Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392. Shehadeh, A. (2005). Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 13–30). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave McMillan. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowly, MA: Newbury House. Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. M. (Eds.) (2009). Task-Based Language Teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wei, M. (2002). Recasts, noticing, and error types: Japanese learners’ perception of corrective feedback. Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language, 5, 24–41. Xiao, A. (1998). An academic or a more practical approach. Forum, 36(2), 28. Yu, L. (2001). Communicative language teaching in China: Progress and resistance. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 194–198.

chapter 8

Incidental learner-generated focus on form in a task-based EFL classroom Paul J. Moore

University of Wollongong, Australia This small longitudinal study investigated oral task-based interaction in an undergraduate EFL classroom in Japan. First, descriptive quantitative data related to language-related episodes (LREs) and other contextual data from four focal learners and their partners (N = 8) in two oral presentation tasks were quantified to provide insights into the amount and effectiveness of learner-generated focus on form in a Japanese university context. Next, a qualitative microanalysis of one learner’s interaction with partners of similar proficiency on two similar tasks, separated by a period of seven months, was conducted to investigate influences of context. Much as in previous studies, there was little focus on form in interaction and there was much variability across dyads. Qualitative analysis revealed that the effectiveness of FOF in interaction and performance may have been influenced by the learners’ shared background (including L1 use), individual differences in terms of engagement in LREs, learners’ perceptions of each other’s language proficiency, and other interpersonally negotiated features of the interaction. The chapter concludes with suggestions for awareness-raising activities which may improve the effectiveness of task-based learner-generated FOF in foreign language settings.

Introduction This chapter reports on a study into the incidence and effectiveness of learner-generated focus on form (FOF) in task-based learner-learner discourse in an English-as-aforeign-language (EFL) classroom in Japan. This includes a microanalysis of one learner’s task-based interaction and performance over time and across partners, highlighting individual and dialogically negotiated features which may influence the effectiveness of incidental learner-generated FOF in EFL contexts. Focus on form (FOF), initially defined as “[overtly drawing] students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning” (Long, 1991, p. 46), is a major pedagogic principle in task-based language teaching (TBLT; cf. Long 2007, p. 122). This is evidenced by its prominence in SLA

 Paul J. Moore

research from cognitive processing and sociocultural perspectives, and the several volumes dedicated to its investigation and application (e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 2001; Fotos & Nassaji, 2007; cf. also Mackey, 2007). The ability of learners to provide each other with corrective feedback, or to collaboratively create new learning opportunities (e.g., Donato, 1994; Storch, 2002; Swain & Lapkin, 1998) in task-based interaction also features prominently in this research. A major unit of analysis in research into task-based learner-learner discourse is the language-related episode (LRE),1 defined most succinctly by Swain & Lapkin (1998) as “any part of a dialogue where the students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others” (p. 326).

Incidental learner-generated focus on form Although it has been found that learners can provide each other with corrective feedback (e.g., Fujii & Mackey, 2009; Zhao & Bitchener, 2007), and that learner-learner (L-L) dialogue can result in more uptake (immediate responses to feedback; cf. Lyster & Ranta, 1997) than teacher-learner (T-L; Ellis et al., 2001) dialogue, only a small number of classroom studies into FOF have investigated L-L dialogue in detail. Seedhouse (2001) drew on conversation analysis (CA) theory and an analysis of 330 lessons from various sources to contrast interactional feedback given by teachers to that given by other learners. CA theory (e.g., Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1977) holds that, because of considerations of face, when conversational trouble arises, repair is achieved via a series of preferential methods, starting with self-initiated selfrepair (where an individual notes an error in his/her own output and self-corrects), followed by self-initiated other-repair (where an individual notes an error in his/her own output and elicits correction from an interlocutor), other-initiated self-repair (where an interlocutor highlights an error in an individual’s output and the individual self-corrects), and finally other-initiated other-repair (where an interlocutor notes and corrects an individual’s error; see Storch (2001) and Mennim (2005) for related analyses of LRE initiation and resolution in FOF editing/revision tasks). Seedhouse found that teachers often provide overt and direct positive evaluation when learners produce correct responses, but avoid overt, explicit, direct negative evaluation when learners produce incorrect responses. He argues that, while teachers are trying to create an environment where errors are seen as a positive part of learning, avoidance of use of the word ‘no’ sends “the interactional message that making errors is an embarrassing, face-threatening matter” (p. 368). He cites survey research of students’ attitudes, which 1. Ellis and his colleagues (e.g., Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2001) use the term form-focused episodes (FFEs), defining them as “very similar to ‘language related episodes’ except that they include occasions when the teacher directed attention to form either pre-emptively or reactively” (Ellis, 2008: 831).



Chapter 8.  Incidental learner-generated focus on form in a task-based EFL classroom 

finds that learners want precisely the kind of feedback that teachers are not giving them, and that learners do provide each other with direct negative feedback. Williams (1999) investigated spontaneous learner-generated focus on form in sixty-five hours of adult ESL classroom interaction data and reported the following results: – learners initiated LREs, but not very often; – use of LREs increased significantly with proficiency; – the most prevalent (by far) type of LRE was requests to the teacher, though this decreased with increases in proficiency; – grammar-focused tasks resulted in the most LREs and free conversation the least; – lexically-oriented LREs accounted for 80% of the total LREs, regardless of proficiency. Interviews with the learners revealed the perception that they were either ‘told to’ or ‘supposed to’ focus on form in one activity and fluency in another, though there was no overt direction from the teacher to do so. Like Seedhouse, Williams argues that learners “come to this perception as a result of more subtle cues” (p. 616). She adds that learners’ perceptions of the goal of an activity guide their focus. In conclusion, she argues that, given learners’ natural bias towards focus on vocabulary and that they “do not spontaneously attend to formal aspects of language very frequently or consistently across activities” (p. 619), the responsibility for encouraging focus on other aspects on form lies with the teacher, though it is unclear whether explicit or implicit teacher intervention will enable learners to focus more effectively on form. Zhao and Bitchener (2007) compared form-focused episodes (FFEs; see note 1) in teacher-learner (T-L) and learner-learner (L-L) interaction in unfocused information exchange tasks, in adult migrant ESL classes in New Zealand. They found that learners were far more likely to initiate pre-emptive FOF (where no production problem had occurred) in L-L interaction than in whole-class situations, noting that learners may be reluctant to show a lack of understanding in the latter setting. Confirming findings from previous studies (e.g., Ellis et al. 2001), they found that recasts were the most common form of corrective feedback used by teachers (33% of FFEs), followed closely by explicit corrective feedback (30% of FFEs). They also found similar results for learners, in that explicit feedback (34%) was most common, followed by recasts (28%). In addition, for both groups the majority of FFEs were lexical, and there were similar amounts of successful uptake. One major difference was that L-L interaction included FFEs with no feedback (11.8%) and incorrect feedback (4.9%, with 2% involving uptake). Zhao and Bitchener balanced this against the findings that there was more uptake in L-L (72.3%) than in T-L interactions (54.4%), and that incorrect feedback was negligible in L-L interactions, much as in earlier studies (e.g., Pica & Doughty, 1985).

 Paul J. Moore

Research in foreign language contexts While research in foreign language contexts aims to extend the findings of FOF research in SLA, there are several distinguishing features of such research. In addition to those outlined by Shehadeh (this volume), learners (and teachers) may be resistant to FOF activities for social reasons (e.g., social relationships between partners; Philp, Walter & Basturkmen, 2010), cultural reasons (e.g., face considerations; Fujii & Mackey, 2009), or curriculum policy-related reasons (e.g., curriculum focus on explicit grammar teaching; McDonough, 2004). In addition, where learners have a shared L1, this may play a more prominent role in their classroom interaction (e.g., Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Moore, in press), as they may be more likely to draw on their L1 for metalinguistic talk, for example. In a study into learner-learner interaction in a Thai university EFL classroom, McDonough (2004) investigated whether interaction on tasks focusing learners on real and unreal conditional clauses improved learner production on immediate and delayed post-tests. After separating learners into high- and low-participation groups based on the number of negative feedback and modified output ‘episodes’, she found that learners in the high-participation group showed significant improvement on both conditionals in immediate post-tests and on the delayed post-test for real conditionals, while the low-participation learners only showed improvement on the immediate post-test for unreal conditionals. In interviews with learners, she found that they placed little value on feedback from other learners, and that they felt they required explicit grammar instruction for upcoming examinations. Similar responses were received from teachers, highlighting a common issue in EFL curricula in Asia: Washback from formal written examinations can detract from a focus on language for oral communication. Philp et al. (2010) investigated environmental and social influences on incidental focus on form in a foreign-language French classroom in New Zealand. Seven of 31 students in an intact classroom were observed, recorded and interviewed as they performed eight unfocused tasks over three weeks. Thirty-three (mostly lexical) LREs occurred in the data, and one third of these involved the use of the learners’ L1. In primed interviews, learners mentioned several social reasons for not focusing on form. These included: relationships between partners (feelings of awkwardness were reported between some partners); learners’ perceptions of partners’ comparative language proficiency, or their own ability to provide corrective feedback; learners’ framing of the task (not wanting to interrupt ‘the game’ of role plays [p. 275]); and learners’ perceptions of the teacher’s expectations. Finally, Fujii and Mackey (2009) investigated interactional feedback in unfocused tasks in a university-based EFL classroom in Japan (N = 18). In the study, feedback followed only 6.5% of non-target-like turns, though learners did modify their output in response to feedback, which mainly included clarification requests and confirmation checks. The latter provided rich positive evidence, in that they included paraphrases and summaries of the problematic turns. They also found that recasts provided



Chapter 8.  Incidental learner-generated focus on form in a task-based EFL classroom 

by learners were problematic in that they provide only “partially more target-like reformulations” (p. 283). With regard to the low incidence of feedback, the authors suggest that the learners may have avoided feedback because of their shared cultural background, including avoidance of potential face-threatening acts. They also state that the learners may neither have noticed errors, nor been of a level of proficiency to provide effective feedback. Finally, the authors found several instances where LREs involving collaborative non-target-like resolutions appeared to lead to so-called ‘mislearning’ on post-tests. They conclude that more research is needed into individual differences in abilities and preferences with regard to feedback, as well as “the perceived ‘authority’ of the feedback provider” (p. 293).

Sociocognitive influences on FOF Research from a sociocultural perspective has linked the effectiveness of LREs to the existence of mutually supportive task-focused relationships developed between learners in interaction. Such interaction may involve a variety of pedagogic moves, including scaffolding (Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976) where a more competent peer supports a less competent peer, or collective scaffolding (Donato, 1994; cf. also Storch, 2002; Swain & Lapkin, 1998) where learners provide mutual support. Forms focused on in collective scaffolding are hypothesised to create new knowledge for all participants. Intersubjectivity, or the ongoing dialogic negotiation of partially shared perspectives and goals (e.g., Wells, 1998), is another important construct, linking the social and the cognitive in task-based activity, as evidenced by learners’ engagement with each other (e.g., through such phenomena as overlapping speech and backchanneling; cf. Brooks & Donato, 1994; Storch, 2002) and engagement with the task. Evidence of intersubjectivity (see below) has been linked with successful task completion (Brooks & Donato, 1994), as well transfer of knowledge in LREs (Storch, 2002). The negotiation of task control (Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Storch, 2002) is also important, as dominant-passive dyads may generate fewer opportunities for negotiation and incorporation of new forms than dyads where both learners contribute equally to the task (Storch, 2002). This research has found that a mixture of high levels of intersubjectivity, as well as shared scaffolding opportunities and shared task control to be most effective in creating learning opportunities, in terms of the number, and effectiveness of LREs. In summary, though the classroom is the main source of learning for learners in foreign language settings, the majority of research into FOF in task-based interaction has been carried out in second language settings (Fujii & Mackey, 2009).2 The above research has identified challenges to the implementation of FOF in foreign language classrooms, including influences of students’ shared cultural and linguistic backgrounds, as well as situational and interpersonal features of the interaction on the 2. See Sato (2011: 11–13) for an interesting discussion of the use of the terms ‘foreign’ and ‘second’ language contexts in SLA research.

 Paul J. Moore

effectiveness of FOF. It has also identified links between sociocognitive aspects of interaction, including intersubjectivity, task control and pedagogic roles, and the effectiveness of FOF. The current study aims to add to the small, but growing number of studies into focus on form in task-based learner-learner interaction in EFL contexts. While this type of qualitative research into incidental focus on form is less common than the more analytic approaches taken above, Ellis (2010) notes the “obvious merit in more holistic, qualitative approaches that document the situated nature of [corrective feedback] and the complex discoursal events where learning takes place” (p. 346).

The study As part of a larger longitudinal study in the context of a Japanese undergraduate EFL classroom, this study investigated focus on form generated by learners in pair work leading up to the performance of oral presentation tasks. The research questions for the study were: 1. To what extent do learners focus on form? 2. What links are there between language-related episodes (LREs) in interaction and subsequent individual task performance? 3. To what extent, if any, might contextual sociocognitive features of the interaction influence the amount and effectiveness of LREs?

Context and participants The study was undertaken in the Faculty of Humanities in a university in Japan. The second-year Oral Presentation class met once a week for 25 weeks over two semesters for 1.5 hours per week. Eight students participated in the study (six male and two female; aged 19 to 33). Most learners’ English language proficiency fell within the intermediate range which the class was designed for (TOEFL 450–480) with the exception of two learners: one (Yasuko) whose proficiency was below this range and one (Mina) whose proficiency was above.3

Data collection and analysis Data for this study came from the interaction surrounding two oral presentation tasks, performed seven months apart: Oral Presentation 1 (OP1) and OP3.4 OP1 was a 3. On a mock abridged version of the TOEIC test, Yasuko scored 15 and Mina scored 67 out of a possible 100, while other participants scored between 38 and 51. 4. Another task, OP2 (held in weeks 17–18), was excluded from the study as OP1 and OP3 provided substantial comparative data and there was a need to balance data collection requirements against the workloads of the study’s participants.



Chapter 8.  Incidental learner-generated focus on form in a task-based EFL classroom 

ten-minute (maximum) biographical presentation. Later presentations involved more freedom with regard to topic choice, and were also progressively longer, with the final presentation being from 15 to 20 minutes’ duration. Topics chosen for OP1 ranged from historical (President John F. Kennedy; Helen Keller) to more contemporary figures (John Lydon; Mariah Carey); while OP3 involved a broad range of topics (e.g., history of boxing; slow and fast food). Interaction, performance and reflection data were collected for OP1 and OP3. Interaction data were collected in the classroom using small analogue tape recorders in weeks 4 and 5 (OP1) and weeks 19–21 (OP3). In weeks 6 (OP1) and 22 (OP3) each dyad practised their oral presentations in front of one or two other dyads. These presentations were audio-recorded in three adjoining classrooms. Directly after recording their OP3 peer-practice (week 22) learners listened to their recordings to identify errors in grammar, lexis and pronunciation, in an adaptation of an FOF task described by Mennim (2003). Oral presentations were recorded on both video and audiotape during weeks 7–8 (OP1) and week 24 (OP3). Written self-evaluations were a part of the pedagogic approach in the course, and they were designed to gain insights into the learners’ experience of the task-based interaction with their partners and peers, as well as their awareness of their own language performance. Data analysis for the larger study involved both descriptive statistical analysis and qualitative analysis of case studies. The first stage involved categorising, coding and descriptive quantitative analysis of the interaction data (22 transcripts in total) according to the emergent focus of learners, classified as procedural (e.g., talk about how to complete the task), content-creation (talk about content matter that will comprise the oral presentation) and off-task (talk unrelated to the task at hand), paralleling de Guerrero & Villamil’s (1994) categories of about-task, on-task and off task interaction. Inter-rater agreement on a sample of seven transcripts was 82%. The current study draws on data from eight of the original 12 participants, comprising four focal learners and their interlocutors, as they had the best attendance, and therefore the most complete data sets. The four focal learners (Keita [male, intermediate, 19], Mina [female, upper intermediate, late 20s], Yasuko [female, upper-elementary/lower-intermediate, 33] and Taro [male, intermediate, 19]) were chosen for comparative analysis as they represented the maximum range of language proficiency, age, learners from both sexes, as well as the maximum amount of available interaction data. Their interlocutors (see Table 1 below) were Nao (male, intermediate, 20), Ken (male, intermediate, 23), Daito (male, intermediate, 21) and Tomo (male, intermediate, 19). First, descriptive quantitative analysis of the four focal learners and their interlocutors is presented, in terms of counts of LREs in interaction, counts of LRE forms used in oral presentation tasks, and supporting contextual data related to share of talkin-interaction and use of L1. This is followed by an in-depth quantitative and qualitative analysis of one learner’s (Keita’s) interaction and performance with two interlocutors, Nao, in OP1, and Ken, in OP3. Keita was chosen as both of his interlocutors were of a similar proficiency and both had known him for the same length of time prior to

 Paul J. Moore

joining the class. Qualitative data included interaction transcripts, as well as reflection and observation data; these were analysed to investigate the influence of sociocognitive features of the interaction on the amount and effectiveness of LREs. The analysis draws on previous analyses of intersubjectivity, pedagogic roles and task control (e.g, Donato, 1988; Storch 2001). Evidence of intersubjectivity (or ‘mutuality’, summarised by Storch, 2001) may include repetitions (though not exclusively, cf. Extracts 1 and 2 below), requests, collaborative completions, phatic utterances (‘um’, ‘ah’, etc.) used in backchanneling, acknowledgement agreement and requests, and use of the third person pronoun (‘we’), each of which may signal a mutual interest in the ongoing dialogue. The following extracts provide examples of varying degrees of intersubjectivity. Extract 1. Keita and Nao (OP1 interaction1, turns 128–139)

128 KEITA: white has ... big power 129 NAO: big power ... 130 KEITA: but black is not 131 NAO: um white= 132 KEITA: =but mm 133 NAO: hate [black people] 134 KEITA: [ah yes yes yes] ... ah Gandhi . appealed ... non violence 135 NAO: ah: OK I see 136 KEITA: (laughs) 137 NAO: ah! ... good face . good good good good man 138 KEITA: mm:: 139 NAO: ah: Gandhi!

While sharing background knowledge the learners signal their intersubjectivity by using repetition (turn 129), collaborative completions (turns 131–3), latching (turns 131–2), overlapping (turns 133–4), backchanneling (turns 134–5, 138) and exclamation (turns 137 and 139). Extract 1 can be contrasted with Extract 2 where both learners initially appear to make little progress in negotiating a topic and developing an effective working relationship. Extract 2. Daito and Mina (OP3 interaction 1, turns 12–23)

12 DAITO: nani ga ii ka na (what shall we/you do? Literally “what’s good?”) 13 MINA: nani ga ii ka (what shall we do?) (7 seconds) ((checking notes)) 14 DAITO: nanka suki na mono toka nai desu ka? (mm isn’t there something you’re interested in?) 15 MINA: iya ... nanka (ah ... mm) (27 seconds) ((reading notes)) 16 DAITO: nani ga ii ka na ... nanka nai desu ka shumi (what shall we do ... do you have any hobbies) ... ... 17 MINA: shumi (hobbies) (laughs) 18 DAITO: watashi wa kore ga suki da (I like this)



Chapter 8.  Incidental learner-generated focus on form in a task-based EFL classroom 



19 MINA: iya mo nanka mo ... ... ippai ippai tte kanji yo (no mm ... this is too much to take (literally “I’m full”)) (laughs) ... ... ... ... ... ... 20 DAITO: yaritai mono wa nai desu ka? (Don’t you have something you’d like to do?) 21 MINA: nanka ... nai desu ka? (mm don’t you?) 22 DAITO: boku wa betsu ni: (I don’t mind/care) ... ... ... 23 MINA: watashi mo: (me too) (laughs) mou nanka (mm) (laughs)... kangaerarenai tte kanji nan dakedo (I can’t really think of anything) (laughs) ... ...

Here, repetition (turns 13 and 21) is a reflection of low intersubjectivity where both learners appear to be relying on each other to make a choice, without offering one themselves. There is little backchanneling or latching. The use of Japanese pronouns (both implicit and explicit) for you and I (turns 14, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21) also reflects the lack of a collaborative approach at this stage, as do Mina’s expression of frustration (turn 19) and both learners’ comments that they do not mind/care if the other decides (turns 22–3). Task control is identified by contribution to talk-in-interaction in terms of word counts and control over the direction of the interaction (cf. Extract 13, for example). Pedagogic roles are identified where one or both members of a dyad provide support in terms of the features identified by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) including recruiting interest, simplifying the task, and marking discrepancies between actual and ideal performance.

Results First, descriptive quantitative findings are presented to give an overall perspective on the occurrence and variability in LRE and other contextual data in the study. Next, the variability will be explored in more detail through an in-depth quantitative and qualitative analysis of Keita’s interaction and performance with his peers in OP1 and OP3.

Descriptive quantitative data This section addresses the first research question regarding the extent of FOF in taskbased interaction. Table 1 below provides counts of LREs in interaction for the four focal learners in the study (Keita, Mina, Yasuko & Taro) and their interlocutors (Nao, Ken, Daito & Tomo). It also provides counts of subsequent use of forms in OP1 and OP3 presentations, and whether the produced forms were target-like or non-target-like. Starting with basic information about the focal learners’ interlocutors (column 2), Table 1 next provides descriptive quantitative data regarding the focal learners’ contribution to pair talk over the two interactions for OP1 and three interactions in OP3 (column 3; see Table 1 for word counts). Two learners were relatively consistent with

 Paul J. Moore

Table 1.  Summary of interaction and LRE quantitative data Focal learners

Keita OP1

Partner Contribution to (partner’s talk-in-interaction comparative proficiency)

Nao (similar) OP3 Ken (similar) Mina OP1 Ken (lower) OP3 Daito (much lower) Yasuko OP1 Taro (higher) OP3 Tomo (higher) Taro OP1 Yasuko (lower) OP3 Nao (similar)

Individual use of L1

Individual/ total LREsa

1348/2488ww 14% 16/21 54% 870/4911ww 10% 12/31 18% 1114/4315ww 18% 2/20 26% 1946/3681ww 77% 1/11 53% 514/1580ww 28% 5/11 33% 936/2281ww 85% 9/10 41% 1049/1580ww 8% 6/11 66.5% 2487/4346ww 3% 11/24 57% Total number of LREs 62/139 Total number of TL LRE forms used in oral presentations

TL forms in OP1 & OP3 presentations/ Total formsb 8/10 5/8 0/1 1/1 0/0 2/2 3/4 5/5

24/31

a. Individual LREs are those where the problematic form was uttered by the focal learner. b. ‘Total forms’ includes counts of both TL and IL forms used in oral presentations after being focused on in LREs.

regard to amount of talk across partners (Yasuko & Taro) while the other two varied. Similarly, as shown in Column 4, two learners remained relatively consistent in their L1 use across partners (Keita & Taro), while two others varied greatly (Mina & Yasuko). Column 5 shows how many LREs were focused on the language production of the focal learners as compared to the total number of LREs (i.e., including negotiation of problematic forms produced by the focal learners’ interlocutors). Column 6 shows how many of these LREs resulted in a TL form being used in OP1 or OP3 presentations, compared to the total number of negotiated forms used. In Keita’s case, for example, Column 6 shows that he produced ten forms in his OP1 performance which were previously negotiated in LREs in interaction. Of these, eight were target-like and the remaining two were non-target-like. Although there was variability in the occurrence of learner-generated LREs in interaction, this table shows that they were not common in the study; 31/62 (50%) LREs were relevant to the focal learners’ performance, while 24 (77.5%) of these led to TL forms being used in the oral presentations. In summary, the effectiveness of LREs in improving task performance in this study was progressively limited by the following:



Chapter 8.  Incidental learner-generated focus on form in a task-based EFL classroom 

– there was not a large amount of attention to form in talk-in-interaction; – not all LREs were relevant to the focal learners’ performance (i.e., they were either focused on the other learners’ performance or not related to the content of the performance); and – not all relevant LREs resulted in TL forms being used in the oral presentations. To provide further insight into, and potential reasons for the variability in findings above, the next section presents an in-depth case study of one learner’s (Keita’s) interaction with his OP1 and OP3 interlocutors.

Case study: Sociocognitive influences on FOF This section addresses the first and second research questions in more detail, by presenting an in-depth analysis of Keita’s LREs in interaction and his use of related forms in his subsequent oral presentation. It then addresses the third research question, which asked whether contextual sociocognitive features of the interaction (such as the negotiation of intersubjectivity, pedagogic roles and task control) influenced the amount and effectiveness of FOF in interaction. After providing background information on the three learners, each case begins with a discussion and exemplification of the dyad’s engagement in LREs. This is followed by a discussion of relevant sociocognitive aspects of the interaction. Both cases are compared in terms of their effectiveness in focusing Keita (the focal learner) on form in interaction and in improving his language production in the ensuing oral presentation.

Background information Keita (male, 19), Nao (male, 20) and Ken (male, 23) were all second-year students who were familiar with each other and the teacher, having completed a first-year English language class with the same teacher. As noted earlier, all had a similar (intermediate) level of English language proficiency; however, Ken was exceptional in that he spoke with high fluency, low accuracy and drew on a large academic vocabulary. Ken was notably confident and diligent in class, often asking questions and volunteering answers, interpreting teacher utterances for other students, and providing more homework than requested. All had presented once in English before entering the class.

Keita and Nao (OP1) Language-related episodes (LREs) in interaction In Keita’s OP1 interaction with Nao there was a total of 21 LREs (17 lexical, 4 grammatical), of which Keita initiated 16 and resolved 10. There were 16 target language (TL) resolutions. Excluding self-initiated – self-resolved LREs, there were 14

 Paul J. Moore

opportunities for uptake (incorporation of feedback) and 12 of these resulted in uptake. With regard to the focus of the talk in which the LREs occurred, 16 occurred during content-related talk, one in procedural talk and four were off-task. Twelve of the forms arising in the LREs were used in the OP1 performance. Table 2 below provides LRE data related to Keita’s OP1 performance. This table shows the use Keita made of the forms which were the focus of his LREs. His partner’s resolutions resulted in uptake nine out of ten times. In addition, eight of the ten LRE forms used by Keita in OP1 were TL forms. Extract 3 provides an example of an LRE which involved a TL resolution. Extract 3. Keita and Nao (OP1 interaction 2, turns 37–43)

37 KEITA: she’s blind ... blind ... ... she’s blind ... ... °mimi ga kikoenai te nandarou° (how do you say she can’t hear) 38 NAO: deaf 39 KEITA: deaf?= 40 NAO: =D-E-A-F 41 KEITA: D-F deaf 42 NAO: mm D-E-A-F 43 KEITA: blind deaf ... me ga mienai: . mimi kikoenai: . hanase[nai] (eyes can’t see: . ears can’t hear: . can’t talk)

Although this content-related talk was initiated by Keita, it was Nao who produced the form in the assessed presentation. Interestingly, Nao, after providing the TL resolution to Keita, chose both an IL form “she lost sound and light,” and a TL form, in the proper noun “Wright-Humason School for the Deaf ” in both the peer-practice (week 6) and assessed presentation (week 7). Of the 16 LREs related to Keita’s language performance, there were six LREs where the form was not subsequently used by Keita in OP1. One (hand out) arose in a procedural frame and was not required for OP1; two (introduce and seriously ill) were related to Keita’s content-creation which was ultimately performed differently in the Table 2.  LREs related to Keita’s OP1 language performance Type of LREa

Number of LREs

TL resolutions

Immediate uptake

Form used in OP1

Self-self Self-other Other-other Totals

 6  7  3 16

 5  5  3 13

N/Ab 7 2 9

  4 (3TL)   3 (2TL)   3 (3TL) 10 (8TL)

a. self-self: self-initiated self-resolved; other-other: other-initiated other-resolved; other-self: other-initiated self-resolved (cf. discussion of Seedhouse [2001] above); b. uptake is irrelevant in self-resolved LREs/selfcorrection.



Chapter 8.  Incidental learner-generated focus on form in a task-based EFL classroom 

OP1 presentation by his partner, Nao; one (Braille, negotiated twice) was used unsuccessfully in the peer-practice and abandoned in OP1 (see Extracts 4–5 below); and one (cook leader) was an unrelated off-task LRE (see Extract 6 below). Extract 4. Keita and Nao (OP1 interaction 1, turns 50–63)

50 NAO: she use [she use] 51 KEITA: [she used] 52 NAO: Braille ... tenji da yo (braille, right) 53 KEITA: and ah- ... she . she started .. ten- (Brai-) Braille 54 NAO: really? 55 KEITA: yes yes yes yes 56 NAO: ah: (laughs) ... ... ... °Braille° ... maybe 57 KEITA: ee (ah) ... ... ... ((writing)) doesn’t speak ... ((coughs)) eeto (well) ((writing)) doesn’t see ee (ah) doesn’t read ... please spell 58 NAO: Braille is B-R-A: ... I-R-E 59 KEITA: B-R-A: . [I – R] 60 NAO: I – R] ah L-E . L-E . Braille= 61 KEITA: =Braille . Braille? ... OK ... ...

In this extract, which is part of a longer negotiation regarding the meaning and form of the term ‘Braille’, Nao explains that Keller used Braille (turns 50–2), with Keita repeating his utterance, though this time in the correct tense (turn 51). Turns 53–56 represent unresolved negotiation of meaning, where Keita restates Nao’s prior utterance as “she started Braille”, which Nao appears to interpret as ‘invented’ (turn 54). Keita, possibly unintentionally, reinforces this misinterpretation with his animated affirmative response in turn 55. In turn 56 Nao apparently rejects this proposition implicitly by saying “maybe” after considering ‘Braille’ in private speech. One interesting indication of Keita’s engagement with the topic and intersubjectivity with Nao, is that he takes notes as he speaks, even though this is not his topic (turn 57). During the peer-practice, Keita attempted to explain the term in detail, concluding that he was unsure how to explain it in English: Extract 5. Keita’s performance of the term ‘Braille’

Peer practice (week 6) KEITA: Keita: Next ah:: Sullivan began to: reading skills .. that is . Braille a:h Braille is ... e:h Japanese is tenji: ... a:h reading skill .. reading skill lesson is .. a:h Japanese a:h dekoboko: (sticks out) .. dekoboko: paper a:h paper a:h written on:e .. like ah: ... like a .. ah: suuji (number) like a ...figure one .. to .. ten an:d ... jun (order) .. order! order one to ten an:d equal (pron.: eco:l) a:h all a:ll ... order is a:h one words .. do you understand (laughs)? wakaranai na (don’t know/understand)

Here, Keita goes to great lengths to try to explain the term in English, codeswitching when he thinks the audience will not understand terms (‘Braille’), and when he is

 Paul J. Moore

unable to produce an English term (dekoboko). In the assessed presentation, Keita avoided the term ‘Braille’, and any related discussion completely, later commenting that the term was “very difficult for me.” Interestingly, all four off-task LREs involved IL resolutions, with the majority involving ‘word coinage’ (cf. Færch & Kasper, 1983), where learners created an IL term for a Japanese word they could not translate. Extract 6 below provides an example of such negotiation. Extract 6. Keita and Nao (OP1 interaction 1, turns 204–207)

204 KEITA: Mr. Shimada ... top? 205 NAO: top top chouricho (head chef) ... coo- coo- cook leader 206 KEITA: cook lea- cook leader 207 NAO: yes

In addition, there was one instance where a form which was the focus of an unresolved off-task LRE was subsequently used in OP1, suggesting that there may be some transfer between off-task interaction and task-based performance. Extract 7. Keita and Nao (OP1 interaction 1, turns 124–127)

124 KEITA: hi:s long life 125 NAO: long life 126 KEITA: is ... ah! is ... to help ... ... ... for black . man . many .. man ... ah ... black is ... .... ah: ... ... fighted ah: ... fight white ... ah in past time 127 NAO: mm ...

In this extract, the learners are discussing Mahatma Gandhi, who was eventually rejected as a presentation topic, in favour of Helen Keller. In turn 126, Keita moves between two IL forms in trying to produce the past tense of the verb ‘fight’. This extract was coded as off-task, in that, although the learners were discussing content related to Mahatma Gandhi, it was not related to the topic chosen by the learners; however, the IL form ‘fighted’ did appear in a different context in the learners’ performance: Extract 8. Keita and Nao’s performance of the IL form ‘fighted’

Peer practice (week 6) KEITA: Helen was a ... pacifist, so she fighting ... fighted for the people Assessed presentation (week 7) NAO: Helen loves world peace so: Helen fighted with the (pacifists).

Sociocognitive aspects of the interaction Keita and Nao distributed their talk relatively equally in their first interaction, with Keita contributing 53% and Nao contributing 45% of the total talk. Although Keita’s contribution remained constant in their second week of interaction (55%), Nao’s dropped to



Chapter 8.  Incidental learner-generated focus on form in a task-based EFL classroom 

34%, as Keita produced more of the content and other interlocutors interrupted the interaction (i.e., the teacher and members of other dyads). The learners’ interaction over the two weeks was marked by consistently high intersubjectivity (cf. Extracts 1 and 4, for example). They were able to successfully negotiate task control and pedagogic roles, with both contributing to content-construction, offering each other assistance and keeping each other focused on the various aspects of the task-based activity. Interestingly, the shift to a focus on content-creation led to an expansion of the role of L1 use in this dyad as the learners often resorted to L1 use in lexical LREs (see Extracts 3 and 4). When asked whether they had a “good working relationship”, the responses were as follows:

KEITA: Maybe yes, but my partner is temperament. I confused ... NAO: Yes, we are friendly. Keita is a hard worker.

In his interview (week 19), however, Nao expressed frustration at not being able to meet with Keita outside class:

NAO: Keita was very busy so we couldn’t practice ... I wanted to change another partner (laughs)

In other words, although the learners exhibited a high level of intersubjectivity during in-class interactions, both noted that they did not feel they had enough time together. In addition, although they both expressed that they shared the workload equally, and worked together successfully when they met, they also noted interpersonal difficulties which may have hindered their progress.

Keita and Ken (OP3) Language-related episodes (LREs) in interaction In Keita’s OP3 interaction with Ken there was a total of 31 LREs (five lexical, 25 grammatical and one phonological). Twenty-one of these occurred before the peer-practice, and ten arose while the learners listened to and reflected upon their peer-practice recording (FOF task, week 22). All of the former were initiated and resolved by Ken. Fifteen of these were self-initiated – self-resolved LREs and the remaining six involved Ken recasting Keita’s forms. Of the latter, Keita initiated three LREs and resolved four. There were 21 TL resolutions overall; 13/21 in the interaction before the peer-practice and 8/10 in the discussion following the peer-practice. With regard to the focus of the talk in which the LREs occurred, 20 occurred during content-related talk,5 and 11 occurred during procedural talk. 5. Ten of these occurred during the FOF task held in week 22. Given that the aim of the task was to edit content, these are not claimed to be ‘spontaneous’ here, and they are removed from the count in Table 3, in order to provide a more accurate comparison between OP1 and OP3 interaction.

 Paul J. Moore

Table 2.  LREs related to Keita’s OP3 language performance Type of LRE

Number of LREs

TL resolutions

Immediate uptake

Form used in OP1

Self-self Self-other Other-other Other-self Totals

 2  1  8  1 12

1 1 5 1 8

N/A 0 5 N/A 5

2 (1TL) 1 (IL) 4 (3TL) 1(TL) 8 (5TL)

Table 2 collates the data on LREs related to Keita’s OP3 performance. Table 2 reveals that Keita’s OP3 interaction involved fewer chances to focus on his own forms than his OP1 interaction, and that focus was less successful in improving his performance. His partner’s resolutions resulted in uptake five out of nine times. Five of the eight LRE forms used by Keita in OP3 were TL forms. Extract 9 below is an example of one such instance, where Keita is outlining the focus of his contribution to the oral presentation. Extract 9. Keita and Ken (OP3 interaction 2, turns 30–42)

30 KEITA: ah: today’s Japan 31 KEN: mm? 32 KEITA: hayari (popular trend) 33 KEN: today’s fashion 34 KEITA: fashion today’s fashi[on] 35 KEN: [today’s] mo- today’s mo- today’s mode on Japan 36 KEITA: research for 37 KEN: mm 38 KEITA: today’s ah today’s Japan fashion 39 KEN: [mm] 40 KEITA: [and] ah:: ... 41 KEN: ah o- I’m sorry Japanese today’s fashion 42 KEITA: Japanese today’s fashion 43 KEN: OK

In turn 32, although the general term fasshon (fashion) in Japanese is an English loan word, Keita uses the term hayari, which carries the connotation of a current boom. Ken (turn 33) correctly notes that fashion is also used in this way, but then attempts to use more complex language (turn 35). Keita then uptakes this term and attempts to create a nominal group (turn 38), which Ken attempts to correct (turn 42), using another IL form. The term ‘fashion’ was used correctly by both learners several times in OP3, though Ken used the IL terms ‘Japanese mode’ and ‘fashion mode’ (cf. turn 35).



Chapter 8.  Incidental learner-generated focus on form in a task-based EFL classroom 

Extract 10. Keita and Ken’s OP3 performance of the term ‘fashion’

Peer-practice KEITA: Ah: today: we are ... ah: we are going to talk about ... fashionable clotheses ... which are: especially ah: ... especially young people ... fashion or people fashion ... in modern to now ...



Assessed presentation KEITA: Today: we are ... ah: we are going to talk about ... fashionable clothes (pron.: kl6~δez) ... ah: which had especially used to wear: ah: young people or: people in modern to now ...

Of the 12 LREs related to Keita’s language performance, there were four LREs where the form was not used by Keita in OP3. As with OP1, this was mostly because they occurred in non-content-related talk, which was ultimately irrelevant to the oral presentation. There was also one instance where Keita’s language performance moved in the wrong direction (from TL-IL pronunciation of the term ‘clothes’) as a result of Ken’s corrective feedback. Extract 11. Keita and Ken (OP3 interaction 3, turns 30–34)

30 KEITA: ... young ... young clothes (TL pron.: kl6~δz)... young ah [young generation] 31 KEN: [young cloth-es?] (IL pron.: kl6~δez) mm = 33 KEITA: = cloth-es (IL pron.: kl6~δez) ... 34 KEN: mm

As a direct result of Ken’s recast, Keita changes his pronunciation of the term ‘clothes’. (turns 31 and 33). After this LRE, both Keita and Ken employed the mispronunciation, which persisted, despite later correction by the teacher, until OP3 (see Extract 10 above), where he used the IL form 15 times. The contrast between the effectiveness of Keita’s OP1 and OP3 LREs becomes clearer if the analysis is limited to interaction before the peer-practice, as noted in Table 3 below. Keita’s OP1 interaction, in comparison to his OP3 interaction, had far more and varied LREs focused on his own linguistic forms. This included far more TL resolutions, and ultimately resulted in eight improvements to his linguistic performance, as opposed to only one improvement (fashion) in OP3. Interestingly, the IL form which was used in Keita’s performance was the IL pronunciation of the term clothes reported above. Table 3.  LREs related to Keita’s performance (OP1 and OP3; prior to peer-practice)

OP1 OP3

Number of LREs

TL resolutions

Immediate uptake

Form used in OP1

16/21 (76%)   6/21 (29%)

13 (81%)   3 (50%)

9/10 (90%)   3/6 (50%)

10 (8TL)   2 (1TL)

 Paul J. Moore

Sociocognitive aspects of the interaction In contrast to his interaction with Nao in OP1, Keita’s contribution to talk-in-interaction in OP3 was limited to a range of 17–28% over the three interactions with Ken, while Ken’s ranged from 64–79%. In addition, in his OP1 interaction, Keita’s use of Japanese L1 increased from 5% to 21%, whereas in his interaction with Ken it decreased from 21% to 7%. As with Keita’s OP1 interactions, the learners displayed a high level of intersubjectivity, with overlapping speech, laughter and exclamations showing that they were engaged with each other as well as the task. There were three differences which appeared to impact on the interaction, resulting in a relationship where Ken both controlled the direction of the task and scaffolded Keita’s involvement. First, Keita noted that he perceived Ken’s English proficiency as superior to his own; Extract 12 below shows him praising Ken’s skills: Extract 12. Keita and Ken (OP3 interaction 1, turns 104–5)

104 KEITA: Ken san datte reberu takain da mon (Ken, your level [of English] is high) 105 KEN: no no no no (laughs) ... OK ...

Second, although Ken was generally careful to include Keita in discussions about the direction of the task-based interaction, he remained in control of the task, as can be seen in Extract 13 below: Extract 13. Keita and Ken (OP3 interaction 2, turns 195–202)

195 KEN: °(laughs)° ... mm it depends on you ((i.e., it’s up to you)) 196 KEITA: oh:: OK 197 KEN: mm ... ... ... but please choose the Western brand 198 KEITA: Western brand 199 KEN: and if you: ha- if you don’t mind .. please choose the one- one of the .. Japanese brand ... 200 KEITA: oh: 201 KEN: and compare it 202 KEITA: OK

Ken’s comment in turn 195 that Keita can make his own decision regarding his subtopics, contrasts strongly with his subsequent demands (turns 197–201). Keita’s backchanneling responses suggest that he is prepared to accept Ken’s control. It should be noted that this extract is based on an earlier discussion of both Japanese and western fashion, which was partly initiated by Keita. Third, there are instances where Ken encourages Keita with comments such as “don’t be depressed” (interaction 3, turn 219) and “never give up” (interaction 3, turn 227). Keita and Ken also both noted in their self-evaluations that they had a good



Chapter 8.  Incidental learner-generated focus on form in a task-based EFL classroom 

working relationship. Keita responded, enthusiastically, that “Ken taught in detail, he is kind [to] me.” Interestingly, he also noted that he learned “pronunciation” from Ken. Ken noted that Keita learned from him “that he had mistaken in grammar, so he fixed it.” When asked if he believed Ken had learnt anything from him, Keita’s brief response was “no ... .” Overall, Keita’s interaction with Ken was marked by Ken’s control over the taskbased activity, combined with his attempts at scaffolding Keita’s involvement. Interestingly, this scaffolding was ineffective in terms of focusing Keita on form, at least with regard to the incidence and effectiveness of LREs.

Discussion This study, in support of the studies reported earlier, has found that incidental learnergenerated focus on form was not common in learner-learner interaction leading up to the performance of an oral task, that the majority of LREs were lexical, and that there was wide variability across dyads, and across partners over time, in terms of the number and focus of LREs they engaged in. In addition, the effectiveness of LREs progressively diminished in the study, depending on whether there was uptake involved, whether the feedback and/or uptake involved TL forms, whether the LRE occurred in talk which was relevant to task performance, and whether the learner/s receiving corrective feedback (or collaboratively constructing new knowledge) ultimately used the forms focused on in the task performance. The qualitative analysis of the case study provided further insights into the impact of contextual sociocognitive features of interaction (such as the negotiation of intersubjectivity, pedagogic roles and task control [cf. Storch, 2002]), on the occurrence and effectiveness of learner-generated focus on form. Learner perceptions appeared to play various roles in this study. Keita and Ken’s shared belief that Ken’s English language proficiency was higher than his own may have made Keita reluctant to provide corrective feedback to Ken (cf. Philp et al., 2010), as well as making him more likely to accept Ken’s authority, even when this involved ‘mislearning’ of the term ‘clothes’ (cf. Fujii & Mackey, 2009). It has been noted in the literature that such potentially negative effects of L-L interaction are rare. They must be balanced against the more positive findings, such as Zhao & Bitchener’s (2007) finding of more pre-emptive FOF in L-L interaction and Fujii & Mackey’s (2009) finding that learners’ negotiation of form involved rich positive evidence in terms of reformulations, both of which may indicate reduced pressure for learners in L-L as opposed to T-L interaction (Zhao & Bitchener, 2007). Nevertheless, the issue remains that the range of IL forms present in L-L interaction can make it unclear to learners which forms are being focused on, and whether or not LRE resolutions involve improvement on the original utterance (Fujii & Mackey, 2009). McDonough’s (2004) finding that learners placed little value on feedback from other learners, even in the face of evidence of improvement, is also of interest here.

 Paul J. Moore

While Keita, for apparent social and situational reasons, found his interaction with Nao more problematic than that with Ken, in terms of FOF in interaction the opposite was true. The analysis of Nao and Keita’s OP1 interaction revealed a dynamic and somewhat effective relationship where the learners were mutually supportive (cf. Storch, 2002, for example), while Ken (in OP3) appeared to control Keita’s involvement and focus on his own forms at the expense of Keita’s. Further research is needed to investigate such mismatches between learners’ and researchers’ or teachers’ perspectives on the effectiveness of interaction, and whether these may be better aligned. This is especially important given the contention that learners’ perception of task goals (Williams, 1999), and their perception of researchers’ or teachers’ expectations (Philp et al., 2010), guide task-based activity. The use of L1 was another source of variability in the study. Philp et al. (2010) note that their learners used their L1 in negotiating one third of their LREs. While it is logical that learners with a shared L1 background use their L1 in lexical LREs (as in Extracts 3–6 above), it is not simply the case that engagement in LREs leads to increased L1 use. Pedagogically, the study highlights the fact that learners may need to be oriented to, or trained in focus on form for it to be effective in influencing task performance and learning. Kim and McDonough (2011) provide the most recent support for this strategy, finding that pre-task modelling resulted in more LREs and more correct resolutions for learners in a Korean EFL context. The fact that the learners were engaged in LREs in procedural and off-task talk also shows that they were engaged in both communicative and pedagogic aspects of the interaction. While this is a positive finding for classroom learning, it is an issue for task design, assessment and research, in that learners may need more coaxing to direct their efforts toward improving their on-task interaction, performance and learning. Researchers have investigated such issues as ‘missed opportunities’ (Storch, 2002 p. 138), where more negotiation of particular forms may have improved performance, or dealt with issues of avoidance (e.g., Fujii & Mackey, 2009). In Keita’s interaction with Nao, for example (cf. the discussion of Extract 3), some further discussion regarding forms related to the terms ‘deaf ’ and ‘sight’ might have improved their task performance, as such forms could be seen as essential to their task performance.

Conclusion While learner-generated focus on form is commonly found to have limited influence on task performance, this study provides support for its further investigation. It has provided evidence that learner-learner interaction can influence subsequent individual language performance. Pedagogically, the study highlights the potential of attempting



Chapter 8.  Incidental learner-generated focus on form in a task-based EFL classroom 

to refine learners’ focus on form to encourage more on-task negotiation, including forms which may be essential to task performance. While the analysis of Keita’s interaction with different interlocutors over time provides insights into features of interaction that influence the effectiveness of FOF in task-based interaction, the limitation of the study is that this is one example of such influences. This study is best seen as a case from one context, providing insights into contextual influences on focus on form, which might inspire future studies. Further research is necessary to investigate whether the effectiveness of focus on form can be improved by, for example, raising learners’ awareness of issues influencing the incidence and effectiveness of their own focus on form, and to investigate the role of learner (and teacher) perception in focus on form in other contexts.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the editors and series editors for their comprehensive and formative feedback on earlier drafts of this chapter. I would also like to thank Anne Burns and Geoff Brindley for their support throughout the larger study on which this chapter is based.

References Brooks, F. & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77, 262–74. de Guerrero, M. & Villamil, O. (1994). Social cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 484–496. Donato, R. (1988). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second language learning. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.). Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Doughty, C. & Williams J. (Eds.) (1998). Focus on form in classroom SLA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (Ed.) (2001). Form-focused instruction and second language learning. Oxford: Blackwell. Ellis, R. (2008).The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigative oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons, Language Learning, 51, 281–318. Færch, C. & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (1983). Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman.

 Paul J. Moore Fotos, S. & Nassaji, H. (Eds.) (2007). Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fujii, A. & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a taskbased EFL classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 267–301. Kim, Y. & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15, 183–199. Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–67). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66. Mackey, A. (Ed.) (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207–224. Mennim, P. (2003). Rehearsed oral output and reactive focus on form. ELT Journal, 57, 130–138. Mennim, P. (2005). Noticing tasks in a university EFL presentation course in Japan: Their effects on oral output. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Edinburgh, UK. Moore, P. (in press). An emergent perspective on the use of the first language in the EFL classroom. Modern Language Journal. Philp, J., Walter, S. & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form. Language Awareness, 19, 261–279. Pica, T. & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 115–32). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Sato, M. (2011). Constitution of form-orientation: Contributions of context and explicit knowledge to learning from recasts. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 1–28. Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. &. Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–82. Seedhouse, P. (2001). The case of the missing “no”: The relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Language Learning, 51, Supplement 1, 347–385. Storch, N. (2001). An investigation into the nature of pair work in an ESL classroom and its effect on grammatical development. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Melbourne, Australia. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on Form in classroom SLA (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–37. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 51–274.



Chapter 8.  Incidental learner-generated focus on form in a task-based EFL classroom  Wells, G. (1999). Using L1 to master L2: A response to Antón and DiCamilla”s “Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom.’ The Modern Language Journal, 83, 248–254. Williams, J., (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning 49, 583–625. Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. Zhao, S. & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher–learner and learner–learner interactions. System, 35, 431–447.

chapter 9

Qualitative differences in novice teachers’ enactment of task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms Sui Ping (Shirley) Chan

Whole Person Development Institute, Hong Kong Diverse aspects of task-based language teaching (TBLT) and learning have been researched for more than two decades. While there is much theoretical discussion concerning the definition of tasks and how tasks should be designed and implemented, there is as yet only limited understanding of how TBLT is actually enacted in authentic classrooms. This study investigated how TBLT was enacted in primary ESL classrooms in Hong Kong, focusing on the way teachers manage the linguistic, cognitive, and interactional demands of tasks. Adopting a multiple-case study approach, the data set included a total of 20 lessons taught by four teachers on the same topic, individual lesson plans and teaching materials, as well as interviews with these teachers. Tasks completed by the students were also collected and analysed. Findings of the study showed that teachers differed in enacting TBLT in their classrooms along six dimensions: (1) strategic use of visual support to manage task demands; (2) contextualizing input to make connections between old and new knowledge; (3) simultaneous attention to task demands for progression in complexity; (4) provision of scaffolding through task sequencing and adjustment of task variables; (5) creating conditions for noticing form and salient features; and (6) creating conditions for restructuring to occur. These findings imply that what is most important in shaping learning in the TBLT classroom is not the task per se, but rather the interweaving of pedagogic strategies at various levels of complexity as teachers respond to students’ needs in the immediacy of the classroom environment.

Introduction and background Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has generated worldwide interest over the past 25 years. While there is much discussion concerning the definition of tasks and how tasks should be designed and implemented in the classroom, there is as yet limited understanding of how TBLT is actually enacted in the classroom (Samuda, 2007). Studies

 Sui Ping (Shirley) Chan

of task-based language instruction and second language acquisition suggest that it is important for teachers to be aware of and able to manage different types of task demands to facilitate language learning (e.g., Robinson, 2001; Skehan, 1998, 2007; Samuda, 2001, 2007). This study investigated how TBLT was enacted in primary ESL classrooms in Hong Kong. It attempted to determine whether there were qualitative differences between four primary ESL teachers when they introduced TBLT in their classes, and in what ways and to what extent they afforded different learning experiences. Language education in Hong Kong has undergone significant changes since the introduction of the Target-Oriented Curriculum (TOC)1 in 1995. To sustain and further refine the curriculum changes as stipulated in the new curriculum, a series of official documents and guidelines has been produced. The notion of task-based language teaching has become a subject of contemporary interest in Hong Kong because it was officially recommended in TOC. Teachers are expected to design teaching and learning activities that “help learners to achieve communicative competence, supported by the development of linguistic competence and the mastery of skills and language development strategies” (Candlin, 2001, p. 233). While publishers have produced “taskbased” textbooks for teachers to use, teachers in the study reported that they still have to adapt the textbook materials to suit the needs of their students. Unlike the more traditional approaches to language teaching, which adhere to a structural view of language with explicit focus on teaching grammar, the task-based approach to language teaching and learning in Hong Kong emphasizes the communicative nature of language, with a focus not primarily on grammatical and structural features of the language but on the functional and communicative aspects of the target language (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). In implementing the new English Language curriculum framework, it is recommended that a task-based approach be used because “Tasks are purposeful and contextualized activities in which learners draw together a range of elements in their framework of knowledge and skills to fulfill the task set” (CDC2, 2004, p. 117). The Curriculum Guide further suggests that to achieve communicative competence, more interactive and communicative use of language through social interaction should be stressed. The intended curriculum adopts an interactional view of language learning that emphasizes the interactional nature of learning between the learner and a knowledgeable interlocutor. However, when it comes to pedagogical decisions regarding the actual implementation of the task-based approach to language teaching and 1. Target-oriented Curriculum (TOC) was a modified version of Targets and Target-related Assessment Curriculum (TTRA) which was modeled on the new National Curriculum in Britain introduced during the period 1989 to 1993. TOC was officially introduced in Primary 1 classes in 1995. 2. CDC is the abbreviation of ‘Curriculum Development Council” which is a free-standing advisory body appointed by the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to give advice to the Government on matters relating to curriculum development for the local school system.



Chapter 9.  Task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms 

learning, there are numerous possibilities that the intended curriculum leaves open to teachers (Candlin, 2001, p. 241). Hence, the aim of this study is to investigate the qualitative differences in teachers’ enactment of TBLT in Hong Kong primary schools.

Task-based language teaching in Hong Kong TBLT attracted attention in Hong Kong when the Target-oriented Curriculum (TOC) was introduced in 1995. The TOC, a large-scale, territory-wide curriculum renewal for all school subjects, encouraged teachers not to follow a rigid pre-determined language syllabus in planning their teaching (CDC, 1999). Over the past decade, though the language curriculum has been subject to revision, TBLT remains the recommended teaching and learning approach in the latest English Language Curriculum for both the primary and secondary levels (CDC, 1999; 2004; 2007). Consequently, teachers are expected to choose or design tasks that best suit their learners’ needs and abilities. In other words, the exercise of designing, selecting, sequencing, and grading tasks, which had traditionally been considered the province of syllabus designers, now falls within the purview of the classroom language teacher. However, in actual implementation, Carless (2004) has found that the teachers in his study were practising only a weak form of TBLT with a focus on gaining control over individual skills (i.e., pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary) before applying them into communicative tasks. Numerous studies (Carless, 2003, 2004; Morris, Adamson, Au, K. Chan, W. Chan, Ko, Lai, Lo, Morris, Ng, Wong, & Wong, 1996; Zhang, 2005), together with our own experience of related in-service courses, suggest that many teachers in Hong Kong find the concept of TBLT difficult to grasp. Even though some claim to be implementing TBLT in their classrooms, they still find it difficult to conceptualize what TBLT stands for. The need for further empirical studies of task design and implementation is, therefore, central to the current TBLT research agenda (Samuda, 2007; Van den Branden, 2007). Designing a task-based curriculum involves making decisions about task selection, grading, and the choice of specific methodological procedures for implementing each task. This requires teachers to build up competence, develop task-based workplans, and implement them (Samuda, 2007).

Task complexity/difficulty in task design and task implementation Task design and task implementation require teachers to possess a sound understanding of the demands of tasks and the ability to relate these to students’ skills and needs. The challenge of understanding the cognitive, communicative, and linguistic complexities of tasks, which are often implicit rather than explicit, may render it difficult for teachers to make informed choices. Besides addressing the issue of linguistic

 Sui Ping (Shirley) Chan

complexity, which usually receives the greatest attention in the learning context, the cognitive demands together with the performance conditions of the setting in which the task is undertaken represent vital dimensions that contribute to task complexity, and ultimately to language learning via tasks. Recent studies on task complexity indicate that a number of different factors impact task complexity (Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004; Robinson, 2001, 2007; Skehan, 2007). However, while the literature enumerates multiple task factors affecting performance, little empirical evidence exists on how these may relate to the teaching of young learners. In Hong Kong, the teaching of young learners is particularly important because English is taught as early as the age of 3. In this study, the notion of task refers to pedagogic tasks that teachers use in the classroom. These will progressively approximate to target tasks which are real-world related (Long & Crookes, 1993). In order to help students complete these tasks, the teacher needs to assist students in developing specific skills through their participation in certain preparatory activities. In this study these activities will be referred to as pedagogic tasks. The choice of pedagogic tasks and the sequence in which they are to be performed will have significant consequences for the role of the learner in assimilating the language encountered in the classroom (Robinson, 2001). Previous studies on task complexity identify three main dimensions of complexity: code complexity, cognitive complexity, and communicative stress (Candlin, 1987; Ellis, 2003; Skehan, 1998). However, the main question that arises here is: what types of demands will be imposed on learners in the process of learning, knowing that task demands affect learners’ conscious and unconscious decisions in channelling their attentional resources to achieve a particular language learning goal? I will discuss three main types of demands embedded in the task, namely linguistic demands, cognitive demands, and interactional demands. For convenience, I will analyse these separately, but it does not mean that they stand alone. Rather, they are inter-related and should be dealt with as an integrated whole. In the field of teaching young learners, whether a linguistic code is difficult for the learners or not is largely determined by the way the code is presented to them (White, 1998; Robinson, 2001). The nature of input provided and the outcomes required are also important elements contributing to linguistic demands. The cognitive demands on learners are determined by the familiarity of the topic, discourse genre, and task type. When learners are familiar with the topic, task type, or genre, they can release attentional resources to focus on language. In terms of cognitive processing of the target language input, learners need to make sense of the information to be processed. This process involves the employment of a set of skills ranging from simple to complex (Ellis, 2003). Thus, it is more manageable to begin with simple cognitive processes such as classifying, grouping, or ordering concrete objects than reasoning or opinion giving, which require working with concepts. Studies have shown that different types of information pose different levels of challenge to the learners (Brown, Anderson, Shillcock, & Yule, 1984; Skehan, 1998; Robinson, 2001). The structure, clarity, and sufficiency of information given are also crucial in determining the



Chapter 9.  Task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms 

cognitive processing load which contribute to the cognitive demands on learners (Ellis, 2003; Robinson, 2001; Skehan, 1998). When performing tasks, learners will engage in interaction with the target audience or readers. Hence, the interactional relationships, interactional requirements, interactional goals, and outcome options will contribute to task demands (Ellis, 2003; Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993). It should be noted the three types of demand are not independent of one and another. By adjusting one type of demand, the teacher can increase or reduce the demand in another type. The following section will illustrate how to manage demands: linguistic demands, cognitive demands, and interactional demands.

Managing demands To manage the demands of a task in actual implementation, we need to consider the pedagogical decisions that teachers make to facilitate language learning. First, we can examine what teachers can do to make language accessible to learners. For instance, the provision of visual support can free up the attention that is needed by students to retain the information in memory. Sequencing linguistic complexity by adjusting the task variables in the input data or adjusting the task outcome is another form of support. The modality of the task, that is whether a task is spoken or written, is another form of management of linguistic demands The teacher has a range of options to make the language more or less accessible to the learners. Such conscious pedagogical decisions can increase or reduce the linguistic demands on the learners. The management of cognitive demands requires conscious pedagogical decisions by the teacher to establish topic familiarity and create conditions for noticing and restructuring to occur. Topic familiarity can be established by activating background knowledge, providing foregrounding, and building in progression in cognitive complexity from simple to complex, from concrete to abstract, and so on. In addition, the cognitive processing load can be made manageable if new knowledge is presented from concrete to abstract or from familiar to unfamiliar, by relating it to students’ knowledge of the world or prior experience of the information (or discourse) type. The use of strategies which engage learners in cognitive processes such as guessing from context, studying the word parts, making predictions, and forming associations will help bring about noticing (Schmidt, 1990). Restructuring is another important process which enables the learner to produce progressively more complex language. For restructuring to occur, conditions should be created to enable learners to notice the gap in their existing resources by being exposed to and engaging in the use of the target language in different contexts (Ellis, 1997, 2002; Lee & Van Patten, 1995; McLaughlin, 1990; Richards, 2002; Robinson, 2001; Samuda, 2001; Schmidt, 1990; Skehan, 1998). The teacher should create conditions to make learners more ambitious in what they try to say and do with the target language.

 Sui Ping (Shirley) Chan

The management of interaction demand refers to the conscious pedagogical decisions made by the teacher to maximise the opportunities for pupils to take up an active role in classroom exchanges. This process involves the use of strategies to create the conditions for moving away from teacher-led to pupil-led communication and from producing restricted to open responses. These strategies include the modification of the interactional features to render the interactional demand more or less demanding. For instance, the teacher could begin with one-way communication and then scaffold the interaction to move towards two-way or multiple channels/ways of communication. As mentioned earlier, it is important to remember that while these three strands are discussed separately, they should be handled in an integrated way in actual classroom situations.

Research question The literature reviewed above on types of task demands sets directions for teachers to consider when making decisions on task design and implementation. Based on the purpose of the study and these considerations, the present investigation sought to answer the following research question: How do novice teachers manage the task demands in their enactment of taskbased language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms? The study sought to answer this question with reference to the way teachers vary in their task design and implementation by way of addressing the requirements of task demands in their teaching practice.

Method and data collection An initial data collection framework was derived largely from Skehan (1998), but with modifications and extensions drawn from Ellis (2003) and other work in the literature (Candlin, 1987; Nunan, 1989; Willis, 1996). The preliminary analysis of the data gathered through the initial instrument was then conducted and the results used to further develop the framework in order to make it more powerful and capable of greater and more in-depth analysis. The analytical framework for task demands is presented in Table 1. This analytical framework on task demand was adopted in this study to analyse how these demands are actually managed by teachers at pre-, while, and post- task stages. As the three types of demands are intertwined in contributing to the overall task complexity, it is of equal importance to examine how the teachers in this study (or teachers in general) organize the pedagogical activities and tasks in the way that serve as scaffolding in task implementation.



Chapter 9.  Task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms 

Table 1.  Task demand and its components Task demand

Task components

Linguistic demands

Nature of input –  With or without visual support –  Context dependency –  Familiarity of information –  Frequency of occurrence and recycling Nature of expected outcome –  Medium –  Scope –  Complexity

Cognitive demands

Cognitive familiarity –  familiarity of topic, discourse genre and task type Cognitive processing –  cognitive processes –  single or dual demand Information type and information structure –  amount of information –  type –  structure –  clarity

Interactional demands

Communicative stress –  Interactional relationship- one-way or two-way –  Interactional requirement- required vs. optional Task characteristics –  Goal orientation- convergent vs. divergent –  Outcome options- closed vs. open

Teacher participants The four teachers in this study, Kathy, Linda, Clare, and Maria (pseudonyms), were participants in an in-service teacher development course offered by the Hong Kong Institute of Education. The programme was a four-month, full-time, credit-bearing, in-service course for teachers of English in primary schools. It aims to keep teachers abreast of the latest developments in language teaching in general and to invite them to apply what they have learnt in the classroom with a view to enhancing their teaching effectiveness. The four teachers hold qualified teacher status and are teaching English in primary schools. Clare and Maria each had thirty years experience at the time of data collection; Kathy had twenty years experience while Linda had five. All could, therefore, be classified as experienced teachers for the purposes of this study. Their

 Sui Ping (Shirley) Chan

academic qualifications were not considered as a criterion for selection since there appears to be no direct relationship between teaching effectiveness and academic qualifications (Tsui, 2003). However, it is worth mentioning that Kathy was undertaking studies for a parttime degree in English Language Teaching at the time of data collection. Clare held a Bachelor’s degree in Special Education. Maria was a degree holder in Education. Linda held a teacher’s certificate. It seems that the other three teachers were academically more qualified than Linda, as she had not started her degree study at the time of data collection. Linda, however, graduated from the four-month in-service training courses with better academic results than Maria. In terms of experience in adopting a taskbased approach to teaching, the four teachers stated in the interviews that they had never or seldom tried out TBLT in their classroom although the TOC had been introduced since 1995. They all considered themselves very textbook-bound with a main focus on teaching grammar to their students. The four teachers chose the same topic “Weather” when conducting their schoolbased investigation projects on TBLT with their pupils (aged between7–9) at lower primary levels. The schools from which the teachers came were relatively homogeneous in terms of the family and academic backgrounds of the students, in that all schools were located in public housing estates. Since the students mainly came from low socio-economic family backgrounds, the parents had limited knowledge of English, and generally limited support was provided at home.

Tasks The following is a summary of the tasks that the teachers designed and implemented as part of the programme requirements in trying out TBLT in their school-based investigation projects. Details of the overall task design of the four cases are presented in Appendix A. Kathy designed a unit on ‘What’s the weather like?’, the final task of which required children to work in pairs to produce a small booklet on the ‘Four seasons’ in the form of simple rhymes. They were required to write about the change of weather conditions, the clothes they wore during each of the four seasons, and to draw pictures to illustrate their rhymes. Linda designed a unit on ‘Weather and activities they do’, and the final task required children to work individually to make a booklet on ‘My favourite activities in different weather(s)’. The topic Clare chose was ‘Seasons and clothes’, and she designed a task of writing a new ending for a story by suggesting ways of keeping warm. The final task was to write about clothes that the children wear in winter and summer. Maria chose the topic ‘Weather and Seasons’. The final task required students to write a fourline poem about their own ‘favourite’ season similar to the one in their course book. All four teachers allocated five lessons of 35–40 minutes per lesson to the unit, and



Chapter 9.  Task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms 

they designed a series of pedagogical activities which required the children to integrate their knowledge of weather and aspects related to the different weather conditions.

Data collection Data were collected from several sources: (1) lesson observations of classroom teaching with lessons recorded; (2) semi-structured interviews with the teachers; and (3) documentations such as lesson plans, teaching materials, and students’ work. A total of 20 lessons, 5 for each teacher, were observed and video-taped. Each teacher taught about their chosen topic (the weather) of which they designed the tasks and activities for the study of this topic. The analysis of the enactment of TBLT by these four teachers went through an iterative process in which an initial framework (presented earlier) was applied to the data but was revised a number of times in response to new dimensions and features that emerged from the data and re-applied to the data.

Data analysis To examine how learning is organized in the classroom in an attempt to answer the research question that guided this study (see above), it is necessary to examine the pattern of verbal interactions: who spoke about what, in response to what, and with what effect in the implementation of task-based teaching in the language classroom. Hence, classroom observations with field notes and classroom discourse data were video-recorded and transcribed. Secondly, semi-structured interviews with teachers were held before and after the unit was taught, and they also involved stimulated recall. Each interview was based on a common interview schedule which was drawn up based on a review of the literature on TBLT (Nunan, 1989, 2004; Samuda, 2001), and on personal notes developed from prior experience in supervising in-service teachers during their practicum (see Appendix B for the interview questions). Stimulated recall involves asking teachers to comment on what was happening at the time that the teaching and learning took place by looking at their lesson plans, transcriptions of the lessons, and students’ work.

Findings Findings of the study suggest that there seemed to be six dimensions on which the teachers differed in enacting TBLT in their classrooms: (1) strategic use of visual support to manage task demands; (2) contextualizing input to make connections between old and new knowledge; (3) simultaneous attention to task demands for progression in complexity; (4) provision of scaffolding through task sequencing and adjustment of task variables; (5) creating conditions for noticing form and salient features; and (6)

 Sui Ping (Shirley) Chan

creating conditions for restructuring to occur. These will be illustrated and discussed separately below.

Strategic use of visual support to manage task demands All four teachers used a lot of visual aids, including real objects, pictures, and word cards. However, the ways in which they made use of visual aids differed in a number of ways. First, Kathy and Clare were better able to provide visual support to reduce the linguistic demands made on the students so that they could focus on specific aspects of language use, such as semantics and pronunciation. For example, Kathy made use of the strategy of building semantic links to facilitate noticing. Thus, she developed students’ vocabulary knowledge of clothes by showing the clothes that a cut-out boy and girl wore in a particular season. By presenting a set of summer clothes at the same time, the teacher built a lexical network to form a semantic cluster or lexical set: for example, sunglasses, T-shirt, and a pair of shorts as typical summer garments; while gloves, coat, and trousers were typical winter wear. Building semantic networks in a meaningful context may facilitate the intake of new vocabulary, which is essential to the completion of the shared writing task: “Composing a rhyme to share the clothes one wears in different seasons and weather.” By contrast, when Linda guided students to see the relationship between days of the week, weather, and activities through the use of a weather chart and stories, the relationship was arbitrary. It was not easy for the researcher to see the criteria for selecting an activity. For instance, one story showed what Bobby, one of the students, liked doing in different sorts of weather on each day of the week. However, the ‘story’ simply provided a list of activities that Bobby did each day. For instance, in the story, the weather on Tuesday was cold and cloudy, and Bobby liked drawing pictures. However, the weather of Wednesday was also cool and cloudy, but Bobby liked playing basketball. While both days shared much the same weather, it was not clear why the activity ‘drawing pictures’ was preferred on a cold and cloudy Tuesday while the activity ‘playing basketball’ was chosen on a cool and cloudy Wednesday. Further confusion arose as another ball game, ‘playing football’, was chosen on a warm and windy Thursday. The story failed to provide a solution stage showing the relationship between weather and activities. Hence, it was probably unfamiliar to students and they would find it difficult to understand or make sensible predictions of the relationship between the activity and the weather of the day. Second, visual aids were used not only to reduce but also to increase the linguistic demands on pupils. For example, while Maria and Linda introduced vocabulary items with pictorial representations to aid comprehension, Kathy and Clare further elicited vocabulary items which are associated with the pictorial representations in the form of a semantic network. For example, a picture of the item ‘snowing’ was presented as a stimulus for eliciting the word ‘winter’ (season) or the word ‘cold’ (weather condition)



Chapter 9.  Task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms 

in Kathy’s case. Clare used pictures which contained activities and food items that students had learnt before and required them to transfer such knowledge to another context of giving advice to keep warm in cold weather, using sentences such as ‘Have a hot bath’. By contrast, Maria used real clothes to elicit students’ knowledge of weather by deduction. Linda mainly used word cards to label the picture of a particular weather condition or activity. No association with another concept was required.

Contextualizing input The selection of discourse genre and topic is equally important to the cognitive demands made on the learners. Although the four teachers emphasized in their interviews the importance of presenting target language in context and used stories as input materials, it seems that Kathy and Clare were much better able to do this than Linda and Maria. The story used by Kathy contained many features of a good story. Kathy based her story on ‘Cinderella’ which was familiar to the pupils, and it contained the usual elements of a story or fairy tale (i.e., orientation, problem, resolution, and a happy ending). The story was about a stepmother who asked Mary to complete impossible tasks such as getting plants or fruits that could not be found in a particular season. By getting pupils to think about what could be found in a particular season and what could not be found, Kathy focused their attention on the features which are distinctive of that season. For example, she asked the students to use their knowledge of the relationship between weather and season learnt in the lesson, and to relate it to their existing knowledge of plants and fruits. Kathy ‘problematised’ the situation by asking the students what is not available in a certain season. In the story ‘Four brothers’, Mary, the story character, faced the problem of being asked by the stepmother to get some flowers in winter and then was rescued by the four brothers who changed the weather from winter to spring. Students were able to relate to the unique features of winter and could discard irrelevant or impossible elements, such as getting flowers in the cold season. Moreover, she engaged her pupils in co-constructing the story with her and their peers by drawing on their linguistic resources to make meaning. For example, Excerpt (1) shows how Kathy guided the pupils to learn the newly acquired linguistic knowledge through interpretation and making inferences at a discourse level. By contrast, the stories in Maria’s and Linda’s classes were by no means authentic. For example, the ‘story’ that was presented to students in Linda’s lesson was what the boy did when the weather was hot or cold. This lesson, then, lacked a problem which could show a sequence of unexpected and disruptive events leading to a crisis point, as well as the character’s reactions, feelings, and opinions about these events. Although the story seemed to include the stage of providing solutions, it was not at all stimulating. Because of the contrived contextualisation of the linguistic items, the task ended up becoming a structural drill.

 Sui Ping (Shirley) Chan

Excerpt (1) Problematising the situation in the story Situation

Teacher-Student interaction

1

*T: Because outside it is ... LLL: Cold and snowy. T: Can Mary get some flowers? LLL: NO! (Students replied loudly) : : T: What will happen when Brother Spring holds the magic stick? What will happen? Winter? Or autumn? What will happen? ... You don’t know? LLL: No T: It’s spring. It is spring. It’s warm and rainy. LLL: /warm and rainy. T: Can Mary get some flowers now [T points at pictures of flowers]? LLL: Yes!

2

T: Mary gets some flowers now. OK. Let’s see. [T turns the page and points at the words] Stepmother says, “No. Unless you get me some ...” LLL: Apples! T: Can Mary get some apples in the Winter? LLL: No. T: Then, what would Mary do? ... Ask for help. Who would help her? L: Four Brothers. T: Four Brothers. Very good... [T turns the page] Mary went back to the Four Brothers. Now, Brother Winter says, it’s easy. Brother Summer, you hold the magic stick. What will happen? It is winter? Or it is spring? Or it is ... it is ... LLL: summer T: [T turns the page] summer now. That’s good. It is summer now. The sun is very hot. [T points at pictures in the book] And all the trees ... Look at the apple trees. See? Many many apples. Can Mary get the apples now? LLL: YES! T: Mary can get the apples. So ... [T points at words and reads with Ls] It’s summer. It’s hot and sunny. Mary picks some apples and goes home.

*(see Appendix C for transcription conventions)



Chapter 9.  Task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms 

Simultaneous attention to task demands and progression in complexity To allow progression in complexity, teachers need to attend to different types of task demands simultaneously. They have to be skilful in varying the demands, not in a linear manner but by interweaving them with a gradual spiral trend of going from less to more demanding. Kathy and Clare started with pedagogic tasks that were mainly teacher-led with convergent goals and closed responses such as picture descriptions. These activities were followed by storytelling activities which invited more open responses with convergent goals. This created opportunities for negotiation of meaning between the teacher and students, because the rich storyline elicited imagination and the creative use of language to express personal thoughts in the search for a consensus. They then moved back to using pseudo-communicative activities like board games, competitions, and question and answer as a form of scaffolding to support further student-led activities. In addition, Kathy provided progression in the use of different types of tasks, namely static, dynamic, and abstract. She started with static tasks with information to be processed remaining the same, such as matching game. Then she proceeded to use a dynamic task, storytelling, which contained changing events and activities. Through storytelling, learners were required to apply their new knowledge to make restructuring possible. After this, she used a static task, a board game, to consolidate the forms used to describe the weather. A slightly more challenging task, the information-gap activity, was used to prepare students for the abstract task of choosing clothes for different seasons. This is considered as an abstract task as students needed to use the information to express their opinions. In other words, pseudo-communicative activities were used as a means not an end to the development of students’ communicative competence. Kathy and Clare were able to focus on both accuracy and fluency during these stages. They provided scaffolding not just by going from the less to the more demanding activities but also by moving back and forth between closed (or manipulative) responses and open (or spontaneous) responses, with a general progression from the former to the latter. By contrast, Maria and Linda focused largely on accuracy. There was no further progression from pseudo-communicative to a semi-controlled or free activity. In other words, pseudo-communicative activities were used as an end in themselves. For example, in Linda’s case, after students had matched pictures of different weather patterns with the correct words and stated the words correctly in Lesson 1, another matching activity for group work in the following lesson was designed to push the students to engage in a dialogue. They were given a set of cards and asked to find the pairs, such as a picture of ‘the sun’ being matched with the word card ‘sunny’. The other group members were required to ask ‘What’s the weather like?. The one who correctly matched the most pairs was the winner. Although there was an attempt to move students’ language production from single word responses to sentence level through matching activities,

 Sui Ping (Shirley) Chan

the requirement to produce sentences was confined to contrived contexts. Moreover, the responses were selected from the word cards provided. There was little evidence of conditions being created in which students had to construct personal responses which could be described as pushed output, except for the final individual writing task.

Provision of scaffolding through task sequencing and adjustment of task variables Scaffolding involves making pedagogical decisions on how students can be supported in such a way that learning is not simply made easier but also becomes more challenging. Kathy and Clare sequenced the tasks to scaffold pupils’ learning by alternating tasks of different levels of demand strategically. For instance, Kathy and Clare started with tasks that were cognitively, linguistically, and interactionally less demanding and then moved to more demanding ones with adjustments in task variables to keep the demand on other aspects low. When the cognitive demand was increased, Kathy lessened the linguistic and interactional demands by accepting single word responses through teacher-led elicitation to make the task easier. For example, in Excerpt 2 students were first asked to identify the clothes that the cut-out boy and a girl put on and then deduce the season the boy or girl was in. Excerpt 2 T:

LLL: T: L1: T: L2: T: LLL:

OK. [T puts up another transparency and points at clothes while asking questions] Let me see another pictures. See whether you can tell me ... To see whether you can tell me the seasons, or the weather. OK. You see, this boy is wearing a pair of sunglasses. And he puts on T-shirt with short sleeves. And he puts on a pair of ...? /Shorts. Shorts. And he put on ... shoes. And the girl is wearing a pair of sunglasses too. And she is wearing a dress with no sleeves. Tell me, which season is this? Summer. Summer. Very good. How does they, sorry, how do they feel? Hot. They feel ... Hot.

Similarly, Clare reduced the linguistic demands by asking for responses at word level when she engaged students in cognitively demanding tasks. For example, to scaffold the progression in linguistic complexity, Clare structured the activities from simple to difficult. For instance, in Lesson 1, students were asked to name the clothes at word level. Then they guessed the clothes the boy would wear in response to the change in the weather from hot to cold using the pattern ‘Put on (a scarf)’. The medium was verbal but supported by the use of pictorial representations in the story. Then, a quiz



Chapter 9.  Task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms 

was designed to push students to write down the clothes that the boy put on in accordance with the sequence in the story. The sequence moved from putting on trousers to a coat, then socks and boots, and finally mittens followed by a scarf, when the boy in the story kept telling his mother that he was cold. Although the outcome was closed, this required students to produce a written statement that showed the logical link between vocabulary such as socks and boots. This was linguistically more demanding because the students were asked to link up those items logically than simply recalling the clothes that the story character wore. Kathy and Clare constantly adjusted three kinds of demands as a means of scaffolding in task sequencing. Furthermore, to scaffold progression in terms of cognitive complexity, Kathy first asked students to recognize types of weather or clothes, which basically required recalling and then associating them with a particular season. When the pupils’ knowledge of weather and clothes was well established, she challenged them cognitively to deduce the season from its associated aspects such as weather conditions and clothes, which involved a higher cognitive process of applying knowledge. Clare allowed for progression in cognitive demand by starting with the familiar and straightforward relationship between clothes, weather, and seasons and then proceeded to get students to think about circumstances where this relationship does not apply. For example, she asked the students to identify workers who do not follow the established norm, such as putting on mittens in winter. Both Kathy and Clare scaffolded the transition by engaging students in progressively more demanding cognitive processes as a form of working towards the performance of the final task. These kinds of scaffolding were less evident in Maria’s and Linda’s cases.

Creating conditions for noticing form and salient features All four teachers tried to bring about the noticing of form in salient features of the target input. Kathy, Clare, and Linda employed the strategy of making a contrast when presenting new concepts. For instance, Kathy contrasted hot weather with cold weather by showing a boy with thick clothes in cold weather and a boy with thin clothes in hot weather. Similarly, Clare contrasted hot and cold weather by showing the thick clothes that a story character, Bobby, put on and the summer clothes that the students were putting on. The contrast between the thick clothes and the thin summer clothes helped to bring about the noticing of the distinctive features of hot and cold weather. Linda employed the same strategy by telling the following ‘story’ to present the four adjectives, namely ‘hot’, ‘cold’, ‘cool’, and ‘warm’. Today is Thursday. He is very hot. Then he walks into the room and switches on the fan. He feels cool now. On the next day, the weather has changed. He becomes a snowman. So, he walks into the room and switches on the heater. He feels warm. He is warm now.

 Sui Ping (Shirley) Chan

She experienced some difficulty in making an explicit contrast between the adjectives ‘warm’ and ‘cool’ which were used to describe sensations while ‘cold’ and ‘hot’ were used to describe weather conditions. When presenting ‘hot’ and ‘cold’, Linda focused on the weather conditions. However, when presenting ‘warm’ and ‘cool’, she used the pictures which included two contexts, weather conditions and sensations mediated by a heater and a fan respectively. Students got confused because they were not sure if the teacher wanted them to talk about the weather or sensations. In other words, the variations that the teacher tried to exploit were not related to the same dimension: one had to do with physical sensations mediated by weather phenomena and the other was mediated by home appliances. The use of the two different contexts from which the meanings of the words were derived in fact confused the students instead of focusing their attention on the salient features. The variations that Linda exploited seemed to be unprincipled and consequently confused students.

Creating conditions for restructuring to occur Kathy and Clare engaged students in making deductions, problematising the situations, and using task repetition which can facilitate noticing and restructuring. To further challenge their students, Kathy and Clare problematised the situations by making students respond to the changing conditions. For instance, Clare ‘problematised’ the situation by showing hot weather while a boy had thick clothes on. This created the need to talk about taking off clothes. Then, she varied the weather from hot to cold, creating the need to put on the clothes again. To further develop the concept of keeping warm in cold weather, Clare asked students to give other suggestions related to food and activities. Although some of the examples were not always appropriate such as ‘Have a packet of fries’, this provided the opportunities for students to restructure their knowledge of food and activities and relate them to the concept of keeping warm using the imperatives such as ‘Have (a bowl of congee)’. Table 2 below summarizes the situations created by teacher Clare to help learners notice the salient features in the target input. Table 2.  Problematising the situation Situation Weather

Clothes/food/activities

Solution (Use of imperatives)

1

Hot

Take off the clothes

2

Cold

3

Cold

Winter clothes: a coat, boots, trousers, mittens, a scarf Winter clothes: a coat, boots, trousers, mittens, a scarf Food: a chicken leg; a bowl of noodles Activity: a hot bath; a bowl of congee

Put on the clothes Have ...; Go to bed



Chapter 9.  Task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms 

Students’ work I also analysed the students’ output. Their writing showed that they were able to use imperatives creatively to give suggestions, albeit with some spelling mistakes. For instance, Kathy invited the pupils to solve a problem in the story about the stepmother. She problematised the situation by asking students what plants were not found in a particular season. In order to solve the problem, the four brothers in the story had to change the season in order to get the plant or fruit demanded by the stepmother. In other words, the teacher restructured students’ knowledge of weather and seasons by getting them to reflect on their relationship with plants and fruits. Kathy and Clare also recycled target structures and vocabulary in a new context and introduced them incrementally so that students could focus their attentional resources on the new element. For instance, Kathy recycled the phrasal verbs ‘put on’ and ‘take off ’ in different contexts, moving from a teacher-led whole class activity about what clothes the boy should take off in very hot weather to a student-led information gap activity about the clothes that the boy should put on, using ‘Put on...’ with free choice of vocabulary for clothes. The use of imperatives was then repeated in different contexts. This required students to engage in syntactic processing to consider what items to replace when the contexts changed. The use of similar description tasks enabled students to focus their attention on the language when the task type was familiar (Skehan, 1998). This served as a form of cognitive scaffolding. Clare also recycled the language for giving advice and expressing preferences in a new context. For instance, to help students get familiar with the language for giving advice, she first asked students to interpret the weather, explain the problem of inadequate clothes, and identify clothes that can keep us warm when telling a story ‘Brrr!’. Once students got used to the use of the imperative ‘put on’, she presented a second task which required students to suggest other ways of keeping warm. This is a form of task repetition of giving advice in a new context. The requirement of giving other suggestions compelled students to use other imperative forms such as ‘Have a...’ and relate other familiar domains such as food and activities. Hence, the vocabulary items for food and activities were recycled and introduced incrementally for a different communicative function. To introduce the expression of preference, Clare also adopted a similar strategy of task repetition in a new context. She divided the task of expressing preference into smaller and manageable sub-tasks for students to complete. For instance, she conducted an activity ‘Colour and label’ which required students to identify their favourite clothes. Then, she asked them to write down three names of clothes that they liked. This involved selection. After that, the two activities were integrated in an individual writing task ‘My favourite clothes’. The task was made cognitively familiar to the students because they had been exposed to expressing preferences in different contexts. The previous sub-tasks, namely colouring and labelling and selecting three favourite clothes items, prepared students cognitively for expressing preferences. The discourse

 Sui Ping (Shirley) Chan

of expressing preference was incrementally introduced and recycled in a new context. There was a high degree of cognitive familiarity which provided cognitive scaffolding to reduce cognitive processing load and help channel the attentional resources to the target form. Task repetition in a new context is a powerful way of drawing students’ attention to the new elements in a familiar yet different context. By contrast, Maria and Linda largely repeated tasks which required students to revise existing knowledge rather than teaching new knowledge, and they tended to ask their students to work mostly in pseudo-communicative contexts that might have prevented them from experimenting with new forms creatively. The findings show the importance of re-interpreting old knowledge in new contexts in second language learning. Further analysis of students’ work shows that student outcomes tended to be limited in scope with closed responses at a single word/phrase level.

Discussion Interweaving focus on form and on meaning To allow progression in complexity, teachers need to attend to different types of task demands simultaneously. They have to be skilful in varying the demands not in a linear manner but by interweaving them in a general spiral trend of going from less to more demanding. The findings of this study suggest that providing opportunities for students to engage in fluency tasks in which they are required to stretch their language competence to construct free responses is important. It helps students to restructure their prior knowledge of words or concepts and the relationship between them (Robinson, 2001). The findings indicate the importance of helping students to move along the continuum of focusing on form to focusing on meaning in communicative contexts by starting with controlled and semi-controlled activities and then extending the context of language use to facilitate the production of free or open responses, as evident in Kathy’s and Clare’s cases. It also shows the importance of interweaving focus on form and focus on meaning at various stages of a task so that students are equipped with the linguistic resources to complete a task.

Scaffolding by interweaving task demands and task sequencing Scaffolding involves making pedagogical decisions on how students can be supported in such a way that learning is not simply made easier but is also more challenging and hopefully more effective. The findings show that a progressive increase in task demands requires teachers to constantly adjust the task variables when sequencing their activities to ensure that students’ attention is drawn to the necessary knowledge or skill required for the final task completion. Progression in complexity should be attended to but complexity is determined by all three dimensions of task demand, namely linguistic demands, cognitive demands, and interactional demands, and these interact.



Chapter 9.  Task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms 

So an increase in complexity in one dimension may require an adjustment to the complexity in the other dimensions. Teachers need to have a framework for understanding the demands of the tasks that they give to students, to be aware of the relationship between the three types of demands, and to be sensitive to pupils’ needs so that they can adjust the demands accordingly. They need to make pedagogical judgments moment by moment and appreciate the dynamics of task demand. Kathy and Clare achieved this goal by starting with tasks that were cognitively, linguistically, and interactionally less demanding, and then they moved to more demanding ones with adjustments in task variables to keep the demands on other aspects low. For instance, when the cognitive demand was increased, Kathy kept the linguistic and interactional demands by accepting single word responses through teacher-led elicitation to make the task easier. Similarly, Clare reduced the linguistic demands by asking for responses at word level when she engaged students in cognitively demanding tasks such as reconstructing the sequence of clothes. They constantly adjusted three kinds of demands as a means of scaffolding in task sequencing. While research on TBLT has emphasised the importance of sequencing tasks according to complexity, the picture in real-life situations is quite complex. It is the interweaving of tasks and activities of different demands and the teachers’ awareness of the simultaneous demands made on students that matters.

Creating conditions for noticing form and salient features The findings of this study suggest that in order for learners to focus their attention on, that is, to ‘notice’ the object of learning, it is necessary to ensure the other aspects of the object are held constant. For instance, to present the relationship between clothes and seasons, Kathy varied the clothes by first drawing students’ attention to the summer clothes that the two figure cut-outs put on. She helped students notice what was common in the clothing and accessories of the two figure cut-outs. Then, she changed the clothes and accessories from those worn in the summer to winter. The change of clothing made students aware of the season, which was initially kept invariant. In contrast, the variations that Linda exploited seemed to be unprincipled and consequently confused students. Students’ attention was therefore not focused on the critical aspects of the language and rendered learning ineffective. Hence, teachers should be aware of the strategies for ‘noticing’ so that they would be able to make informed decisions about their pedagogical practices.

Creating conditions for restructuring to occur The literature on SLA suggests that for restructuring to occur, we need to create the proper conditions for it. These conditions include the need for producing output and provision of practice or task repetition. Language learning is not simply a cumulative process of adding new knowledge to what learners already know. Swain (1985, 1995,

 Sui Ping (Shirley) Chan

2000) argues that while input may have the function of triggering a reorganization of existing structures, it is the process of producing something by experimenting with their existing language resources that causes learners to notice the gap between current knowledge and required knowledge. In support of these arguments, the findings of this study also suggest that restructuring is likely to occur when students are engaged in making deductions and problematising situations. Kathy and Clare were able to challenge their students by problematising the situations. For instance, Clare changed the weather to hot when the boy put on thick clothes so that pupils had to give advice on taking off the thick clothes and putting on summer clothes. Similarly, Kathy problematised the situation by asking students what plants were not available in a particular season when telling the story. This helped students to restructure their knowledge by getting them to solve the problems.

Conclusions and implications There has been wide discussion of what a task is and what it is not in the TBLT literature. The discussion contributes to the clarification of the features of ‘a task’ and the identification of the value of pedagogical activities. However, in the enactment of TBLT in the classroom, the clustering of pedagogical activities and tasks, and pedagogical considerations of task demand and task sequencing, are crucial. This study shows the importance of developing teachers’ awareness of the intricate relationships between task demands and task variables and their ability to interweave task features of different levels of demand while constantly adjusting task variables as a mean of scaffolding. It also shows that scaffolding is an important concept in task-based pedagogy. It indicates that strategic advance planning through careful design and sequencing of activities is vital. The findings also imply that task sequencing, as a form of scaffolding, is not linear but cyclical and interwoven. The progression of complexity relies on the teacher’s professional judgment as to how to manage the three dimensions of task demand (linguistic, cognitive, and interactional) at different stages of learning through constant adjustment of the task variables to make the task more or less demanding. Very often, the moment-to-moment adjustments and the teachers’ judgments are crucial as the learners’ orientation to tasks is unpredictable. Local studies and my personal interaction with in-service teachers seem to suggest that teachers find the concept of TBLT difficult to grasp even after taking an inservice training course which prepared them to incorporate tasks in their educational practice. There are several ways in which the case studies in this study may be of relevance to teacher education. The critical differences between teachers identified in the study illustrate the complexities underlying the enactment of TBLT. Teacher educators can make use of the detailed description of the four cases in this study to present concrete examples of practice to help teachers understand the complexities involved in TBLT. Self-reflection and critical peer evaluation help teachers articulate their thoughts



Chapter 9.  Task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms 

and justify their actions. As Tsui (2003) suggests, case studies will help teachers raise their awareness of their own actions, and help make their tacit knowledge explicit. The framework for the analysis of TBLT that emerged from this study can be used to help teachers to investigate their own task-based teaching in a holistic manner. Alternatively, teachers can focus on any one of the six areas which are found to be critical in the enactment of TBLT: (a) strategic use of visual support to manage task demands; (2) contextualizing input to make connections between old and new knowledge; (3) simultaneous attention to task demands for progression in complexity; (4) provision of scaffolding through task sequencing and adjustment of task variables; (5) creating conditions in noticing form and salient features; and (6) creating conditions for restructuring to occur. As noted in the study, although these features are prominent in Kathy’s and Clare’s teaching, the teachers seemed not to be aware of this and doubted their own effectiveness in enacting TBLT at both the design and implementation stages. Hence, teacher educators can make use of this six-dimensional framework to help teachers to make their tacit knowledge of these features explicit. The study also implies the need of drawing upon different perspectives or theories to understand the complexities underlying the enactment of TBLT. Such complexities cannot be simply understood or interpreted by drawing on a single theory. As a teacher educator and researcher, I had to engage in a rigorous and critical process of reviewing and reflecting on how the teachers in my study translated their tacit knowledge into classroom practices. For instance, when visual support was found common in the four cases, two teachers seemed to have used the support more effectively than the other two. This led me to investigate what contributed to the differences. The psycholinguistic view of language learning helped me understand the importance of creating conditions for noticing to occur. However, the understanding of how ‘noticing’ happens and how teachers can structure learning to bring it about seems not to have been adequately addressed in the TBLT literature. This further drove me to draw on another theory which adopts a very different perspective on the nature of learning from an information processing approach to learning, to explain how noticing could be brought about. The theory of variation helped me explain how the provision of visual support varied qualitatively in the four cases. Hence, the study implies that teachers need to be critical of their beliefs in language and language learning and be aware of their limitations. They need to be willing to seek other theories to address issues that could not be explained by their existing beliefs or understandings. In other words, teacher educators need to help teachers to develop a critical stance on their own beliefs in language and language learning and challenge teachers to reshape them. Apart from helping teachers critically reflect on their own beliefs, this study also shows the importance of developing teachers’ awareness of the intricate relationships between task demands and task variables, and their ability of interweaving tasks of different levels of demand and constantly adjusting task variables as a mean of scaffolding. Teacher educators can make use of the analytical framework of this study as a

 Sui Ping (Shirley) Chan

planning and evaluative tool to facilitate teachers to design, implement and evaluate their own enactment of TBLT. As Kumaravadivelu (2003, 2005) states, we are moving from methods-based pedagogies to post-method pedagogies to help teachers develop their own theories of practice, awakened to the complexity of teacher beliefs, multiplicity of learner identities, as well as vitality of macrostructures- social, cultural, political, and historical that shape and reshape our pedagogy.

References Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shillcock, R., & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Candlin, C.N. (1987). Towards task-based learning. In C. Candlin & D.F. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5–22). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International. Candlin, C.N. (2001). Afterword: taking the curriculum to task. In C. Candlin & D.H. Murphy (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 229–243). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Carless, D. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools. System, 3, 485–500. Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 639–662. Curriculum Development Council. (1999). Syllabuses for secondary schools: English Language Education (Secondary 1–5). Hong Kong, SAR: Printing Department. Curriculum Development Council. (2004). English Language Curriculum Guide (Primary 1–6). Hong Kong, SAR: Government Logistics Department. Curriculum Development Council. (2007). English Language: Curriculum and Assessment Guide (Secondary 4–6). Hong Kong, SAR: Government Logistics Department. Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 223–236. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2005). Learner perception of learning tasks. Paper presented at the International conference on task-based language teaching, Leuven, Belgium. 23 September – 25 September, 2005. Lee, J.F., & Van Patten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus design: The case of task. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in pedagogical context (pp. 9–54). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics 11(2), 113–128. Morris, P., Adamson, B., Au, M.L, Chan, K.K., Chan, W.Y., Ko, P.Y., Lai, W., Lo, M.L., Moriris, E., Ng, F.P., Ng, Y.Y., Wong, W.M., & Wong, P.H. (1996). Target Oriented Curriculum Evaluation Project: Interim Report. Hong Kong: INSTEP, The University of Hong Kong.



Chapter 9.  Task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms 

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–54). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Richards, J. C. (2002). 30 years of TEFL/TESL: A personal reflection. RELC Journal 33(2), 1–35. Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources and syllabus design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, P. (2007). Rethinking-for-speaking and L2 task demands: The Cognition hypotheses, task classification, and sequencing. Point-counterpoint plenary presentation at the second International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching, Honolulu, Hawaii, 20 September – 22 September 2007. Samuda, V. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 110–14). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Samuda, V. (2007). Tasks, design, and the architecture of pedagogic spaces. Plenary presentation at the second International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching, Honolulu, Hawaii, 20 September – 22 September 2007. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11,129–158 Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (2007). Tradeoff and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding attention during task-based performance. Point-counterpoint plenary presentation at the second International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching, Honolulu, Hawaii, 20 September – 22 September 2007. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in Applied Linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tsui, A.B.M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van den Branden, K. (2007). Task-based language education: From theory to practice... and back again. Plenary presentation at the second International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching, Honolulu, Hawaii, 20 September – 22 September 2007. White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom: Second language acquisition (pp. 85–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London, UK: Longman.

 Sui Ping (Shirley) Chan Zhang, Y.F. (2005). Implementing task-based approach in primary school ELT in Mainland China. Paper presented at the International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching, Leuven, Belgium, 23 September – 25 September 2005.

Appendix A Table 1.  An overview of Katherine’s five lessons Task type

Description

Picture description

Revision of the previous knowledge (Knowledge of weather, season and clothes) and presentation of new adjectives for describing weather (e.g. sunny, rainy, foggy, cloudy and snowy) Integrating seasons, weather and clothes and identify unique features of different seasons such as things we can get in a particular season Reading aloud the story, new vocabulary items or structures related to weather description, clothes or seasons Matching picture cards & word cards of season, weather, clothes Asking and providing information about the weather using ‘What’s the weather like?’ and ‘It’s (cold)..’ Giving advice on what to wear in response to changing weather conditions Providing information about the clothes that the boy or the girl in the picture puts on Composing a rhyme to share the clothes one wears in different seasons and weather

Story telling Reading aloud Matching Board game Opinion giving Information gap Shared writing task

Table 2.  An overview of Linda’s five lessons Task type

Description

Singing

Singing a song ‘Days of the week’ to revise the previous knowledge of days of the week Revision of the previous knowledge of weather and presentation of new vocabulary for activities; describing the weather or activities on a particular day of the week Reading aloud the stories, new vocabulary items or structures related to weather, days of the week and activities Using symbols to record the weather conditions of a week Matching picture cards and word cards about weather Guessing the activities that the character likes doing in different weather conditions Write four sentences about the activities that one likes doing in different weather conditions

Picture description

Reading aloud Weather chart Matching Story telling Individual writing



Chapter 9.  Task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms 

Table 3.  An overview of Clare’s five lessons Task type

Description

Picture description

Revision of previous knowledge (Knowledge of clothes, food, activities, seasons and occupations) and presentation of new vocabulary for summer and winter clothes (e.g. coat, jacket, shorts) Reading aloud the story, new vocabulary or structures related to clothes and occupations Integrating weather and clothes by showing how the teacher gave advice to Willy, the story character, to keep warm using ‘Put on (a scarf).’ Giving advice on keeping warm using the imperatives ‘Have a (hot bath).’ by asking students to rewrite a story ending Recalling the sequence of clothes that the boy in the story put on. Identifying the word or picture cards of clothes such as ‘a jumper’; deducing the season from clothes; integrating seasons, weather and clothes to describe one’s preference for what clothes to wear Classifying clothes into summer and winter clothes by putting the cut-outs of clothes into the appropriate box Putting the cut-outs of the clothes on the story character’s body parts, such as a scarf on the neck Matching the picture cards for clothes at hand with the ones that the teacher wanted Describing the clothes that one usually puts on in summer or winter Providing information about the different clothes worn by different workers in summer and winter Identifying differences in the clothes different workers wear in summer and winter by exchanging information orally

Reading aloud Storytelling

Giving advice Completing a story quiz Question and answer

Classifying Matching Bingo Individual writing Completing a substitution table Information gap

 Sui Ping (Shirley) Chan

Table 4.  An overview of Maria’s five lessons Task type

Description

Story telling Picture description

Telling the activities the five green monsters in the story played Introducing different sorts of weather such as ‘rainy’, ‘cloudy’, ‘windy’ and the sensations using the pattern ‘I can feel (the wind).’; deducing season from clothes or weather Reading aloud the picture book, new vocabulary or structures related to weather description and seasons. Matching pictures and sentence strips to describe the weather in the picture using the patterns ‘What’s the weather today?’ ‘Today is (windy).’ Recording the weather for a week on the weather chart Asking and providing information about the weather using ‘What’s the weather like today?’ and ‘Today is (windy).’

Reading aloud Matching

Completing weather chart Singing Information gap (Pseudo-communicative) Poem reading and writing

Asking and providing information about the weather and sensations Integrating weather, seasons and feelings of a season; Describing the weather in a season

Appendix B Semi-structured Teacher Interview   1. What did you intend to teach this lesson?   2. How did you organize your lesson to achieve your goal?   3. How did you make use of your pupils’ personal knowledge (both world knowledge and linguistic knowledge) to learn the new language?   4. How can you ensure your lesson is well structured and logical? What considerations have you made when sequencing the teaching events?   5. What did you think the pedagogical value of each activity has in the lesson? Why did you plan your lesson in this way?   6. Why do you use the following activities? What are the benefits for you and the students by using them? (List the activities)   7. Did you encounter any difficulties in planning and teaching this lesson? What are they? Why?   8.  What is unexpected to you after teaching the lesson?   9.  To what extent do you think you could achieve the goal of this lesson? 10.  Is there a part that you think you want to re-teach the next lesson? Why? 11. Based on today’s lesson, do you think you need to further revise your teaching plan for the next lesson? If yes, what needs to be revised, adapted or changed totally? Why?



Chapter 9.  Task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms 

Appendix C Transcription conventions T: Teacher LL: Group of learners choral LLL: Whole class choral L1, L2 etc = identified learner [In italics] = commentary ... = pause / = overlapping speech CAPITALISATION = emphasis C-P-I-T-A-L-I-S-A-T-I-O-N = word spelt letter by letter

chapter 10

Implementing computer-assisted task-based language teaching in the Korean secondary EFL context Moonyoung Park

Iowa State University Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is a comprehensive approach to language education that emphasizes tasks in each stage of the program’s design and implementation (Long & Norris, 2000). Although TBLT has attracted considerable attention since the 1980s, little research has been conducted on its actual implementation in secondary EFL contexts. This study sought, firstly, to illustrate how computer-assisted TBLT lessons can be designed and implemented in a conventional English classroom in a Korean school setting, and, secondly, to investigate students’ L2 development in writing as well as their perceptions of TBLT. Thirty Grade 7 students at a Korean middle school participated in the study. An online needs analysis survey of the students and the teachers was first conducted to reveal their needs and perceptions about the general English curriculum. Based on the triangulated analysis of the participants’, societal, and institutional needs, a series of computer-assisted TBLT lesson plans for two instructional units was designed. An experimental group (N = 30) was taught with the TBLT lesson plans, while a control group (N = 31) was taught in a conventional teacher-centered and forms-focused approach. For each unit, two task-based writing tests (pre/post-test) and a conventional unit test on grammar and reading comprehension were administered. A paired sample t-test of the two groups revealed that the mean scores of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the control group. The experimental group also exceeded the control group in the conventional unit tests. The findings lend support to the interpretation that the task-based approach can be effective in improving communicative competence while not hindering form-focused L2 learning. Students and teachers both found the TBLT lessons are effective and motivating. This study has implications for administrators, curriculum designers, materials writers, and, in particular, EFL teachers, and can assist in the creation of innovative and experiential learning environments to complement the existing English curriculum in EFL contexts.

 Moonyoung Park

Introduction Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has become one of the most commonly discussed language teaching approaches in the field of instructed second language acquisition since the 1980s, and it has recently led to diverse impacts on English education policy, curriculum design, materials development, and classroom teaching. Many researchers, syllabus designers, and educators have paid substantial attention to TBLT, and thus numerous studies have been conducted proposing a variety of instructional ideas for using tasks (e.g., Lee, 2000; Willis & Willis, 2007). Recently, Norris (2009) defined TBLT as an approach to second or foreign language education that integrates theoretical and empirical foundations for good pedagogy with a focus on tangible learning outcomes in the form of “tasks” – that is, what learners are able to do with the language. While researchers differ in regard to what characterizes a task and how it is applied in the classroom, all seem to agree that learners can best acquire the target language by engaging in activities that they will likely encounter in real-world communicative contexts. Somewhat parallel to the introduction of TBLT in language education have been technological advancements, including the increasing use of computers and the Internet, for language learning and teaching. Several prominent voices have highlighted the potential of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) based on SLA principles and associated instructional practices, such as TBLT, to make language teaching more effective (Chapelle, 1998, 2001; Ortega, 2009). Recognizing the importance of communicative-oriented teaching generally speaking, Korea’s National Curriculum emphasizes communicative competence and fluency. More specifically, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has encouraged Korean EFL teachers to develop students’ communicative competence by incorporating both CALL (Ministry of Education and Human Resources, 2002) and student-oriented task-based instruction (Ministry of Education and Human Resources, 2007). However, English classes in public education settings in Korea do not yet meet these national curricula expectations for several reasons, including challenges to the feasibility of TBLT in Asian contexts (McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007) and poor incorporation of students’ and teachers’ needs in the English curriculum, lesson plans, and teaching materials (Yoon, 2004). Nevertheless, the implementation of computer-assisted task-based language teaching (CATBLT) may be able to foster a synergistic effect amongst EFL learners, tasks, and technology to create authentic, innovative, and immersive language learning environments that complement existing English classes in Asian EFL contexts, including the Korean EFL context (Thomas & Reinders, 2010). Still, the feasibility of TBLT needs to be examined in Asian contexts in which different cultural and educational backgrounds exist (McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007). In addition, little empirical TBLT research based on needs analysis that considers students, teachers, and school administrators has been conducted in secondary schooling settings in Asia.



Chapter 10.  Task-based language teaching in the Korean secondary EFL context 

The current study began with and is based on a needs analysis for a Korean middle school EFL curriculum (reported in detail in Park, 2010). The findings of that needs analysis suggested that both students and teachers recognized the importance of preparing for high-stakes exams as well as acquiring communication skills; in other words, they strongly expressed the necessity of formal L2 accuracy and communicative fluency at the same time. To achieve the goals of both fluency and accuracy, this study attempted to employ TBLT as an overarching pedagogical framework, with the inclusion of technology-mediated instruction as a way of providing authentic target language and enhancing students’ motivation and affect. Prior to detailing the pedagogical methods and study findings, I briefly situate the status quo for implementing and research TBLT in the Korean EFL context.

Task-based language teaching in a Korean EFL context As discussed by Norris (2009) and Van den Branden, Bygate, and Norris (2009), TBLT, as developed since the early 1980s, has attempted to harness the benefits of a focus on meaning via adoption of an analytic syllabus, while simultaneously, through use of focus on form, to deal with its shortcomings. These shortcomings include, potentially, a slow rate of development and incompleteness where grammatical accuracy is concerned. Today, TBLT is being promoted in many countries as a potentially powerful language teaching approach (e.g., Van den Branden, 2006), and the scope of TBLT has become broader as well, especially in the design, implementation, and evaluation of task-based language teaching courses and programs. For over two decades, then, researchers and language educators have discussed the task-based approach, which stems from communicative language teaching (CLT) (e.g., Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Ellis, 2003; Long, 1985; Prabhu, 1987; Skehan, 1996). Summarizing some of the major principles discussed in relation to TBLT, Nunan (1991, p. 279) proposed five features: 1. An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language 2. The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation 3. The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language, but also on the learning process itself 4. An enhancement of the learners’ own personal experiences as important contributing elements to classroom learning 5. An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation outside the classroom However, according to some previous research and commentary (e.g., Anderson, 1993; Li, 1998), such pedagogical features have been considered difficult to put into practice in Asian EFL contexts due to several contextual limitations. These include big class sizes, heavy focus on preparation for college entrance exams, rigid national curricula,

 Moonyoung Park

traditional teaching methods, lack of student motivation, and lack of teacher competence. The implementation of TBLT in Korean EFL settings has faced these difficulties as well, but only a few studies have sought to examine the possibilities for TBLT-­related pedagogic approaches in Korean EFL settings. In the first decade of the 2000s, publications on TBLT in Korea primarily questioned the definition and value of the task-based approach, with writing and speaking as the two most frequently explored areas (Hahn, 2008; Kim, 2009; Ko, 2004; Ko, 2008; J.-W. Lee & K.-J. Lee, 2005; M.-J. Lee, 2006; S.-M. Lee, 2005; Shin, 2001). While quite a few researchers have taken interest in the feasibility of TBLT in the Korean EFL context, it is only recently that the research focus seems to have shifted from simply introducing and examining the possibility of task-based approaches to exploring issues of actual implementation in Korean school settings. However, the majority of studies on the actual practice of task-based approaches have been conducted at the college level, where course syllabi and teaching materials tend to be more flexible than in secondary school settings. There is thus a need for more research based on needs of younger EFL learners and focusing on implementation and evaluation of TBLT at both the middle and high school levels, in order to know how best to implement task-based teaching and learning at secondary school in Korea.

Computer-assisted language learning in a Korean EFL context The advancement of computer technology makes CALL a viable alternative to traditional teaching methods; some hope that it will revolutionize the way students learn a second or foreign language. Such hopes are based on the assumption that CALL can expedite language learning and become an important instructional medium (Singhal, 1998). Since the advent of CALL in Korea, a handful of researchers have investigated how to enhance Korean students’ English ability using computers and the Internet. Studies have found that computers and the Internet help Korean EFL learners develop their speaking ability (Shin, 2001), listening comprehension (Park, 2001), writing ability (Shin & Kwon, 1999), and reading comprehension (Yoon & Lee, 2001). The results of these studies also suggest that English classes that integrate computers and the Internet become more learner-centered. When they have access to innovative learning realia, learners seem to devote more time and effort to authentic reading, writing, listening, and speaking activities. A glance at the literature on CALL indicates that the evidence supports the effectiveness of using computers and the Internet for enriching language learning in Korean contexts. However, as pointed out as early as Garrett (1991), the use of computers and technology does not constitute a method or approach. Rather, it is a medium in which a variety of approaches, methods, and pedagogical philosophies can be implemented. It is no wonder that this new medium of language teaching and learning constitutes a challenge for EFL teachers and learners. This study emphasizes how CALL-integrated



Chapter 10.  Task-based language teaching in the Korean secondary EFL context 

English lessons can be developed within a task-based framework and implemented in otherwise highly structured secondary school settings.

The study The aims of the current study were to illustrate how computer-assisted TBLT lessons can be designed and implemented in a conventional English classroom in an EFL secondary school setting and to investigate the linguistic development in students’ writing as well as their perceptions of TBLT. Based on the results of the needs analysis, CATBLT lessons were developed, and then they were embedded and delivered within the regular English course at a Korean school. Units 1 and 2 were developed and implemented for 30 first-year Korean middle school students (roughly seventh-graders in the North American system). Two task-based writing assessments were also conducted to measure and compare the learning outcomes of the experimental group (CATBLT class) and the control group (conventional class). This study focused on the following research questions (RQs): RQ 1: How do the learners perform on the task-based writing assessment following lessons delivered via two different teaching approaches? Is there any meaningful difference? RQ 2: How much do the learners from the two different teaching approaches achieve in the traditional unit-review test developed by the school teachers and focused on vocabulary, grammar, and reading comprehension? Are there any meaningful differences? RQ 3: What are student and teacher opinions of the CATBLT lessons?

Method Participants The research site was a private boys’ middle school in Korea. Out of the 10 first year (7th grade) English classes, two intact classes were chosen for the study. The student participants were male, Korean, middle school students (N = 61) from 13 to 14 years old who were enrolled in required English courses at the school. All of them had four years of previous English instruction in the form of required EFL classes in elementary school. As the school follows a level-differentiated English curriculum, students were assigned to classes based on the results of an English placement test administered by the school, which focuses on reading comprehension and grammar. The two selected classes were for most advanced-level students with similar class mean values in the English placement test (control group, M = 94.67; experimental group, M = 94.29). Each class

 Moonyoung Park

was assigned to one of two conditions; one served as a control group (non-CATBLT group, N = 31) and the other, an experimental group (CATBLT group, N = 30). The teacher participant who taught both groups was a 37 year old Korean teacher of English. He had eight years of teaching experience (three years at a private language institute; five years at the middle school). He taught five advanced-level, first year English classes including the control and experimental groups, and he volunteered to experiment with TBLT for this study. Materials Lesson plans. The same school-mandated English textbook was used in both groups; however, as a part of the experimental treatment, task-based lesson plans for two units of the textbook were developed by the author and then implemented by the volunteer teacher in the experimental group. For each unit, three task-based lesson plans and one task-based writing assessment were implemented over four class periods (three hours of total instructional hours with one hour of performance assessment). Taskbased lessons were designed to elicit communicative interaction between the students, so that students were able to accomplish authentic and real-life tasks using productive skills of speaking and writing. Target tasks, including writing a self-introduction message on line, introducing an e-pal to class, and giving directions to e-pals on transportation, were used to operationalize the lessons in the two units based on the needs analysis (Park, 2010), in which both students and teachers identified the strong need for conversation skills. The design of the task-based lessons involved the following steps. In the pre-task phase, students were provided (and practiced) target task models that featured key linguistic items. In the during-task phase, students undertook the task itself, usually in a small group. Next, students planned how to report their findings or achievements back to the class. Finally, in the post-task phase, students made reports in a different group setting. The teacher occasionally reminded the students of the target structures and grammar at the end of the task sequence. Based on the textbook topic and target forms, the example lesson plan in Figure 1 is designed to provide learners with an opportunity to understand how to introduce an e-pal through a pre-task, find an e-pal online in during-task, and introduce her or him to the class through the post-task. To better serve students’ needs as well as the national English curriculum guidelines for the use of computers in English learning, computer-assisted task-based language teaching lesson plans were developed that optimized use of personal computers and online sources. Learners in the experimental group took their English lessons in the school computer lab, and explored actual E-pal websites and searched for their E-pals by themselves, then uploaded their self-introduction essay on the website. Students also used Internet search engines to find authentic information to complete their tasks, and they used word processing software and presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint) to type their essays and prepare for group presentations.



Chapter 10.  Task-based language teaching in the Korean secondary EFL context 

Lesson #1: (in the computer lab) Target Task: Introduce an E-pal to class Target Forms: I like… / He likes…/ My name is…/ Her name is…/ She is from… – Warm-up activity: - Show an authentic third-person introduction video from a website and ask the students to guess the relation of the interviewees in the video (http://www.real-english.com/reo/6/unit6.html).[Worksheet #3] (5min) – Pre-Task: - Have the class watch the teacher’s introduction of his E-pals focusing on the forms in third-person introduction. (He is…, she likes…, she is from…)[worksheet #4] (Explain that the students will read three self-introduction messages from an E-pal website. Have the class do a brief analysis of the forms and structures used in the self-introductions, and ask them to brainstorm what makes a good E-pal selfintroduction, and what doesn’t. (5 min) - Ask them to choose one different E-pal from the textbook and introduce the person to their partner in English after completing Step 2 in Worksheet #4. Remind the students how to do a third-person introduction. [Pair work; the messages are in the textbook, pp. 16–17] (7min) – During-Task: - Introduce an E-pal project to the class, encouraging them to find their favorite E-pal for the next e-mail correspondence. Have them connect to the E-pal website, and introduce the features of the website. (3min) - Ask them to search for their E-pals by selecting age, gender, nationality [http://penpalsnow.com], and complete Step 1 in Worksheet #5. (17min) – Post-Task: - Have the class move into 8 groups of 4 students each, and ask them to introduce their E-pal to their group in English. Complete Step 2 in Worksheet #5. (8min) – Homework: Answer questions on p. 15 in workbook for reading comprehension.

Figure 1.  A Sample Task-Based Lesson Plan in Lesson 1

For the control group, the volunteer teacher was asked to document his lesson content and sequences, but teach with the same textbook and target forms as in the other, experimental English class. Overall, his lessons in the control group were considerably teacher-centered and grammar- and vocabulary-focused (see Figure 2).

Lesson #3: (in the classroom) Target Forms: third person singular, subjective, possessive, and objective pronoun – Warm-up Activity: - Vocabulary quiz (10 min) – Main Activity: - The teacher helped students translate the content in the “Enjoy Reading”section into Korean by explaining new vocabulary, sentence structure, and grammar. (20 min) – Review: - The teacher summarized the target grammatical rules with example sentences and reminded students of the correct use of them. (10 min)

Figure 2.  A Sample Lesson Sequence in the Control Group

 Moonyoung Park

Learners in the control group were presented target grammar, sentence structure, and vocabulary in the reading section first by the teacher, and then led to practice them by translating the reading texts and solving questions in the textbook. There were few chances for students to interact in pairs or groups. Instead, they engaged in individual activities to solve grammar or reading comprehension exercise drills in the textbook. Pre-test, post-test. To compare the two groups and to measure change resulting from experimental treatments (i.e., the task-based approach), a pretest-posttest design was used. Following guidelines for designing performance assessment (Norris, Brown, Hudson, &Yoshioka, 1998), two sets of task-based writing tests were developed – one set for Unit 1 and one set for Unit 2 – to measure participants’ performance in approximations of real-life, authentic writing tasks. The performance assessment was designed to meet three requirements: (a) examinees must perform some sort of task, (b) the tasks must be as authentic as possible, and (c) the performances are scored by qualified raters (see Shohamy, 1995; Wiggins, 1989.) The theme, target structures, and grammar of each unit from the English textbook were also considered in the design of the tests. A sample pre- and post-test for unit 1 is provided in Figure 3. The pre- and post-test writing data were scored by two trained raters, who scored performances using an analytic rubric which was developed based on Norris et al.’s (1998) research on performance assessment. The criteria consisted of four subcategories: content, language, and organization (20 points each), and task completion (40 points), with 100 points as the highest score. As the given test focused on achieving a specific goal, task completion comprised 40% of the score. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was computed to assess the interrater reliability between the two raters. The results indicated a strong correlation between the two raters: (r = 0.95, n = 244, p = 0.000). To check the reliability of the pre- and post-tests at separating students into distinct performance ability levels, they were first administered to an additional class (N = 28) at the same advanced level. For this additional reliability test, Cronbach’s alpha values for the two sets of pre- and post-tests were 0.82 and 0.97, deemed sufficient for the current study. After the implementation of CATBLT, a retrospective written survey was conducted in order to see students’ and the teacher’s reaction toward this English curriculum with the embedded CATBLT. The survey focused on the effectiveness of CATBLT in English language skills, preference of participation style in CATBLT, preferred language learning activities and materials, and an overall evaluation. I also wanted to investigate the feasibility of CATBLT in the Korean EFL secondary school context. For the quantitative data, descriptive statistics revealed students’ evaluative feedback on the implementation of CATBLT. A five-point Likert-scale was used in the closed-response questions (1: Strongly disagree, 2: Disagree, 3: Neither agree nor disagree, 4: Agree, and 5: Strongly Agree; or 1: Not at all likely, 2: Somewhat unlikely, 3: Neither unlikely or likely, 4: Somewhat likely, and 5: Very likely). The qualitative data from the



Chapter 10.  Task-based language teaching in the Korean secondary EFL context 

Pre-Test Task 1. Writing an e-mail to American Host Family - Imagine you just received an e-mail from John, a member of your American host family who lives in the U.S. army base in our hometown. Dear (your name), Hi! I hope you still remember our dinner gathering this Sunday. There is one more seat available, so you can bring your best friend Minsu. Please let us know his age, hometown, hobby, favorite food, and food he doesn’t like for better preparation. Hope to hear from you soon! Sincerely, John - After reading the e-mail, you sent a text message to Minsu asking his age, hometown, hobby, favorite food, and food he doesn’t like. You just received a text message from Minsu with his personal information. Name

Age

Minsu

12

Hometown

Hobby

Bokhyun-dong Playing computer games

Favorite food

Food he doesn’t like

Pizza

Fried chicken

- Now it is time for you to send an e-mail to Mr. John Smith introducing Minsu with his personal information. Please complete the e-mail in the blank below in 20 minutes. Post-Test Task 1. Writing an e-mail to your E-pal - Imagine you just received an e-mail from your E-pal, Mike, from Canada. Dear (your name), Hello! Thank you for your kind e-mail! I am also happy to be your E-pal. Oh, you said your favorite person is your brother, right? Please let us know more about your brother. Hope to hear from you soon! Sincerely, Mike - After reading the e-mail, you interviewed your brother and got his personal information. Name Minho

Age 15

Appearance Tall and thin

Favorite Sport Swimming

Favorite Food Kimchi

Food he doesn’t like Pizza

- Now it is time for you to send an e-mail to Mike introducing your brother, Minho, with his personal information. Please complete the e-mail in the blank below in 20 minutes.

Figure 3.  Sample Pre- & Post-Test in Unit 1

students were translated, categorized, and tabulated. In terms of the teacher’s data, as there was only one teacher participant who actually implemented CATBLT, individual quotes were simply used to explain his perceptions.

Procedures On the first day of the English lesson, which occurred during spring semester in 2010, participants of both control group and experimental group were told that they were taking part in a study on the implementation of a task-based teaching approach in general English curriculum settings and given information describing the study. They

 Moonyoung Park

were then given up to 20 minutes to complete the pre-test. From the second to fourth class hours, participants in the experimental group were taught using the task-based materials. When units 1 and 2 ended (one unit requires five class meetings), both groups were given 20 minutes to complete the post-test after each unit. All participants also completed a unit-review test at the end of each unit, which consisted of 20 multiple-choice questions focusing on vocabulary, reading comprehension, and grammar for a given unit.

Data analysis All test data were analyzed for descriptive statistics to identify whether there were prepost differences for either group, and whether the groups differed from each other. To investigate whether any observed differences were statistically significant,, an analysis of variance with repeated measures was also conducted. The between-subject factors were the control group (traditional approach) and the experimental group (task-based approach), and the within-subject factors were test scores on the pre-test and the posttest for both Unit 1 and Unit 2. An alpha decision level of p < .05 was set for all inferential tests. To examine participants’ reactions to CATBLT, an open-ended online survey was administered to the experimental group participants.

Results and discussion RQ 1. How do the learners perform on the task-based writing assessment following lessons delivered via two different teaching approaches? Is there any meaningful difference? Pre- and post-tests were used to identify any meaningful difference of participants’ task-based writing performances. The pre- and post-tests were delivered before and after each unit. The data regarding possible effects of CATBLT were analyzed using descriptive statistics and repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Descriptive statistics of the pre- and post-tests from unit 1 indicate that the TBLT group (M = 82.17, SD = 14.12) and the control group (M = 82.42, SD = 12.31) had similar mean values in the pre-test (see Table 1), which indicates both groups earned mean scores as high as 82 points out of 100 points in the test. On the post-test, the TBLT group (M = 90.67, SD = 14.12) performed better than the control group (M = 86.77, SD = 8.06). Although the TBLT group performed slightly better than the control group, the overall scores from pre- to post-test in both groups did not differ very much. Table 2 shows ANOVA results for unit 1 pre- and post-tests. There was a main effect for time (pre- and post-test), which means participants experienced a significant increase in the task-based writing assessment scores regardless of their group. And there was a non-significant result for Time × Group (p = .09), which indicates that the



Chapter 10.  Task-based language teaching in the Korean secondary EFL context 

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics for Pre- & Post-test Writing Assessments Unit

Test

Group

N

M

SD

Unit 1

Pre-test

TBLT Control TBLT Control TBLT Control TBLT Control

30 31 30 31 30 31 30 31

82.17 82.42 90.67 86.77 66.17 67.90 83.50 69.52

14.12 12.31 11.20   8.06 21.92 14.71 13.01 17.86

Post-test Unit 2

Pre-test Post-test

Table 2.  Analysis of Variance with Repeated Measures for Unit 1 Tests SS

df

MS

F

Between Subjects Group Error

   100.99 13269.50

 1 59

  100.99   224.91

   .45

.51

Within Subjects Time (pre/post) Time × Group Error

  1259.67    130.98   2622.30

 1  1 59

1259.67   130.98    44.45

28.34   2.95

.00* .09

Source

Sig

* p < .05

two groups’ test performances did not differ, statically speaking. There are several possible reasons for the similar test performance of the two groups. First, the task itself seemed to be quite easy for both groups, exhibiting a ceiling effect in overall scores. Second, the CATBLT treatment during unit 1 was only three hours of total instructional hours, which may have been too short a period of time to impact task performance. Nevertheless, the task-based group did perform on average somewhat better than the comparison group on the post-test. According to the ANOVA results for unit 2 tests (see Table 3), the significance value of Time × Group interaction was p = .002; therefore, the null hypothesis – that CATBLT made no difference to learning gains in task-based writing assessment – could be rejected, and the alternative hypothesis – that significant improvement did take place and that group membership made a difference – could be accepted. That is, the CATBLT group improved substantially (a 17 point improvement) and outperformed the traditional group (with a 14 point difference on the post-test), both to statistically significant degrees. The experimental group students’ improvement in the task-based writing assessment after three lessons of CATBLT treatment was encouraging

 Moonyoung Park

Table 3.  Analysis of Variance with Repeated Measures for Unit 2 Tests SS

df

MS

F

Sig

Between Subjects Intercept Group Error

628271.29    1143.42   24170.11

 1  1 59

628271.29    1143.42     409.66

1533.63     2.79

.00* .10

Within Subjects Time (pre/post) Time × Group Error

   2736.33    1883.87   10728.01

 1  1 59

   2736.33    1883.87     181.83

   15.05    10.36

.00* .002*

Source

* p < .05

for stakeholders at the middle school. Participants received TBLT instruction through unit 2. Thus, the significant improvement for the CATBLT group on the post-test after unit 2 can most likely be attributed to the additional TBLT instruction and practice of various communicative tasks. RQ 2. How much do the learners from the two different teaching approaches achieve in the traditional unit-review test developed by the school teachers and focused on vocabulary, grammar, and reading comprehension? Are there any meaningful differences? After covering each unit, all first year students, regardless of their level, were required to take a school unit-review test, which focused heavily on vocabulary, grammar, and reading comprehension related to the unit. To investigate possible differences in performance between the TBLT group and the control group on the two unit-review tests, descriptive statistics (see Table 4) and independent t-tests (see Table 5) were used. When comparing the two groups’ scores on the two unit-review tests out of 100 points, both groups performed well overall; however, the TBLT group performed much better in Unit 2 based on the mean value. Table 4.  Group Statistics in the Unit-Review Tests Unit

Group

N

M

SD

Unit 1

TBLT Control TBLT Control

30 31 30 31

95.33 93.23 87.50 77.90

  5.40   5.85 10.15 11.60

Unit 2



Chapter 10.  Task-based language teaching in the Korean secondary EFL context 

Table 5.  Independent Samples Test Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances

Unit 1 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Unit 2 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

t-test for Equality of Means

F

Sig.

t

df

1.97

.17

  .46

.50

1.46 1.46 3.43 3.44

59 58.87 59 58.42

Sig Mean (2-tailed) Difference .15 .15 .001 .001

2.11 2.11 9.61 9.61

The t-test finding shows that there was no statistically significant difference between the groups for unit 1, but there was a clear statistically significant difference in favor of the TBLT group for unit 2. This result may support the positive correlation between CATBLT lessons and form-focused test performance; moreover, it may be a promising sign in that the task-based approach does not necessarily sacrifice students’ language accuracy while leading to apparent benefits for learning to do communicative tasks. RQ 3. What are student and teacher opinions of the CATBLT lessons? After 10 class hours’ of implementation of CATBLT, a retrospective written survey was conducted in order to obtain the students’ and the volunteer teacher’s reactions to the use of CATBLT. The purpose of inquiring into the participants’ reactions was to better understand the feasibility of innovations like CATBLT in the Korean EFL secondary school context.

Students’ reactions The students were asked to provide written feedback of their opinions of the CATBLT lessons via an online survey. Thirty students were asked to rate their preferences for various aspects of CATBLT instruction on a scale from 1 to 5. Tables 6, 7, and 8 show survey results for participants’ (a) perceptions of the effectiveness of CATBLT for developing English language skills (Table 6), (b) preference of participation style (Table 7), and (c) opinions about activities and materials (Table 8). Their written feedback on an open-ended survey item was categorized into advantages, difficulties and concerns, and suggestions, and is summarized, with the frequency of responses in each category, in Table 9. Table 6 shows the results from the questions asking students to rate their opinion on the effectiveness of CATBLT for English language skills on a scale of 1 (“not effective at all”) to 5 (“most effective”). It is worth noting that the ratings are overall pretty high on average. Students indicated CATBLT is most effective in improving learning

 Moonyoung Park

Table 6.  Students’ Views on the Effectiveness of CATBLT in English Language Skills Item

N

M

SD

Rank

Practical Communication Writing Listening Reading Speaking

30 30 30 30 30

4.33 3.93 3.87 3.87 3.70

  .48   .79   .97 1.01   .99

1 2 3 4 5

Table 7.  Students’ Preference of Participation Style in CATBLT Item

N

M

SD

Rank

Teacher-centered Individual Work Pair Work Group Work

30 30 30 30

4.27 3.90 3.67 3.50

.53 .76 .76 .97

1 2 3 4

Table 8.  Students’ Preferred Language Learning Activities and Materials Item

N

M

SD

Rank

Computer (Internet) Pre/Post Test Worksheet Presentation Homework Word Processing Textbook

30 30 30 30 30 30 30

4.37 4.30 4.17 3.90 3.83 3.80 3.60

.67 .65 .71 .76 .59 .66 .81

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

and practicing communication skills (M = 4.33, SD = 0.48). Writing skills were ranked second highest, followed by listening and reading skills with the same mean value (M = 3.87). As for speaking skills, students viewed CATBLT as relatively less beneficial to speaking skills than other skills despite the fact that they marked practical communication skills as benefiting the most from CATBLT instruction. This is probably because the target tasks focused on writing rather than speaking. There was no difference in the students’ most preferred participation style in the CATBLT evaluation, nor in the needs analysis survey administered four months prior (See Table 7). Their most preferred classroom participation style was teacher-centered (M = 4.27, SD = 0.53), followed by individual work (M = 3.90, SD = 0.76), pair work (M = 3.67, SD = 0.76), and group work (M = 3.50, SD = 0.97). It is possible that a more



Chapter 10.  Task-based language teaching in the Korean secondary EFL context 

Table 9.  Students’ Overall Comments on CATBLT Summary of students’ comments Advantages Students could actually correspond with E-pals in English. Students could introduce themselves in English. Students were highly motivated and interested in the use of computer for language learning and practice. As tasks were very authentic, students became confident in real-life communication in English.

Frequency 20 14 12 11

Difficulties/Concerns Implicit grammar learning made students nervous about midterm and final exams. Students were not sure how well or poorly they performed in each task. Students were confused about task instructions. Students were distracted due to unnecessary web surfing.

 8  5  4  3

Suggestions It may be more effective if native English teacher can teach in task-based way. Teacher’s feedback on students’ writing may be helpful to them.

 4  3

gradual transition from communicative activities toward performing target tasks, in conjunction with careful teacher’s guidance, may help students adapt their preference for participation styles and feel more confident and comfortable in TBLT. Students were also asked to rate their preferred language learning activities and materials used in the CATBLT classes on a scale of 1 (“not preferred at all”) to 5 (“most preferred”) (Table 8). Students acknowledged the use of computers (and the Internet) as the most preferred language learning tool (M = 4.37, SD = 0.67). It was surprising that students ranked the pre- and post-task-based writing assessment as the second most preferred learning tool. This finding indicates the potential value of task-based language assessment as a learning and motivational mechanism in future implementation of CATBLT. The textbook was identified as the least preferred tool (M = 3.60, SD = 0.81). These results can serve as a reminder to English teachers to be mindful in their use of the textbook and to consider learners’ interests and needs. Students provided numerous positive comments on CATBLT (Table 9). The questionnaire contained an open-ended question asking for students’ overall opinions of CATBLT after they participated in the series of CATBLT classes. The most prominent advantage of CATBLT was providing students with communicative tasks that are not only motivating and reflecting their needs but also closely related to their curriculum and textbook. The implementation of the task-based approach incorporated with computer technology appeared to be a good match for language learning and teaching. Students’ main concerns were that implicit learning of English grammar and key structures might negatively affect their scores on high-stakes tests and that there was little

 Moonyoung Park

individual feedback from the teacher, which is easy to fix in a fuller version of TBLT. Students also pointed out that task instructions should be clearer. Another concern was that inappropriate use of computers and the Internet in English class could distract them. As for suggestions, a few students mentioned that task-based approaches might work better if a native English teacher implemented the class. They also expected individual feedback on their writing tasks from the teacher.

Teacher’s reactions After implementing CATBLT over 10 class hours, the teacher participant was also asked to complete the same survey. His overall impression of the advantages of CATBLT was that students appeared to be highly motivated by the real-life tasks. Introducing authentic pictures and video clips to students enabled them to experience more real-life tasks and gain more confidence in task performance. For the teacher, the most serious limitation was the lack of individual feedback he could give to students, especially during small group activities. He also pointed out the need for preparatory sessions for both English teachers and students to better prepare for the implementation of TBLT. Like the students, the teacher worried that the computer and the Internet could distract students with unnecessary web surfing or computer games. In terms of pair or group activities, as students were not familiar with small group activities, the atmosphere in the interaction became somewhat slack according to the teacher. Lastly, he also expressed a concern about the potentially heavy work load in CATBLT lesson development.

Conclusion This study investigated the effectiveness of CATBLT in the secondary general English curriculum in Korean EFL contexts. The findings indicate that CATBLT may be an effective pedagogical approach and tool for helping young EFL students under a general English curriculum. Students’ opinions of CATBLT were mainly positive, although they did mention a few concerns. Nevertheless, student participants noted more advantages of CATBLT than problems. The teacher also expressed positive views, noting that the task-based approach has a lot of potential. This study was part of a larger effort to build program innovation and evaluation into the development and delivery of an effective and needs-based English language program. As part of a language program development and evaluation and sequence, this CATBLT implementation should not just be considered theory testing or a demonstration of program effectiveness; its results should be used to improve language programs as they are put into practice.



Chapter 10.  Task-based language teaching in the Korean secondary EFL context 

The current study has limitations that should be acknowledged. Because this study focused on a specific instructional context (i.e., private middle school students in Korea) the findings are not generalizable to other contexts or L2 populations. Further, the small number of participants and short experimental period are a major limitation. Studies should continue to expand the empirical basis of CATBLT by including more diverse EFL school contexts and learners. Finally, in order to examine the feasibility of CATBLT in the Korean EFL context, broadly speaking, more longitudinal studies need to be conducted throughout a semester or academic year so that accumulated findings can contribute to building a valuable basis for implementing CATBLT at national curriculum levels in the Korean educational system.

References Anderson, J. (1993). Is a communicative approach practical teaching English in China? Pros and cons. System, 21, 471–480. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. London: Longman. Chapelle, C. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed LA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 22–34. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from http://llt. msu.edu/vol2num1/article1/index.html. Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 74–101. Hahn, J.-W. (2008). Challenges of task-based language teaching: With reference to Korean EFL teachers’ beliefs. English Language & Literature Teaching, 14(3), 49–68. Kim, Y.-J. (2009). The role of task complexity and pair grouping in the occurrence of learning opportunities and L2 development. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University. Retrieved June 15, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3370628). Ko, K.-S. (2004). Task-based language teaching applications for network-based language teaching. Modern English Education, 5(2), 39–53. Ko, M.-H. (2008). Korean college students’ and a teacher-participant’s reaction to TBLT. English Teaching, 63(3), 25–44. Lee, J. F. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Lee, J.-W., & Lee, K.-J. (2005). A model of the learning materials for middle school multi-purpose English classes through TBL framework. English Language & Literature Teaching, 11(4), 335–363. Lee, M.-J. (2006). The effect of L1 on task-based foreign language learning of Korean learners. Foreign Languages Education, 13(2), 257–282. Lee, S.-M. (2005). The pros and cons of task-based instruction in elementary English class. English Teaching, 60(2), 185–205.

 Moonyoung Park Li, D. (1998). “It is always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677–703. Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Long, M. H., & Norris, J. M. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 597–603). London: Routledge. McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 107–132. Ministry of Education and Human Resources. (2002). The 7th national curriculum for English education [online]. Retrieved May, 2010 from http://www.moe.go.kr. Ministry of Education and Human Resources. (2007). The revised 7th national curriculum for English education [online]. Retrieved May, 2010 from http://www.moe.go.kr. Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Cambridge: Blackwell. Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T., & Yoshioka, J. (1998). Designing second language performance assessments. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press. Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 279–295. Ortega, L. (2009, September). Tasks and technology in language learning: Elective affinities and (dis)encounters. Plenary delivered at the 3rd International Task-Based Language Teaching Conference, Lancaster, UK. Park, G. P. (2001). The effects of linguistic ability, background knowledge, and question types on EFL listening comprehension ability. English Teaching, 56(2), 245–263. Park, M. (2010). A needs analysis for a Korean middle school EFL general education curriculum. In J. Davis & G. Lamb (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th College-Wide Conference for Graduate Students in Languages, Linguistics, and Literature, (pp. 12–24). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Mānoa. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shin, H. & Kwon, C. (1999). Computer mediated instruction in English education: Practice and implications. Journal of the Applied Linguistic Association of Korea, 15(2), 201–218. Shin, J. (2001). Adaptation of TBL approach for English class in primary schools. Primary English Education, 7(2), 164–185. Shohamy, E. (1995). Performance assessment in language testing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 188–211. Singhal, M. (1998). The Internet and foreign language education: Making the most of the information superhighway. Language Education, 26(2), 125–39. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62. Thomas, M., & Reinders, H. (2010). (Eds.). Task-based language learning and teaching with technology. London: Continuum. Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. M. (Eds.). (2009). Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 703–713.



Chapter 10.  Task-based language teaching in the Korean secondary EFL context  Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yoon, K. (2004). CLT theories and practices in EFL curricula: A case study of Korea. Asian EFL Journal. 6(3), Article 1. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/ september_04_yke.php. Yoon, M. & Lee, C. (2001). A study of using CALL software for the improvement of university students reading speed in English. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 4(1), 86–121.

 Moonyoung Park

Appendix A Task-Based writing assessment Task 1–1. Writing an E-mail to American Host Family Task Guidelines for Students

Your writing will be assessed on the following: Content

The content needs to be relevant and sufficient. Relevant means the content is meaningful to the task topic, and Sufficient means that there is enough content (i.e. not too little and not too much). Language – You need to make use of a range of grammatical and sentence structures accurately. –  You need to use a variety of vocabulary and expressions accurately. –  Your punctuation will be assessed. –  Your spelling needs to be accurate. Organization Content/Ideas should be presented logically and grouped together or separated in meaningful ways. Task Completion You need to follow the task requirements and complete the goal. For example, a task requires including two possible options. Therefore read and follow directions carefully. Leave enough time to proofread your writing.



Chapter 10.  Task-based language teaching in the Korean secondary EFL context 

Task 1–1. Writing an E-mail to American Host Family (Answer Sheet)

 Moonyoung Park

Task 1–2. Writing an E-mail to E-Pal Task Guidelines for Students

Your writing will be assessed on the following: Content

The content needs to be relevant and sufficient. Relevant means the content is meaningful to the task topic, and Sufficient means that there is enough content (i.e. not too little and not too much). Language – You need to make use of a range of grammatical and sentence structures accurately. –  You need to use a variety of vocabulary and expressions accurately. –  Your punctuation will be assessed. –  Your spelling needs to be accurate. Organization Content/Ideas should be presented logically and grouped together or separated in meaningful ways. Task Completion You need to follow the task requirements and complete the goal. For example, a task requires including two possible options. Therefore read and follow directions carefully. Leave enough time to proofread your writing.



Chapter 10.  Task-based language teaching in the Korean secondary EFL context 

Task 1–2. Writing an E-mail to E-Pal (Answer Sheet)

 Moonyoung Park

Task 2–1. Giving Transportation Information Task Guidelines for Students



Chapter 10.  Task-based language teaching in the Korean secondary EFL context 

Task 2–2. Giving Transportation Information Task Guidelines for Students

 Moonyoung Park

Task-Based Writing Assessment Rating Criteria Points

20

Content

Meaningful content to the topic, enough content, relevance of ideas to the target task 20 Language Essentially error free. Evidence of superior control of grammar, spelling, punctuation and target structures 20 Organization Content and ideas presented logically and well-organized

Task Completion

40 Superior completion of the task in an effective way including all elements of the target task

15

10

5

Either content to the topic, or ideas to the target task is presented in a less relevant way

Somewhat inadequate content to the topic, less relevant ideas to the target task 10 Repeated weaknesses in mechanics and usage. Pattern of flaws

Inadequate content to the topic, irrelevant ideas to the target task

15 Mechanical and usage errors that do not interfere with meaning

15 Content and ideas presented in a less logically and grouped in less comprehensible ways

10 Either content or ideas was not presented appropriately and was not grouped in comprehensible ways

30 Completion of the task, missing one or two elements of the target task

20 Partial completion of the task in a less effective way, missing several elements of the target task

5 Mechanical & usage errors so severe that writer’s ideas are hidden

5 Neither content nor ideas was presented appropriately and was not grouped together in meaningful ways 10 Minimal completion of the task, missing most elements of the target task

chapter 11

Task-based language teaching through film-oriented activities in a teacher education program in Venezuela Carmen Teresa Chacón The goal of this study is to explore ways of enhancing EFL students’ oral skills using task-based language teaching (TBLT) through film-oriented activities in a teacher education program in Venezuela. Students’ diaries, recordings, and focus group interviews were used to gather data from 50 third-year students enrolled in the program. The study was carried out over a ten-week period and consisted of three stages: pre-task (planning), task (delivering an oral report in class), and post-task (producing film-based activities). The study found that implementing TBLT through cooperative learning projects using films was successful and beneficial for L2 learning in multiple ways, including improvements in the students’ fluency and intelligibility in L2, their listening comprehension, and their vocabulary building skills. The project was also a useful source that exposed students to different accents of the English language and fostered collaboration among students, which ensured more authentic and purposeful communication. In line with the recent EFL teaching curriculum reforms in Venezuela, which recommend the adoption of TBLT for teacher education programs in the country, the main implication of the findings of the study is that through TBLT, these would-be teachers were able to both develop their English competence as learners, and at the same time gain firsthand knowledge about the TBLT methodology and practice in order to implement it successfully in their future teaching situations.

Introduction and context of the study In Venezuela, English is taught as a Foreign Language (EFL), and it is a required academic course to earn a secondary school diploma. During secondary education, students attend English classes three times a week. Classes last 80 minutes per session and class sizes are usually between 38–40 students. The new national curriculum for secondary schools was launched in 2007 by the Ministry of Popular Power for Education. Since then it has changed from an objective-oriented and teacher-centered syllabus to

 Carmen Teresa Chacón

a task or project-based syllabus. Syllabus negotiation and student-centeredness are major changes in the recent curriculum. For foreign language learning, the mandated goal as stated by the Ministry of Popular Power for Education (2007) is “to use oral and written language as a means for communication with the rest of the world and as a means of accessing scientific and humanistic knowledge” (p. 15). In line with this reform, curriculum planning for teaching foreign languages – English, in our case – demands a shift towards alternative ways to teach foreign languages involving students in social interaction and integrating into the curricula the competences on learning how to know, how to do, how to be, and how to live and coexist together (Ministry of Popular Power for Education, 2007). To comply with these demands, teacher education programs have been required to focus on developing the prospective teachers’ competence to speak, read, write, and understand English, and this shift has motivated the introduction of a task-based language teaching (TBLT) approach into these programs. It was hoped that through TBLT, these would-be teachers would (a) develop their English competence, and (b) become familiar with this new approach in order to implement it in their future teaching situations. The course Experiences for Developing Oral Expression in English II is mandatory for third-year EFL students enrolled in the teacher education program where the present study took place. The main goal of the course was to improve students’ intelligibility and fluency in English. In order to achieve this goal, TBLT was utilized to achieve the following two specific objectives: (1) to engage prospective EFL teachers in social interaction through tasks created using films as real-life activities; and (2) to help them improve their fluency and intelligibility in spoken English. It is important to point out that although fluency and intelligibility were the main goals of the course, tasks were constructed to integrate the four skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing in the L2 in order to achieve these outcomes.

TBLT in EFL settings and authentic, purposeful communication Over the past decade of work in language education, there has been a shift from traditional methods to a post-methods era. As Richards (2002) explains, the post- methods era changed the focus from a search for the best method to the exploration of processes involved in teaching and learning based on reflective teaching and action research. Thus, among the common recommendations for current views of language education, teaching and learning should rely on approaches that are student-centered, offer a mix of bottom-up and top-down processes, integrate technology, and support students’ autonomy. Under this paradigm, TBLT has been of great interest for second language acquisition (SLA) researchers interested in instruction as well as for language teachers interested in educational innovation (see, e.g., Brooks & Donato, 1994;



Chapter 11.  Task-based language teaching through film-oriented activities 

Coughlan & Duff, 1994; Edwards & Willis, 2005; Ellis, 2009; Nunan, 1995; Shehadeh, 2005; Van den Branden, 2006; Van den Branden, Bygate, & Norris, 2009). For instance, TBLT research suggests that dialogic interaction in collaborative tasks may go a long way towards facilitating language learning (Brooks & Donato, 1994; Coughlan & Duff, 1994; Coulson, 2005; Pinter, 2005). Poupore (2005), for example, found that on collaborative problem-solving tasks, learners have “more freedom to control the task and to control the language that they want to use” (p. 252). Poupore argues that collaborative problem-solving tasks give learners “more opportunities to experiment with their language and to naturally discuss and negotiate elements related to task content, procedures, and personal experiences” (p. 253). In English-as-a-foreign-language contexts in particular (as was the case with the current study), where English is usually taught in formal classroom settings without real advantages of classroom-external input or sufficient communication opportunities, learners need to be exposed to different types of authentic input and interaction in the classroom in order to learn the L2 more effectively (Ellis, 1997). Ellis argues that this can be accomplished through the use of authentic tasks. That is, different types of input and interaction which include group work and pair work, and in which both form and meaning are emphasized, can foster collaboration and facilitate language learning through the use of authentic communicative tasks in the classroom. Based on this approach, tasks are understood to be “the kinds of activities in which people engage in order to attain some non-linguistic objective, and which involve or necessitate the functional use of language” (Van den Branden, 2009, p. 269). Van den Branden’s definition also implies that authentic task outcomes cannot be entirely predicted or controlled as in the traditional teacher-fronted classroom because such tasks resemble real-life situations, and these are dynamic, not static, and largely unpredictable. In light of these considerations, the study reported below sought to create collaborative and authentic tasks based on these principles of TBLT in an EFL teacher education program setting in Venezuela. The researcher (also the teacher of the course) used films as a source to set up narrative and description tasks designed to expose students to the English-speaking culture, and to provide them with the input necessary to improve their fluency in the L2. The researcher sought to engage these students in an extensive listening activity for communicative tasks, so that they use both bottom-up and top-down processes to decode the messages and “make use of the information provided in the spoken text, not as an end itself, but as a resource to use in order to achieve a communicative task” (Morley, 1991, p. 84). Besides being an authentic source to encourage learners to train their ear for native speakers’ input and “English-like ‘blurrings’ into their speech” (Kenworthy, 1987, p. 79), films serve as a tool for exposing students to different accents and making them aware of the subtleties of language use and cultural diversity, while at the same time manipulating the required linguistic items like features of connected speech, linkage, and structures.

 Carmen Teresa Chacón

Purpose and rationale of the study The main purpose of this study was to explore ways of enhancing a group of EFL student-teachers’ oral fluency and prosodic features of language, focusing on discourse (or connected speech) and suprasegmental aspects as important features for improving fluency, using film-oriented activities. The rationale for using task-based language teaching with films as input is based on three reasons. First, in our context, students rarely interact with native speakers and, therefore, they need input from authentic sources such as films to train their ears for suprasegmentals. Second, task-based language teaching emphasizes fluency and communication. Third, in our context, ELT is more focused on grammar (form) rather than meaning (communication), so students are more likely to achieve accuracy than oral fluency (Chacón, 2005). Thus, task-based teaching through film-oriented activities was chosen to meet these objectives: (1) to make students aware of fluency-related features in native speakers’ speech; (2) to engage students in social interaction in order to perform communicative tasks in English; (3) to develop social skills to work in cooperative teams; and (4) to encourage the use of strategies for facilitating listening comprehension and oral production. These objectives were motivated by a number of considerations. First, in his review of research on task-based learning and instruction, Ellis (2009) notes that most studies on task-based performance are based on quantitative research conducted in laboratories or test situations (see also Van den Branden, 2006 for a similar observation). In response to this concern, the present study sought to create film-oriented activities to be carried out in part as an-out-of class assignment, giving learners extended time for advance planning and preparation before they delivered an oral report about their film in class. With this goal in mind, the study used a qualitative research methodology aimed at examining TBLT for oral production in a non-controlled, less threatening atmosphere where students could proceed at their own pace with no time constraints. Second, TBLT principles were investigated here to see whether and to what degree they foster students’ interaction in the L2 in this EFL setting. Meaning-oriented tasks can draw on films as materials to address the need to provide learners with the necessary exposure to the L2. This is quite important in the EFL case of Venezuela, where English is usually taught following a traditional, linear curriculum in formal classrooms, where there is hardly any time or opportunity for interaction or negotiation of meaning, and where teachers face numerous constraints such as lack of materials and school facilities, tight schedules, and large classes (Chacón, 2005). Third, films were popular among these students. I therefore drew on film content to create a project-based task (PBT) that enabled students to show their understanding of the film (Appendix A). Through paraphrasing and reformulating the input received, students completed two-way open-ended tasks based on narratives and descriptions. Students in cooperative groups of four were free to choose the film they wanted to watch, adapt the tasks to their own interests and needs, and develop other film-activities



Chapter 11.  Task-based language teaching through film-oriented activities 

aimed at improving their English oral fluency and prosodic features. As an outcome, students delivered an in-class oral report of their own version of the film watched. Fourth, research shows that sometimes the suprasegmental aspects of language play a more important role than segmental ones in enhancing intelligibility (Field, 2005). In particular, Field argues that prosodic features contribute to intelligibility while “the occasional insertion of nonstandard phoneme should not grossly disrupt communication” (p. 402). Although intelligibility is considered a key aspect of pronunciation, it is a ‘slippery’ notion because intelligibility is often judged using the native speaker as the point of reference (Field, 2005; Morley, 1991). In the present study, Kenworthy’s (1987) definition of intelligibility as “being understood by a listener at a given time in a given situation” (p. 13) has been adopted because for nonnative speakers the goal is not necessarily acquiring a native-like pronunciation. Finally, prosodic features of language in authentic speech like the ones used in films are fundamental to foster comprehensibility. Therefore, English learners need training in prosody and instruction in listening for linkage, intonation, and word stress so that they notice these phonological features and raise their consciousness about them (Kenworthy, 1987; Morley, 1991).

The study Working within a qualitative research paradigm, this study was framed using an action research methodology (Carr & Kemmis, 1986) following the cyclical process of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting throughout the implementation of the TBLT approach in this teacher education program setting in Venezuela.

Participants Fifty third-year EFL prospective teachers, 32 females and 18 males, participated in the study. All participants were native speakers of Spanish who ranged in age from 21 to 26 and who were enrolled in the course Experiences for Developing Oral Expression in English II, in a teacher education program in Venezuela. Class met twice a week for 90 minutes each session. The majority of the participants had no experience travelling to or living in an English-speaking country. Their English proficiency level was considered high intermediate by the program’s diagnostic test administered at the beginning of the year. A student at this level is able to read, write, understand, and speak in English intelligibly but without complete control of structure and pronunciation.

Research questions The following questions guided this study:

 Carmen Teresa Chacón

– How do film-oriented tasks foster language learning? – What abilities can students improve through film-oriented tasks? – What are the students’ perceptions about cooperative learning?

The project-based task At the beginning of the course, the students brainstormed several projects (e.g., roleplays, watching films, storytelling, drama, using music) they could do to improve their fluency and intelligibility. Films were chosen as meaningful and relevant to the participants’ interest. They agreed to watch a film of their preference as an out-of-class activity, get together as groups for planning and preparation, and then deliver an oral report in class. The oral report included open-ended tasks. The rationale for using this type of task was based on the fact that students’ responses were not fixed or limited; on the contrary, open-ended tasks allowed spontaneous unstructured responses about the film watched (see Appendix B for examples). In addition to the tasks I designed, each team was in charge of designing two tasks for their classmates to accomplish during the oral report delivery (see Appendix C for examples). These tasks-within-tasks were achieved in class as a way to involve the whole group in the tasks set out for each film. Following Kenworthy (1987), the open tasks included both analytical listening and self-critical listening. For instance, in these tasks, the students transcribed film segments of their choice and predicted features of connected speech (e.g., intonation, linking, assimilation); then, they compared their predictions with the actual native speakers’ talk (see appendix D). According to Kenworthy (1987), “[i]n doing analytical listening activities learners discover what native speakers of English do; in self-critical listening, the learners check their own performance against a native-speaker model and their own pronunciation goals and priorities” (p. 78). For both analytical and selfcritical listening activities, students received in-class instruction about the features of connected speech like intonation patterns, linking, assimilation, and stress. Students also performed problem-solving tasks to decide what other activities they could create based on the film, besides narration, description of main characters, and sequencing the film events. During the pre-task activities, the instructor monitored the students’ interaction and helped them clarify difficulties and questions about the project. Directions and procedures were explained in class so that the teams understood what was expected of them. The project was conducted during a ten-week period and consisted of three stages: Pre-task (planning), Task (delivering an oral report in class), and Post-task (producing film-based activities), following Willis’s (1996) framework.

Pre-task: Planning The planning phase prepared learners to carry out the PBT. The follow-up tasks took about six weeks to complete. During the pre-task phase, most of the negotiation and interaction was carried out in class. Learners were encouraged to select films of



Chapter 11.  Task-based language teaching through film-oriented activities 

personal interest from a list provided by the instructor containing issues of social relevance. Right after that, they received explicit training about listening strategies they could use to aid listening comprehension. However, they were also encouraged to use any other learning strategies they found appropriate to them. A worksheet (see Appendix A) with the criteria for the PBT was distributed and discussed in class to make sure that students understood each stage. The teams allocated mini-tasks among members, planned the activities together, and carried out most of them as at-home activities. In-class time was devoted to teacher and peer input and assistance with the project.

Task: Oral report Once students watched the film and summarized the events, they were instructed to rehearse before delivering the oral report in class. Teams drew on the pre-task activities to move on to the next learning goals of the PBT. The allocated time for the oral report, including the showing of film excerpts and peer-activities, was 25 minutes per team, with each team member speaking around five minutes. The oral presentation included the following elements. A narrative task. This task required learners to watch the whole film and then sequence the events chronologically in order to organize them in a summary of the storyline. The fact that they had to recall and retell the development, climax, and resolution of the story made them work together to figure out meaning from context as well as use paraphrasing to put the storyline together in a summary. A description of main characters and their roles was also part of the oral report. Language focus. Teams were required to select two specific film segments of one to two-minutes in length and burn them on a CD for peers to listen to and work with. Then, they were asked to create film-oriented activities for listening comprehension, vocabulary building, and practice of features of connected speech taken from the film characters’ speech – linking, assimilation, elision, reduced forms, and intonation. Most importantly, all activities were related to comprehension, vocabulary, and features of connected speech which were analyzed and compared as to how these features were articulated by the students in Spanish and in English.

Post-task: Review Teams also created post-viewing, film-oriented tasks and used them with their peers right after they delivered their oral report. According to Skehan’s (2007) recommendation for the post-task stage, teachers should plan for activities that allow students to practice new language and build upon it to internalize it and consolidate the new structures. In the post-task stage, the participants put into practice the new language

 Carmen Teresa Chacón

knowledge and integrated it into their schema. Despite the focus on phonological features, the students worked on accuracy as well, as they had to carry out more formfocused tasks, and on aspects of language complexity too, as they had to elaborate more to produce useful language structures. In completing the above tasks, students used films as the primary source of input to manipulate language, make sense of unfamiliar vocabulary and idiomatic expressions, and understand the different registers used in the film. Watching the film was an authentic task that allowed students to find new ways of expressing what was happening in the film. The tasks got students involved in problem solving and collaborative activities in preparation for the oral presentation. Team members had to improvise, paraphrase, rehearse, and reorganize language before delivering their oral report. In addition, writing, rewriting, and editing were skills they needed in order to write a coherent summary and create film-based activities for their peers.

Assessment and evaluation Throughout the PBT, learners were engaged in self-assessment and peer-assessment so that they assessed their own and each other’ strengths and weaknesses as they advanced in the completion of tasks. Students were also individually assessed by the instructor based on their performance during the oral presentation. Rubrics were used for individual and peer assessment. The criteria evaluated for individual assessment were the use of pauses, hesitations, repetitions, reformulations, presence of linking, blending, reduced forms, and intonation, while peer assessment criteria were based on peers’ oral performance involving intelligibility during the oral presentations (see Appendix E).

Data collection Data were collected from three main sources: focus group interviews, diary entries with students’ reflections, and audio-recordings of the students’ presentations in the manner illustrated below. Focus group interviews. Focus group interviews were conducted to gather data about the strategies used to complete the task. Teams were invited to meet with the teacher to talk about their project. The following questions were asked to each focus group of twelve learners (three teams per session): What was it like for you to participate in this project? What strategies did you use to understand the film? Focus-group interviews were recorded and later transcribed for analysis purposes. Pseudonyms are used throughout to protect students’ identity and confidentiality. Audio-recordings. I audio-recorded the students’ oral performances during each inclass report, took notes, and collected all materials used – worksheets, film segments,



Chapter 11.  Task-based language teaching through film-oriented activities 

and overheads. Twelve recordings (one per group) as well as students’ documents (worksheets, PW presentations, CDs) were the products I collected from each team’s performance to analyze aspects related to fluency and the use of suprasegmentals in connected speech. Language learning diaries. Diaries are a commonly used tool for gathering data on students’ experiences, insights, and perceptions in acquiring an L2 (Bailey, 1990). Students in this study were prompted to write diary entries every week to keep track of the learning language strategies they used while doing the PBT. They were guided to reflect upon their individual and group experience of watching the film and the steps they followed to understand what they saw and heard in the film.

Procedure of analysis All data were analyzed thoroughly, through examination and coding for any emergent themes and recurrent patterns. Through open coding the collected data were broken into units of analysis, which were words and phrases. Then, the data were reassembled through axial coding in order to find meaningful relationships between the codes from open coding. The extracted categories went through conceptual selective analysis for the selected categories. As a result of the codification process a total of 100 units of analysis were identified, and the outcomes of the analysis are further described below.

Findings Data from the focus group interviews and students’ diaries were analyzed using the software ATLAS-ti version 6.0 (Muhr, 2006). The categories and subcategories shown in Table 1 emerged from the ATLAS-ti analysis of the diaries and interviews. Documents (groups’ worksheets, CDs, and overheads) were also analyzed to compare them with what students’ reported both in the diaries and in the interviews. Table 1 below shows the frequency results, in terms of the number of times each category and subcategory was mentioned. Table 1 reveals that the category language competence including listening, speaking, and the four skills has a subtotal frequency of 47 out of the 100 units of analysis while the category strategies development for learning and teaching, that is, cognition, autonomy, and the use of audiovisual aids, has a subtotal frequency of 34. The least frequency mentions appeared for the category cooperative learning with 19 out of 100. Within each subcategory, listening was the ability with most frequent mentions, reaching a frequency of 16, whereas the use of audiovisual aids has a frequency of 15, and group work has 14 mentions within cooperative learning. Of all, the most frequent mentions were for listening (16) and the least frequent mentions was for principles of cooperation (5).

 Carmen Teresa Chacón

Table 1.  Distribution of frequencies by categories and subcategories Categories

Subcategories

Strategies

Cognition Autonomy Audiovisual aids Subtotal 1 Audio-Oral Four skills Speaking Listening Subtotal 2 Principles of Coop Group Work Subtotal 3

Competence

Cooperative Learning

Total

frequency    7   12   15   34    8   11   12   16   47    5   14   19 100

In the following section, I explain in more detail the areas of improvement as self-reported by the group of prospective teachers who participated in this study.

Areas of reported teaching and learning improvement Figure 1 shows the number of times participants reported improvement in some aspects of their own skills, which included not only language abilities but also teaching skills. The numbers in the figure represent the frequency in each case. As Figure 1 suggests, listening and speaking were the language skills that had the highest frequency of prospective teachers reporting improvement. Autonomy, group work, and use of audiovisual aids were also reported quite frequently as areas of improvement. In the next section, I provide indicative testimonies gathered during the focus group interviews and expressed in the diaries. These testimonies particularly referred to improvement in language abilities (listening, speaking, vocabulary building), strategy development for learning and teaching (autonomy, use of audiovisual aids, cognition strategies), and student perceptions towards the use of cooperative learning as an approach for achieving the PBT.

Language abilities In regard to language abilities, listening and speaking, most participants commented positively on their progress in those areas. One of the students said: “I improved all



Chapter 11.  Task-based language teaching through film-oriented activities 

Speaking

12 5

Principles of coop

Subcategories

Listening

16

Group work

14

Categories Strategy Competence Cooperative learning

11

Four skills 7

Cognition

12

Autonomy

15

Audiovisual aids Audio-oral

8

0

5

10 Frequency

15

20

Figure 1.  Frequency of mention of different areas of improvement

skills but particularly my listening and speaking because when we analyzed each segment, we had to focus our attention to decode and interpret the message for the discussion.” Another stated: “I trained my ear to listen and my speaking improved with the help of my peers.” Students also reported gains in practicing features of connected speech by analyzing film dialogues. One student wrote in her diary: “I trained my ear to recognize different accents and understand English at natural speed. Now, I can understand my peers and teacher better.” Another one, Francys, wrote: “I think I improved my fluency, I can communicate more easily. Also I understand faster when I listen to people speaking English in films, TV, news, etc.” Similarly, Alexandra, wrote: “I learned to identify and recognize falling and rising intonation and some reduced forms, and linking.” Some diary entries also showed students’ progress on the four skills. For instance, José wrote: “I improved all skills because I had to read and write while doing research about the film and listening to the film and watching it in preparation for the presentation.” Vocabulary building and pragmatics were also mentioned as gains. Learning slang and idioms was, according to the participants’ testimonies, of particular interest to them. It is worth noting that language in textbooks does not generally expose students

 Carmen Teresa Chacón

to ‘authentic’ speech, while films do, for they are intended for native speakers. Dialogue in films is much richer and more varied in conversational exchanges. Thus, most of the students reported that they learned vocabulary they had never found in their textbooks. In a focus interview, Ana, for example, stated: “I learned a lot of new words that were not part of the colloquial English I use.” Furthermore, learning new vocabulary from spoken input accompanied by contextual clues seemed to motivate students to learn vocabulary and incorporate it into their schema. Film segments can be rewound to allow for the repeated retrieval of words and phrases which learners can figure out or guess using contextual clues or look up in dictionaries while they watch the film. In fact, most students reported that they benefited from looking up words and searching for meaning and pronunciation in online dictionaries to understand film messages and unfamiliar or new words. During a focus-group interview one student said: “We worked together to write the script of the discussion and to design the activities for the class. Also we used a lot of internet and dictionaries to look for new words, expressions, and IPA [International Phonetic Alphabet] transcriptions.”

Strategy development for learning and teaching The tasks demanded extensive listening preparation outside the classroom. In completing these tasks, teams developed their own learning and teaching strategies as they solved problems and interacted to comprehend the film and design the activities for the class. Based on the group work, it can be said that positive interdependence was built while they carried out the tasks, in particular the oral report delivery. In the diaries and during the focus interviews, the participants commented on the strategies they used to aid comprehension and task achievement. The following section explains the strategies the students said they used and which were reported as gains towards the achievement of the PBT. Incorporating Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Most of the students said that they searched the Web to find information about the film they were working on. In an effort to comply with the tasks, the students developed their own strategies and managed to find information using search engines and websites such as http:// www.imdb.com, http://movies.yahoo.com, http://www.blockbuster.com, http://www. youtube.com, http://www.filaffinity.com, www.movies.nytimes.com, http://www.captionswap.com . They reported reading film reviews on the internet and searching for clips, trailers, and scene scripts. A team member explained: “We watched the film over and over to select the segments we would use. After selecting the scenes, we downloaded the scripts and watched it again.” Another one stated: “The first thing we did was looking the film on the internet, and then watched it individually. A few days later we met to talk about the film, plot and characters and agreed on the scenes for class. We met again to practice our performance.”



Chapter 11.  Task-based language teaching through film-oriented activities 

Using captions. The use of captions in English differed among students. Captions refer to on-screen English text designed for hearing impaired viewers that can be activated to facilitate students’ comprehension of what is being said. Subtitles are direct Spanish translations of film dialogues. Some students reported that reading captions helped them understand while others refused to read captions and preferred to concentrate their attention on listening and predicting, taking notes and inferring based on the nonlinguistic clues provided by the context. One student said: “We saw the film with no subtitles and then we put on the captions to compare if our predictions and comprehension were right. We realized that what we missed were expressions totally new to us.” Using L1. During the focus groups interviews, some students mentioned that they used L1 to read film subtitles and to negotiate meaning particularly during pre-task planning. For some, it was important to read subtitles because as one team member said, “we consider that is very important not to lose the essence of the plot. We first saw it with subtitles in Spanish and then in English with no subtitles.” Other teams, however, preferred not to use L1 subtitles: “we covered the subtitles in Spanish to listen to English and identify vocabulary”; “we watched the film at least two times, listened to the dialogues without subtitles; we transcribed by our own hand the scenes selected, to show to our classmates”; “we saw the film without the subtitles to practice our listening. We listened four times to a specific scene and wrote the script. We tried to write everything we heard and check up unknown words in the dictionary.” Pausing and rewinding the film. Students also reported that watching the film at home allowed them autonomy to work at their own pace and make the necessary adjustments to meet their particular needs. Those for whom it was hard to understand expressed that pausing and rewinding the film were helpful strategies that enabled them to check comprehension, predict and paraphrase. For instance, Rosa commented in her diary: “When I listened to the scenes the first time I didn’t understand, but I repeated and repeated the scene and I could understand the dialogue between the actors. I think this strategy was very good and effective.”

Student perceptions towards the project-based task In their diaries, the students expressed their views about the cooperative PBT. Figure 1 indicates positive attitudes towards cooperative learning and group work. As a result of peer-to-peer assistance and mutual support to fulfill task demands, students reported improvement in their oral production in their diaries and focus interviews. In reflecting upon the gains, during the focus interviews, one student explained: “we had to work so hard on the film project, but we enjoyed spending time together to do that.” Other students expressed similar views:

 Carmen Teresa Chacón

– Cooperative learning is an interesting experience. It allows us to learn from each other to see our language’s strengths and weaknesses through our partners’ eyes (Isabel). – I think this is a very effective method because it creates bonds among team members. Personally, it helped me because I worked with students that had a higher level of comprehension in English than me, and because of that, I felt obligated to work harder so my team could have good grade (Alex). – I believe this kind of activity is very interactive because it keeps students’ attention on the activity itself (Virginia). – In doing the project, we worked together to write the script of the discussion, and to design the activities for the class (Maria). – It’s motivating because when someone selects a film it means he likes the film, and that means he will keep himself focused on the task and share this with his team members (Alejandro).

Peer assessment Another way to report improvement was through peer assessment (see Appendix E). Figure 2 shows assessments of oral presentation skills based on items evaluated during peer performance using a scale from 1 “Needs Improvement” to 3 “Very good”. The majority chose “Very Good” for items 1 through 4 meaning clear, intelligible, and wellorganized speech. Figure 2 shows that the highest Mean (2.62) was awarded for the oral delivery of the PBT which suggests that students rated their peers’ speech as clear and intelligible. 3

Mean

2

2,44 1

2,42

2,42

2,62

0 Gave an interesting Presented a introduction clear summary

Presented info. in an acceptable manner

Figure 2.  Peer Assessment of participant oral improvement

Spoke clearly, intelligibly, confidently



Chapter 11.  Task-based language teaching through film-oriented activities 

Discussion Based on self-reported data and self-assessment, results of the study suggest that the cooperative task-based project employed in this study did foster student collaboration and interaction. First, using films in this cooperative project as a basis for open-ended tasks served to expose students to authentic language and extensive listening activity, and it supported their autonomy and creativity. Collaboration gave students control over the task and encouraged them to use their own strategies to cope with and overcome language difficulties. In these two-way communicative tasks, performance was not controlled, that is, the tasks were not created to elicit specific responses; on the contrary, the students set up their own goals for the PBT, developed strategies to understand what they saw and heard, and to understand one another. As reported in the findings, the participants had plenty of opportunities to exchange and negotiate meaning through decision-making and problem-solving activities. Through TBLT, they experimented with the language and used their own stories and assumptions about the task and context. They re-structured the language to understand, narrate, describe, and deliver an oral report and to create new film-oriented activities, all of which contributed substantially to enhancing the students’ fluency and intelligibility in the L2. Additionally, the participants reported that working on this cooperative TBLT project was an informative and enriching experience in multiple ways. According to their self-assessment, participants expressed that they improved their fluency and intelligibility in English, which were the main goals of the study. They reported making progress in listening comprehension; they also said they learned new vocabulary and developed awareness of different accents and connected speech features in nativespeakers’ discourse. Further, designing task-based activities for peers helped the participants experience TBLT both as learners and as future teachers. They planned and decided which tasks to use with their classmates.

Implications of the study EFL in Venezuela, as in several other EFL settings, is taught in formal classroom situations. In these settings, learners do not have sufficient opportunities to interact in English in the classroom in part due to large class sizes. In addition, teachers rely heavily on explicit grammar teaching and dedicate little time to authentic oral skills, including speaking and listening activities. It was necessary, therefore, to explore other ways to bring elements of authentic communication into the classroom. Using this film-oriented activity based on the principles of TBLT was one way of providing learners with such communication opportunities. As was shown here, utilizing TBLT through film-oriented activities was reported to improve learners’ speaking fluency and intelligibility in the L2, and it exposed them to a series of extensive listening

 Carmen Teresa Chacón

activities. On the other hand, the study also indicates the participants’ positive attitudes towards the whole project. For instance, almost all the participants commented on the importance and usefulness of working in pairs or groups to achieve communicative ends through tasks. Further, they commented that getting together to create their own film-oriented tasks was an enriching pedagogical experience on how to use TBLT in the future. In line with the recent FL teaching curriculum reforms in Venezuela introduced earlier, which recommend the adoption of TBLT for teacher education programs in the country, the main implication of the findings of this study is that through TBLT, these would-be teachers are able to both develop their English competence as learners, and at the same time gain firsthand knowledge about the TBLT methodology and practice in order to utilize it (hopefully successfully) in their future teaching situations.

Constraints of the study and conclusion The main constraint of the study related to building teams. This was a real challenge because these students were not accustomed to cooperative learning. To combat this, I created opportunities for in-class teambuilding and observed and supported team members along the process, taking into account each member’s opinion and reaching an agreement to complete the learning outcomes. In class, I devoted a good amount of time to checking the progress of the projects and provided teams with the necessary guidance to complete the tasks successfully. Another constraint was that a few students did not like the group formation procedure followed. At first, some students resisted being assigned to specific teams because they were used to selecting the group in which they wanted to work, and therefore, they complained. It took patience and careful planning to figure out how to bring cooperative learning principles into play, especially during the first weeks when team members needed to build mutual support and social skills. Although it took some students some time to get used to working in teams, they soon learned how to solve problems and negotiate among each other so that every team member’s contribution was incorporated into the final report. After the first two weeks, I re-formed some groups at some students’ requests. Regrouping was necessary because a few members of some groups were frequently absent and were thus unable to contribute actively or fully to the project-based tasks. These constraints should be borne in mind when designing and implementing cooperative project-based tasks in the future in other EFL settings similar to the one investigated in this study. Despite these and any other challenges that the investigator faced, like class size and unfamiliarity with TBLT (see introduction), the main finding of this study was that implementing TBLT through cooperative learning projects using films was reported by the participants as a beneficial experience for L2 learning in multiple ways. According to their self-assessment perceptions, through TBLT they



Chapter 11.  Task-based language teaching through film-oriented activities 

seemed to improve fluency and intelligibility in the L2, as well as listening comprehension and vocabulary building skills. These positive findings indicate at a minimum the potential contribution of a task-based approach to language learning and to teacher education in this, and other, EFL settings.

References Bailey, K. (1990). The use of diary studies in teacher education programs. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 215–225). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Boyle, D. (Director) (2006). Slumdog Millionaire [Motion Picture] UK. Brooks, F.B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygostkian approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77(2), 262–274. Chacón, C. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 257–272. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Knowing through action research. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press. Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygostkian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–193). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Coulson, D. (2005). Collaborative tasks for cross-cultural communication. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 127–138). New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan. Demme, J. (Director) (1993). Philadelphia [Motion Picture]. United States: TriStar Pictures Edwards, C., & Willis, J. (2005). (Eds.). Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of tasks planning in the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509. Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 399–423. Haggins, P. (Director) (2004). Crash. United States: Lions Gate Kenworthy, J. (1987). Teaching English pronunciation. New York, NY: Longman. Ministerio del Poder Popular para la Educación. Subsistema Educación Secundaria Bolivariana. Currículo y Orientaciones Metodológicas. [Ministry of Popular Power for Education. Bolivarian High School Subsystem. Curricula and Methodological Orientations]. Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of other languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 481–520. Muhr, T. (2006). Atlas-ti version 6.0. Berlin: Scientific Software Development Nunan, D. (1995). Language teaching methodology. A textbook for teachers. New York, NY: Phoenix ELT. Pinter, A. (2005). Non-proficient children using interactive tasks in pairs. Paper presented at the 1st TBLT Conference, Leuven, Belgium. Polanski, R. (Director) (2002). The Pianist [motion picture] United States: Universal Studios.

 Carmen Teresa Chacón Poupore, G. (2005). Quality interaction and types of negotiation in problem-solving and Jigsaw tasks. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 242–255). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave McMillan. Richards, J.C. (2002). 30 years of TEFL/TESL: A personal reflection. RELC Journal, 33(2), 1–36. Shehadeh, A. (2005). Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 13–30). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave McMillan. Smith, J. N. (Director) (1995). Dangerous Minds. [Motion Picture]. United States: Hollywood Pictures. Skehan, P. (2007). Tradeoff and Cognition: Two hypotheses regarding attention during taskbased performance. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on TBLT, Honolulu, Hawaii. Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van den Branden, K. (2009). Mediating between predetermined order and chaos: The role of the teacher in task-based language education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 264–285. Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (Eds.). (2009). Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Weir, P. (Director) (1989). Dead Poets Society [Motion Picture]. United States: Touchtone pictures. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, UK: Longman Addison- Wesley. Zwick, E. (Director) (2006). Blood Diamond [Motion Picture]. United States: Warner Bros.

Appendix A Guidelines for the Project-Based Task: Your Favorite Film Directions: In group, select a film of your preference from the list given. Arrange the time and place to watch it together. Do the following tasks: Task 1 a. b. c. d. e.

Based on the title, make some predictions about the film. Brainstorm possible vocabulary you expect to find in the film. Watch the film and take notes about the main ideas or theme of the film. Identify the main characters and describe their roles. Summarize the plot – main events, climax, and resolution of the plot.

Task 2 a. Transcribe two segments (scenes) of your preference – one minute to two-minute in length.



Chapter 11.  Task-based language teaching through film-oriented activities 

b. Identify features of connected speech – linking, assimilation, word stress, etc. in each segment to present in class. c. Create two film-oriented activities to use with your peers.

Appendix B Samples of open-ended tasks Task 1. Summarizing the plot of the film This narrative corresponds to the team that presented about the film “Blood Diamond”. The plot of BLOOD DIAMOND is developed in SIERRA LEONA (AFRICA). This movie is based on the struggle that Solomon Vandy suffered to join up his family that was brutally torn apart from him. Solomon was kidnapped and forced to work in a mine field where he discovered a big pink diamond. Solomon hid the diamond and in that moment a series of events started to develop. As the events went on, new characters appeared to make things harder for him. One of them is Danny Archer a southAfrican smuggler soldier who heard about the pink diamond while he was in prison. For Archer, the diamond was his ticket to leave Africa. Another character, a journalist called Maddy Bowen played by the beautiful Jennifer Connelly was a journalist who’s trying to write the big story. So as the movie developed, she made a deal with Danny Archer. Maddy was willing to help Archer if he gave her the names of the diamond merchants (big bosses) to write her story. Thus, they needed one another to achieve their goals. So, these characters started a dangerous passage across the territory controlled by the rebellious troops. Solomon’s main goal was to reunite with his family but this would not be easy. The rest of his family was in the second largest refugee camp in Africa, and his son had been recruited by the rebels while Solomon was gone. That’s when Danny Archer and the pink diamond became his last hope to reunite his family. Task 2. Expressing opinions and feelings about the films The following sample is a comment on the film “Crash.” It is a controversial movie because there are many scenes of discrimination and racism. People are connected by the actions they do. We have to learn that we cannot offend a person because of their color, their religion or their social conditions. This movie teaches people to see the world in a different way. For example, in Venezuela and specifically in Táchira State, there are citizens from several countries, and if we discriminate those people we are not human beings because they are like us, and they have feelings, and as human beings we are not different from them. The only difference we can see is the nationality, the language they use and some costumes. The following is an individual reflection about the film “Dead Poets’ Society.” In this case, the team handed in individual reflections about the film.

 Carmen Teresa Chacón



Chapter 11.  Task-based language teaching through film-oriented activities 

Appendix C Samples of film-oriented tasks each team designed for classmates

Task 1: You will be shown a segment of the film “The Pianist” three times. Fill in the blanks with the words or phrases you hear. The first time, listen; the second time fill in, and the third time check your responses. I hereby order that all Jews in the Warsaw district will wear visible emblems when out of doors. This decree will come into force on the   1st of December 1939 and applies to all Jews over twelve years of age. The emblem will be worn on the right sleeve and will represent a blue star of David on a white background. The background must be sufficiently large for the star to measure eight centimeters from point to  point. The width of the arms of the star must be one centimeter. Jews who don’t respect this decree will  be severely punished. Government of Warsaw District, Dr. Fisher Task 2. Filling in the blanks with the missing words. You will be shown a segment of the film “The Pianist.” Watch the scene and mark the intonation using arrows Kitty: Open this door at once or we’ll call the police. Are you from the flat in there? You’re not registered Szpilman: It belongs to a friend of mine. I came to visit but I must have just missed him

 Carmen Teresa Chacón

Kitty:

Have you got your identity card? Let me see your identity card. I want to see your identity card He’s a Jew! He’s a Jew! Stop the Jew! Don’t let him out!

Task 3 Part A: Identifying reductions Watch the following scene from “Dangerous minds” and fill in the blanks with the reductions you hear. Task 3 Part B: Identifying linking Watch the scene again and listen for linking. Mark it using a ç . Callie: I realized. . . Thisç is my last chance andç I decided. . . We decided that we’re not gonna just letç you leave like that. Raul: Yeah, we realized like the poem said: “You can’t giveç in, you can’t go gentle, you’ve got to rageç against the dyingç of the light.” Student A: Yeah, you gotta go for yours. You know that, right? Louanne: Waitç a minute, waitç a minute. No, no, wait, wait. I’m not givingç in. Thisç is my choice. I have no reason “to rageç against the dyingç of the light.” Callie: You’re not the one who’s raging. We’re the ones who are raging. See, cause we seeç you as beingç our light. Louanne: What? Student B: You’re our Tambourine Man. Louanne: I´m your drug dealer? Student C: You’re our teacher. You got what we need. It’s the same thing. Raul: Começ on, Miss “J” all the poems you taughtç us say you can’t giveç in, you can’t giveç up. We ain’t giving youç up. Student C: No way. Now, listen baby we’re gonna haveç to tie you down to the chair and getç you 'cause we know we wantç you to stay. Task 4: Creating questions Based on the summary of the movie “The Pianist,” discuss in your group the answer to the following questions: 1. What do you think about discrimination? 2. What do you think about Wladyslaw’s courage? Task 5: Predicting events Based on the title of the film, students asked questions for predictions before presenting each oral report. For the film “Crash” questions were:



Chapter 11.  Task-based language teaching through film-oriented activities 

What does Crash mean for you? What do you expect from this film? For the film Philadelphia, the questions were: What do you know about AIDS? Who has watched the film? Post viewing activities The following two samples were used as Post viewing activities. Team 1 created a poster for the film Slumdog Millionaire while team 4 created a newspaper about Dead Poets’ Society to share with peers.

Another example of a Post viewing activity was the game, who wants to be a millionaire? created by the team 1 to play it with classmates.

 Carmen Teresa Chacón

Young Jamal worked as a tourist guide at…?

Who is the main character of the movie? A: Jamal

B: Salim

A: Himalaya

B: Mumbai

C: Danny

D: Jashan

C: Taj Mahal

D: Jaipur

Where was the movie filmed?

A: Madurai C: Madras

How many brothers and sisters does Jamal have?

B: New Delhi

A:

One brother

B:

One brother and one sister

D: Mombay

C:

Two Brothers

D:

Five Brothers

On an American one hondred dollar bill there is a portrait of which American Statesman?

Who is the director of the movie ?

A: George Washington

B: Benjamin Franklin

A: Steven Spielberg

B: David Lean

C: Abraham Lincoln

D: Franklin Roosevelt

C: Danny Boyle

D: Martin Scorsese



Chapter 11.  Task-based language teaching through film-oriented activities 

Appendix D Transcribing movie segments to identify features of connected speech The following sample transcript from the film Philadelphia shows intonation, linking, and word stress.

 Carmen Teresa Chacón

Appendix E Peer Evaluation Directions: For each of the following, select from 1 to 3 to evaluate your peer’s performance during the oral presentation.

  1.  Gave an interesting introduction   2.  Presented a clear summary of film events   3.  Presented information in an acceptable order   4.  Spoke clearly, intelligibly and confidently   5.  Maintained eye contact   6.  Presentation was interesting   7.  Film activities were well-planned and engaging   8.  Film segments were thought-provoking   9.  Used visual/audio aids well 10. Offered a concluding summary Comment:

Very Good

Satisfactory

3

2

Needs Improvement 1

chapter 12

Task-based language teacher education in an undergraduate program in Japan Daniel O. Jackson

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, USA Task-based language teacher education can assist participants in adopting (a) roles and responsibilities based on their needs, (b) collaborative approaches to professional development, and (c) communicative language teaching practices. The classroom study presented in this chapter examines aspects of novice teacher cognition among 15 participants in a one-semester, task-based, undergraduate seminar on language teaching methods. A mixed-methods investigation included retrospective comments, classroom discourse, and survey results as data on the effectiveness of the task-based teacher education approach. Findings of the study indicated that seminar participants both gained and shared knowledge related to teaching practice through classroom tasks. In addition, participants and their peers rated various recommended instructional practices from the task-based language teaching (TBLT) literature highly. The chapter discusses the potential of task-based teacher training to support curricular innovation initiatives like TBLT designed to enhance language education in the Japanese EFL setting.

Introduction This chapter explores task-based undergraduate L2 teacher education in the context of an intensive English program in Japan. In order to justify the application of task-based instruction to this particular context, it begins with a review of the impact of policy shifts by the Japanese government on public school educators. To demonstrate the implementation of task-based instruction in teacher preparation courses, a seminar on TESOL methods, designed with Japanese schoolteachers’ needs in mind, will then be described. Findings from a mixed-methods study conducted in the seminar will be discussed in terms of specific knowledge and attitudes displayed by participants. Based on these findings, it is suggested that task-based teacher training may prepare the next generation of schoolteachers to face the challenge of reforming English language education in Japan.

 Daniel O. Jackson

Policy background In order to address the need for global communication skills, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) announced a strategic plan in 2002 aimed at improving English abilities among Japanese citizens (MEXT, 2002). One initiative within the plan was the establishment of Super English Language High Schools (SELHi) intended to aid in the promotion of exemplary models of English education (MEXT, 2003). A recent comparison study showed that SELHi students outperformed students in regular Japanese high schools on measures of their confidence in using English as well as their listening, reading, and writing proficiency (Yoshida, 2008). Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is among the curricular innovations being implemented at SELHi schools, such as Kawagoe High School in Mie Prefecture, where tasks provide a way for learners to use the English they are studying (Matsuzawa, 2004). However, the policy’s emphasis on enhancing communicative English abilities poses a number of unique challenges for classroom teachers in the Japan schooling context. Scholarly views vary regarding the impact of the subsequent Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities (MEXT, 2003) on teachers. Butler and Iino (2005) discussed the plan’s seven target domains of improvement, which include English classes, teachers’ abilities, motivation for learning English, evaluation, elementary school English, Japanese language abilities and practical research. They argued that the plan reflects conflicting ideologies, raising questions about whether its aims are to promote English versus multiculturalism, language education versus international understanding, and egalitarian versus individualized forms of education. At the same time, they commented favorably on the greater teacher autonomy afforded by the plan and anticipated teachers’ active participation in shaping language policy as a result of its introduction. Aspinall (2006) focused on how the innovations proposed by the ministry may be thwarted at the local level, by preoccupation with university entrance exams (which traditionally do not test communicative skills), educational values that seek to avoid placing students who struggle with language learning at further disadvantage, and day-to-day issues such as maintaining an acceptable level of noise in the classroom so as not to disturb neighboring classes. He suggested that small cultures (Holliday, 1999) of stakeholders at the local level may be needed to support the changes initiated by new policies. Finally, Gottlieb (2008) located the plan in the wider context of the development of language planning and policy in Japan. She cited positive responses by students, parents, and teachers to various measures implemented in connection with the action plan, viewed the initial results from the SELHi project as encouraging, and discussed perhaps the most controversial aspect of the plan: English as a compulsory subject in elementary school. The broader implications of this move remain to be seen, yet research has shown that practicing elementary school teachers in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan struggle with defining the goals of communicative language teaching



Chapter 12.  Task-based language teacher education in Japan 

in local contexts, matching foreign language activities to students’ developmental levels, and situating foreign language learning and teaching within their specific contexts (Butler, 2005). This brief overview suggests that the ministry’s action plan may have a better chance of succeeding if teachers entering the profession are willing to take on new roles and responsibilities, develop a collaborative culture within their schools valuing the new initiatives, and consider ways of implementing communicative teaching practices with younger learners. While it would no doubt help, it may be unrealistic to expect novice teachers to undergo training at the master’s or doctoral level, since certification obtained through a bachelor’s degree program is the minimum requirement for teachers in Japan1. The remainder of this chapter therefore focuses on undergraduate language teacher training in Japan with a view toward illustrating how TBLT can be leveraged to address the primary challenges facing new teachers under the Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities. As Van den Branden (2006) observed in his discussion of task-based teacher training in the context of the large-scale implementation of TBLT in Belgium, “various partners will only be prepared to support...educational innovation if each of them can find their own ‘truth’ and their own ‘worth’, in the innovative concepts” (p. 248).

Rationale The rationale for the classroom project described here is that task-based instruction offers opportunities to develop language skills in concert with the strategic abilities Japanese teachers need to attend to responsibilities, cultures, and practices, which, crucially, involve classroom communication in the target language (Butler, 2004). TBLT provides for, on the one hand, language development, and on the other, content mastery and professional skill development. Also relevant are the growing number of reports on putting tasks into practice in various educational settings in Japan (e.g., Benevides & Valvona, 2009; Konoeda & Watanabe, 2008; Willis & Willis, 2007), and the underlying holistic nature of both the case made for task-based learning (Samuda & Bygate, 2008) as well as the educational philosophy behind Japanese school teaching (Shimahara, 2002), which indicate that TBLT is perhaps increasingly and aptly finding a home in Japan (see also Izumi, 2003).

The integrated English seminar: Approaches to TESOL In this section, the TESOL seminar that formed the context for this study will be introduced. In the first and second years of a four-year degree program, the English 1. However, a survey conducted in 1997 indicated that 61 percent of prefectural boards of education were interested in increasing the number of teachers with master’s degrees (Shimahara, 2002).

 Daniel O. Jackson

department at the university where this course was offered provides elective courses that develop language skills in its Integrated English Program. These seminars typically follow a model of content-based instruction; however, syllabus design is negotiated between instructors and program coordinators, such that a task-based framework could be superimposed. Due to space limitations, the focus here will be on a sequence of teaching tasks that students performed during weeks nine though twelve, although there were other elements that lead to a characterization of the seminar as task-based. The steps taken to develop this four-week phase of the seminar course can be described in terms of six elements comprising task-based education presented in Norris (2009), which include: needs analysis, task selection and sequencing, materials development, teaching, assessment, and evaluation. First, a triangulated needs analysis was conducted. To begin, a purpose for using tasks was established through the identification of culturally relevant target tasks in the literature on Japanese education (Butler & Iino, 2005; Sato & Asanuma, 2000; Shimahara, 1998), prior to the start of the semester. Task implementation was then planned in consultation with program coordinators who lent their insights on the use of tasks and technology in seminar courses, among other areas. Subsequently, to validate the foregoing activities and appraise students’ ability to successfully perform the tasks, information on seminar participants’ language learning and teaching experiences was gathered through a survey administered at the beginning of the course. Second, task selection was primarily driven by the previously described literature search but was, importantly, also constrained by the 15-week duration of the seminar, the students’ workload, and the survey results, which indicated that few participants had teaching experience. Planning a lesson, conducting a teaching demonstration, observing the lessons, and carrying out a debriefing session were thus found to be feasible and appropriate target tasks for these developing teachers. Because it may be unlikely for certain natural sequences of real-world tasks to adhere to a progression from simple to complex, in terms of cognitive criteria such as those found in Skehan (1996) or Robinson (2001), the teaching tasks described here were sequenced according to combinability (Candlin, 1987), or their usual order of occurrence during in-service teacher development. Third, materials were developed to make use of available classroom resources, including computers mounted on each desk. Permission had been sought from students in the previous year’s TESOL seminar to use video recordings of their teaching demonstrations as models. Two of these videos, along with a collection of handouts related to the target tasks were uploaded to an online course management system, which also enabled (a) drop boxes, so that students could submit lesson plans to the instructor for feedback, and (b) uploading and password-protection of the class members’ videotaped teaching demonstrations, which they viewed privately to perform their observations. Students were also given assistance during class in creating their own teaching materials.



Chapter 12.  Task-based language teacher education in Japan 

Fourth, teaching involved actively planning and/or seeking out teachable moments. The teacher (i.e., the current author) modeled the language of the tasks though the aforementioned videos and live, in-class demonstrations, but in addition offered recasts and explanations of target language forms which learners were acquiring, formatively assessed task progress at each stage in the sequence, and guided students as they managed various resources to complete the tasks. Fifth, task-based performance assessment (e.g., Brindley, 1994) was conducted. Twenty ‘can-do’ statements formed the basis of the scoring criteria for the planning, teaching, observation, and debriefing tasks. These statements were presented to students at the beginning of, and referred to intermittently throughout, the four-week period so as to guide performance. The rubric was then later used by the teacher to give summative feedback to all students upon completion of the target tasks. Lastly, though recommended as an ongoing part of program development, evaluation will not be addressed here except to mention that course evaluations in the previous year had indicated high levels of student satisfaction with a similar approach. In sum, the seminar course combined a focus on content knowledge with a procedural focus on teaching practice in weeks nine through twelve. During this time, classroom tasks highlighted the real-world demands of teaching in the Japanese context via attention to specific job characteristics, including collaboration in planning, delivering, observing, and reflecting on lessons. By doing so, these four tasks offered a space in which participants could enhance their understanding of the course content by attempting to apply that knowledge, but also one in which they could generate new knowledge.

The present study Though second language teacher education research has shown that pre-service ESL teachers’ emerging beliefs and practices may be based primarily on their formal language learning experiences (Johnson, 1994), few studies at the undergraduate level have been published to date. The relative scarcity of research on undergraduate language teacher training is perhaps surprising in light of Barduhn and Johnson’s (2009) observation that, in general, a bachelor’s degree is sufficient to procure employment as a language teacher in many settings. However, some examples of research with novice teachers in EFL settings do exist. In one summer school project carried out in Japan, an experiential, team-teaching model was used to enhance pre-service, universitytrained English teachers’ responsibility, empathy, self-esteem, communication skills, teacher development, and English knowledge (Tanaka & Fukada, 2004). Experiential models, including TBLT, may thus provide a valuable transition in offering future teachers opportunities to participate in new roles, collaborate with peers, and acquire skills for managing communicative classrooms (see also Chacón, this volume).

 Daniel O. Jackson

The study reported here was based on classroom research conducted in the seminar course described above. The project was undertaken with several purposes in mind, which included (a) experimenting with task-based instruction as a method of language teacher training (Van den Branden, 2006), (b) exploring the kind of practical knowledge acquired when tasks address not only language learning needs but societal needs as well (Norris, 2009), and (c) investigating future teachers’ attitudes toward a situated task-based approach, in which contextual factors interact with task-based principles (Carless, 2007). Based on these considerations, the following research questions were adopted to gain insight into the broader construct of teacher cognition (Borg, 2006) in this context: 1. In terms of practical knowledge, what outcomes do participants say they gained through each of the teaching tasks? 2. What do classroom discussions suggest about the nature of practical knowledge gained by participants? 3. How do participants’ attitudes toward task-based language teaching compare with those of peers not enrolled in the TESOL seminar?

Methods Participants The participants in this study were second-year English majors at a private university based in Tokyo. There were nine females and six males in the group, whose mean age was 21. They had studied foreign languages for an average of 11 years, and all but one of the 15 students had studied abroad, under various circumstances including home stays and living abroad with family. Often, but not always, this time abroad was in countries where the dominant language is English. Thus, their general proficiency in English and their communicative ability could be characterized as advanced. In regard to language teaching experience, one had some experience working at a cram school and 5 others reported tutoring either friends or relatives in Japanese or English. At the beginning of the semester, 7 participants indicated that they were interested in teaching as a profession and this number increased to 12 at the end of the term. Additionally, 15 second-year English majors not enrolled in the TESOL seminar also participated as a comparison group, as described later.

Procedures One week of instructional time was devoted to each of the four previously mentioned target tasks. Their implementation entailed various pedagogic tasks and student roles. First, to design a lesson plan, students decided the focus and content for an interactive



Chapter 12.  Task-based language teacher education in Japan 

lesson, downloaded a lesson plan template, completed the template in small groups, and uploaded their finished plans to the course website for review. Second, to conduct teaching demonstrations, students developed, rehearsed, performed, and, as called for, participated in demonstration lessons based on their plans. Third, peer observations incorporated tasks completed both in and outside of class. In class, students read and discussed a bilingual (English and Japanese) account of peer observation as a method of language teacher development (Croker, 2007), agreed on observation goals in small groups, and exchanged information necessary to view password-protected online videos of their demo lessons. Outside class, they observed these lessons via the Internet and took notes, based on the observation focus their group had chosen during class. Fourth, for the debriefing task, students rejoined their groups in the next week’s class, discussed their observations, exchanged views and opinions, and summarized these discussions in brief oral reports to the entire class. The classroom study reported here followed an adapted version of the convergence model of triangulation design discussed in Cresswell and Plano Clark (2007). Data collection involved mixed sources, including written retrospective comments, classroom discourse, and a questionnaire. These are described in detail below. Written retrospective comments. In order to investigate participants’ practical knowledge, or the knowledge teachers generate from reflecting on experience (see, e.g., Meijer, Verloop, & Beijaard, 1999), retrospective comments on each of the tasks (i.e., lesson planning, teaching demonstration, observation, and debriefing) were collected immediately upon their completion. A form was used to elicit comments about each task, asking “what outcomes do you feel you have achieved so far?” Responses were written in English, the main language of communication between the students and teacher. In total, 53 responses were gathered over a period of four weeks. To assist further analysis, the teacher-researcher identified common themes found in the data to derive a set of key categories, which were then used in coding. Comments all related to one of five areas: classroom technique, learning from others, implementing plans, language skills, and learner contributions. Each of these categories was then defined and a coding scheme was developed. The instructor and a trained rater then coded the responses independently, leading to an inter-rater reliability of 91% simple agreement. Discrepancies were discussed and the instructor made final coding decisions. Classroom discourse. The class members, who were split into three groups, recorded their discussions while debriefing at the end of the four-week task sequence. Three digital recorders were used to collect the oral data, which was subsequently transcribed using CLAN software (MacWhinney, 2000). Each of the three discussions lasted approximately ten minutes, leading to a total of 30 minutes of data. For the purpose of this study, which is primarily concerned with participants’ thoughts, knowledge, and beliefs, the frequency of words and phrases related to each group’s observation focus was analyzed using the FREQ command. To identify segments of discourse representative of participants’ knowledge, the KWAL (keyword and line) command was also employed. Searches were conducted based on each group’s chosen observation focus (e.g., gestures);

 Daniel O. Jackson

however, transcripts were reviewed in their totality to identify exchanges related to the co-construction of practical knowledge and interconnections between topics. Tasks in language teaching questionnaire. Multiple steps were taken to develop the Tasks in English Language Teaching questionnaire (TELT-Q) used in this study (items are displayed in the results section). First, a review of the literature on task-based instruction was conducted. Based on the literature, a list of statements characterizing TBLT was drawn up and then translated into Japanese by a native speaker who held a master’s degree in language education. Further piloting and analyses followed procedures discussed in Brown (2001). English majors from two classes – the TESOL seminar and a comparison group of 15 students from a writing course at the same institution – responded to the survey. Respondents were asked to imagine designing a course for EFL learners in Japan and to indicate opinions on 17 items regarding course planning. To establish informed consent, participants signed an agreement attached to the questionnaire explaining the purpose of the study and guaranteeing that personal information would be withheld. The same assurance was given in class with regard to the use of the written evaluations and oral data described above. Participants were encouraged to express any concerns they had about the study either directly to the researcher, or if they preferred, to the English department.

Results What outcomes do participants say they gained through each of the teaching tasks? To answer the first research question, definitions and examples for each category of comment elicited during the 4-week period of instruction, encompassing the lesson planning, teaching demonstration, observation, and debriefing tasks, are displayed in Table 1. The examples were taken from the data set and are intended to be representative of other comments made by the participants across the four tasks, although all comments differed in detail. The task which students had worked on prior to each reflection is shown in parentheses. There was a tendency to reflect on outcomes using verbs such as notice, share, get, learn, achieve, and understand, suggesting that participants themselves were active in constructing practical knowledge about teaching and valued the experiences the tasks offered. The number of comments in each category and the way these were patterned across the four tasks varied as well. In Table 2, more detail is provided about the nature of perceived outcomes under different task conditions. As might be expected from this novice group, classroom techniques were a primary concern (34% of all comments). The nature of the tasks, which required students to collaborate to design and implement a lesson, may have led to the large proportion of comments on learning from others. The emphasis on lesson plan writing, teaching, and reflecting as a holistic process, rather than discrete stages, may have encouraged the focus on implementing



Chapter 12.  Task-based language teacher education in Japan 

Table 1.  Representative retrospective comments in response to the question: “What outcomes do you feel you have achieved so far?” Category

Definition

Example*

I have noticed that being cheerful is one of a very important elements of teacher quality...I have learned a variety of gestures such as pointing, nodding, and clapping. (debriefing) Learning from others Knowledge related to processes and [I’ve gained] other point of views products of discussing teaching and that I’ve never had before learning with others because by talking with a lot of people about same topic and share some ideas, we get new informations (debriefing) Implementing plans Knowledge related to making, I’ve learned the importance of adapting, or using lesson plans preparations in advance and at the same time being flexible (observation) Language skills Knowledge related to the availability I think I’ve achieved some speaking skills or communication of one’s language skills for use, especially in a classroom setting skills (observation) proper level of a lesson to proper Learner contributions Knowledge related to the learner’s contribution or needs, whether age – we need to understand the student level and provide for the affective, linguistic, or otherwise class (teaching demonstration) Classroom technique

Knowledge related to techniques, practices, or activities used by teachers in a classroom setting

*Tasks after which these comments were written are given in parentheses.

plans across three of the four tasks (planning, demonstration, and observation, in order of occurrence). It is also interesting to note that although the debriefing task elicited the greatest number of reflective comments (28%), not all comment categories were represented here. Thus, considering the importance of reflection in teacher development more generally, this finding supports the practice of inviting reflection during various stages in a sequence of teaching tasks, not only upon concluding a lesson. Also, important opportunities for restructuring practical knowledge in specific areas might be lost if reflection is directed solely at what has happened during the lesson stage, since, as shown, comments collected after the teaching demonstration amounted to only 25% of the entire data set and did not include more than a single comment for three of the five areas of practical knowledge investigated. The sparse number of comments on learner contributions might reflect the fact that the demonstrations were conducted with peers sometimes taking the role of

 Daniel O. Jackson

Table 2.  Frequency of comments elicited after each task Task Comment Category Classroom technique Learning from others Implementing plans Language skills Learner contributions Total

Debriefing Observation 4 9 0 2 0 15 (28%)

5 4 2 3 0 14 (26%)

Teaching Demonstration

Lesson Planning

Total

4 0 7 1 1 13 (25%)

5 0 4 0 2 11 (21%)

18 (34%) 13 (25%) 13 (25%)   6 (11%)   3 (5%) 53 (100%)

students (but other times simply functioning as an audience for the demonstration). While it was not feasible to arrange for demonstrations to be conducted at a primary or secondary school in this case, on-site teaching practice is common at the later stages of teacher training at the undergraduate level in Japan (see Yonesaka, 1999, for a helpful overview).

What do classroom discussions suggest about the nature of practical knowledge gains? The next research question addressed the potential for classroom conversation to lead to practical knowledge gains. Student talk during only the debriefing task is analyzed below in order to provide a window on participants’ ongoing learning, since this task came later in the sequence and was preceded by an observation task designed to focus groups on features of the teaching demonstrations they believed to be important. In addition, as noted above, it elicited the most written comments. Each of the three groups selected an observation focus: gestures, check questions, and directions to students (later, introductions) prior to watching the teaching demonstration videos for homework, then regrouped in the next class meeting to talk about what they had seen. In order to confirm that these topics were actually discussed during the approximately 10-minute debriefing task, the coded data were analyzed using CLAN. Explicit reference to the topic was made in the gestures (30 instances), check questions (10 instances), and directions (five instances) groups, although the latter group shifted their focus to introductions, referring to this eight times. Several excerpts from the conversations demonstrate that practical knowledge is often not confined to individuals, but instead, shared across a group in ways that allow developing teachers to elaborate, synthesize, or critique particular aspects of teaching practice. Excerpt 1 illustrates how students extended and then restricted their notion of the role of gestures in classroom communication. S1 clearly believes that a variety of



Chapter 12.  Task-based language teacher education in Japan 

paralinguistic elements in teacher talk serve to direct attention, maintain alertness, and facilitate comprehension on the part of students. As seen in S2’s comment, there is no single most important gesture; every gesture can be important. Finally, there is also mention of the naturalness of gestures and their embodiment, which seems to suggest that to take advantage of gesture as a tool for student-teacher interaction requires fluency in using gestures and a willingness to use one’s hands to function communicatively. In excerpt 1, the contributions of S1 and S2 led to much greater elaboration than was typically provided in written comments.

(1) S1: I think clapping, well the gesture of clapping is an important, because first of all the students eh the students can get their attention and well they’ll wake up if they get bored or something and also as everybody said the pointing gesture is very important as well, because they’ll understand better. S1: what’s your important (.) huh what’s your favorite? S2: I think every gesture’s important. S2: I don’t know there’s no particular one. S3: mmm. S2: it depends on what comes naturally. S1: on the hands. Check questions, defined in class as questions used by a teacher to ensure that instructions are understood, were the focal point of the next group’s debriefing. This excerpt comes from the middle of the conversation, at a point where the group is attempting to summarize their discussion.

(2) S4: well you have to think about making gestures and using whiteboards and and try not to make the students get bored and you need to make the balance between of t-t-t [teacher talking time] and s-t-t [student talking time] so there’s many tasks to for teachers. S5: yeah. S4: but that’s the ideal thing for teacher (.) for good teachers they can a make all those stuff bal all balance. S6: okay. S4: and check questions have to be have to be included in those parts in those tasks in order to be good teachers. S5: yeah, that’s pretty much all. Here we see how participants were able to link the previous group’s concern for employing gestures with the main topic of their discussion, check questions (along with other topics such as maintaining student interest, using classroom resources, and balancing classroom talk). S4’s initial comment shows that she considers these to be tasks in their own right. Importantly, this comment combines elements of teaching practice that were explicitly part of the performance criteria given to the class (i.e., strategic

 Daniel O. Jackson

language use and balanced student-teacher talk) with other goals valued by the seminar participants (i.e., the use of gestures, classroom resources, and techniques for preventing boredom). Task-based instruction combined with assessment criteria which reference a minimum of the essential characteristics of performance may encourage this kind of flexibility and participation more than tests aimed at discrete knowledge. The group also affirms the interpretation of teaching practice as multi-faceted, offered by S4, who continues on to note the importance of balancing this range of factors. Finally, the last group, which initially chose directions to students as their focus but subsequently revised this to introductions, debated over the role of the teacher. In the demonstration video discussed here, the teacher employed a warm-up in which students took turns writing English words on the board using each letter of the alphabet in sequence. They had three minutes to do so. The teacher sat down and assumed the role of timekeeper, monitoring the students’ production. After three minutes, the teacher stopped the activity, which culminated in a list of words ending in X-ray. Then, after confirming with the students that all words had been spelled correctly, the teacher introduced a second activity by asking students to make sentences using the words. Thus, while this might be considered an example of focus on forms, rather than focus on meaning, or focus on form (Long & Robinson, 1998), the learners also produced much more language than the teacher did. In the following excerpt, S8 was the teacher. (3) S7: are wa chotto dame da to omotta. are wa ichiban dame da to omotta. [that was a little bad, I thought. That was the worst, I thought] S8: why? S7: uh, because you didn’t teach anything the students. S9: the students were told to do something and you were just sitting. S10: yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah I remember now. S8: I read with the students. S9: there was no t-t-t. S11: no t-t-t. S9: student talking time too much. S10: s-t-t-t-m [laughter]! S9: demo saa kou sensei wa isyoukenmei oshiete seito ga kotaenaino to sensei ga tekitou ni oshiete seito ga sugoi gambaru teiuno doushitara ii ka to omou [but, well, which do you think is better: to have a teacher work hard and students not respond much, or to have the teacher teach without much effort and expect the students to try hard?] S8: seito ni gambattemoraitai to omoimasu [I think I want to have the students try their best].

Apart from S7 and S9, whose remarks single out the teacher, these undergraduates generally spoke about performances in objective terms. Nevertheless, the teacher here actively defends the lesson discussed. Instead of accepting either of the options S9 presents in the penultimate line of this excerpt, S8 appeals to the notion of students



Chapter 12.  Task-based language teacher education in Japan 

trying their best. Doing so offers a cultural perspective on student-teacher roles that is also in alignment with contemporary language teaching practice, in which students are expected to produce language to convey personally relevant meanings (even if the demonstration lesson only approximates this). However, the specific nature of the teacher’s role remains unresolved; classroom management under the education ministry’s new initiatives is likely to require similar reflection.

How do seminar participants’ attitudes toward task-based language teaching compare with those of their peers? The 17-item TELT questionnaire described earlier was administered after all tasks were completed to evaluate the attitudes of students enrolled in the TESOL seminar (trainees) alongside those of peers who were not enrolled, but who were also secondyear English majors at the university (non-trainees). Responses were based on a fourpoint Likert-type scale (0 = “strongly disagree” and 3 = “strongly agree”). Internal consistency of responses was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, indicating that the instrument met standard criteria for construct measurement (α = .85). Multiple independent t­-tests, with an adjusted alpha of .003 revealed no statistically significant differences in the means of the two groups. However, as shown in Table 3, there were several items on which the two groups diverged in terms of mean scores. The largest difference in means concerned whether it is necessary to teach linguistic items prior to a task. Non-trainees were much more likely to agree with this item. Secondly, more non-trainees believed that learning activities should focus on target language use related to classroom learning. In contrast to this, the third largest mean difference dealt with whether English should be taught for specific purposes outside of the classroom. Here, the opposite trend was observed; trainees were more likely to agree with specific purpose English courses. These findings suggest that the trainees may have felt that focus on form can occur at any stage during a lesson, and that they also felt more strongly than their peers that language education should correspond to real-world purposes. Although these notions are fundamental to TBLT, the trainees agreed less than non-trainees with an item regarding the effectiveness of TBLT for learning (Item 1). However, average agreement was still high for this item (in fact, all agreed it was effective, although more in the non-trainee group strongly agreed), and any difference may reflect the view that the effectiveness of language teaching approaches cannot be determined a priori. High levels of agreement on the part of the trainees were found for several other core principles in TBLT, including sequencing tasks according to a gradual progression (Item 8) and negotiating meaning to make input comprehensible (Item 10). Several open-ended comments on the questionnaire indicated that students in the seminar had already thought through the particulars of task-based teaching in the Japanese context. Responding in Japanese to a prompt that asked for impressions or

 Daniel O. Jackson

Table 3.  Means comparisons for trainee and non-trainee attitudes toward TBLT Trainees (n = 15)

Non-trainees (n = 15)

No. Item

M

SD

M

SD Diff.*

11

1.93

.70

2.60

.51

–0.66

2.13

.52

2.46

.64

–0.33

2.13

.83

1.87

.83

  0.26

2.13

.35

2.40

.51

–0.26

2.33

.72

2.60

.51

–0.26

2.20

.56

2.47

.52

–0.26

2.13

.64

1.93

.59

  0.20

2.47

.64

2.67

.49

–0.20

1.66

.62

1.80

.68

–0.13

2.28

.61

2.40

.63

–0.11

2.33

.82

2.27

.46

  0.07

2.33

.72

2.40

.63

–0.07

1.33

.74

1.20

.68

–0.07

 9

 4

 1  7

16  6

 8

12

17  2

 5

13

Before a task takes place, it is necessary to teach idioms or fixed phrases necessary for communication. Classroom activities should consist of language-learning activities that are important to individuals as students. English courses should be designed with specific purposes in mind. Specific purposes can mean Business English or English for Study Abroad. I think that task-based education is an effective learning method. The most important goal of English education is the teaching of effective ways of communicating in English. Teachers should determine content based on their understanding of students’ existing knowledge. Many different actual English expressions often contain similar language use. For example, to make a dinner reservation and to fill out a form both require stating the date. The content of learning and activities should gradually move from easy to difficult in a step-by-step progression. Learning should integrate various language items. For example, learners’ attention should be drawn to phrasal verbs and compound nouns. Classes should be divided by ability level and content should be prepared in accordance with student ability. Course content should be decided based on student needs (the content they wish to study). For example, content can be determined though surveys or interviews to understand student needs. English courses should enable learners to use English freely in daily activities. For example, activities like making a restaurant or hotel reservation, or filling out a form. Learning should focus on grammar and sentence patterns.



Chapter 12.  Task-based language teacher education in Japan   3

10

15 14

To understand student needs, there are many other methods apart from the surveys and interviews in item 2 above. During English communication between students, it is necessary to confirm whether there is mutual understanding. For example, through the use of expressions such as, ‘What does that word mean?’ etc. Learning should include classroom interaction through group and pair work. If there are errors in students’ English usage, a teacher should point them out even during conversation.

2.13

.64 2.10

.80

0.03

2.40

.63

2.40

.51

0.00

2.33

.49 2.33

.49

0.00

1.80

.68

.94

0.00

1.80

*Items are ranked here according to mean differences between the two groups

opinions of TBLT, one emphasized the importance of the social context in task-based teaching, commenting that Tokyo differs from rural parts of the country in terms of opportunities for speaking English. A second mentioned balancing skill development and the importance of raising awareness of gaps in individual students’ abilities for furthering language study. Another student replied that educators must come to grips with communicative teaching approaches, voicing strong support, as well, for the adoption of English classes in elementary schools.

Summary and conclusions In this final section, the main findings from the study are summarized in terms of the three research questions, and some preliminary insights on pre-service teacher cognition in this context are offered. With regard to research question one, trainees, who were asked to report practical knowledge outcomes in the context of a task-based approach to language teacher education, mainly commented on (a) classroom techniques, practices, or activities, followed by (b) processes and products of learning from others, and (c) making, adapting, or using plans. Concerning question two, analyses of trainees’ classroom discussions suggested that the debriefing task enabled participants to elaborate, synthesize, and critique practical knowledge and ideas that arose in connection with the teaching tasks, in particular, the lesson observations. Question three differed from the first two research questions in that it explored attitudes toward TBLT (see also Chacón, this volume). While means comparisons between the trainee group and a non-trainee peer group showed no significant mean differences, questionnaire results revealed that trainees differed from the non-trainees in ways consonant with practices advocated within TBLT. In addition, both groups surveyed rated various recommendations from the TBLT literature highly (see Table 3).

 Daniel O. Jackson

By using a mixed-methods design, this project has shown the possibility that taskbased undergraduate second language teacher education may be construed as an important stage of professional development during which individuals have the opportunity to rethink their experiences and realign themselves with classroom practices informed by contextual factors, their own schooling, and professionally-oriented coursework, components which together form a model of teacher cognition (Borg, 2006). Although this project cannot address all of the components in Borg’s model, it does offer some insight into two important aspects of it: practical knowledge and attitudes. Written comments indicated that the categories of practical knowledge that trainees were concerned with shifted across the tasks used in this study. In fact, no task contained all five of the categories, which means that in order to obtain a fuller picture of teacher cognition, it may help to elicit reflections at various stages of teaching practice. In terms of future studies, it might be useful to research whether a well-planned task sequence can enhance the quality or quantity of written reflections. In contrast, the debriefing task discourse showed that practical knowledge among teacher trainees was manifested in ways unobservable in written comments. Therefore, comments alone may obscure the richness of teacher cognition at the early stages. Studies should thus acknowledge the role of tasks as well as the complementarity of data sources such as individual reflections and group discussions when examining teacher cognition. The survey data gathered for this study also permit a balanced conclusion in that results generally did not show large differences between trainees and non-trainees in regard to attitudes toward TBLT. Finding no significant differences in the mean scores of trainees and non-trainees should not be interpreted as a shortcoming of task-based teacher training. Rather, this result suggests that even those undergraduate students who do not work through teaching tasks, but merely read a definition and examples of task-based teaching, may favor many of its core principles (perhaps reflecting an overall shift in attitudes of emerging generations of future teachers). Additionally, there was a trend toward seminar students agreeing to a greater extent with the flexibility offered by TBLT in terms of the timing of form-focused instruction and the emphasis that task-based approaches place on needs analysis. In their open-ended comments on TBLT, these future stakeholders in English language education in Japan posed important questions of nationwide implementation, added value, and teaching communication to younger learners. Mertens (2005) points out characteristics of transformative mixed-methods research, noting that it gives primacy to value-based and action-oriented dimensions and aims to promote change (p. 297). Consistent with the values and actions inherent in the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology’s plans for revitalizing English education described at the beginning of this chapter, taskbased second language teacher education offers opportunities for novice teachers to explore roles and responsibilities, develop a collaborative culture around language teaching, and plan and implement communicative teaching practices designed for school-based learners (see also Chacón, this volume for a similar argument on EFL



Chapter 12.  Task-based language teacher education in Japan 

teacher education programs in Venezuela). However, relying on economic, social, or political shifts will hardly guarantee such training opportunities. Teacher educators in Japan and elsewhere must pay closer attention to formal training in language teaching at the undergraduate level. Since influences on teacher cognition are clearly operating before an individual’s official entry into the profession, the undergraduate years are a good starting point for improving second language education.

Acknowledgements Funding to present a version of this paper at the 3rd Biennial International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching at Lancaster University, UK (2009), was awarded through the Ruth Crymes Scholarship Fund, Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. I am indebted to Gregory Strong, Joseph Dias, James Sick, Junko Hondo, Manami Suzuki, Misa Nagatsu, and John Norris for their support at various stages of this project. Naturally, the views expressed here and any remaining errors are my sole responsibility.

References Aspinall, R. W. (2006). Using the paradigm of ‘small cultures’ to explain policy failure in the case of foreign language education in Japan. Japan Forum, 18, 255–274. Barduhn, S., & Johnson, J. (2009). Certification and professional qualifications. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 59–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Benevides, M., & Valvona, C. (2009). Special issue: Task-based language teaching in Japan. The Language Teacher, 33(3), 1. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum. Brindley, G. (1994). Task-centered language assessment in language learning: The promise and the challenge. In N. Bird, P. Falvey, A. Tsui, D. Allison, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Language and learning: Papers presented at the Annual International Language in Education Conference (pp. 73–94). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Education Department. Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butler, Y. G. (2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 245–278. Butler, Y. G. (2005). Comparative perspectives toward communicative activities among elementary school teachers in South Korean, Japan and Taiwan. Language Teaching Research, 9, 423–446. Butler, Y. G., & Iino, M. (2005). Current Japanese reforms in English language education: The 2003 “action plan”. Language Policy, 4, 25–45.

 Daniel O. Jackson Candlin, C. N. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. N. Candlin & D. F. Murphey (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5–22). London: Prentice Hall. Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35, 595–608. Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Croker, R. (2007). Teacher-directed reciprocal peer observations: “Looking with” not “looking at”. Learning Learning, 14, 31–39. Gottlieb, N. (2008). Japan: Language planning and policy in transition. In R. B. Kaplan & R. B. Baldauf (Eds.), Language planning and policy in Asia, Vol. 1: Japan, Nepal, Taiwan and Chinese Characters (pp. 102–169). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20, 237–264. Izumi, S. (2003). EFL education in Japan from the perspective of second language acquisition research. Sophia Linguistica, 50, 3–14. Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a second language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 439–452. Konoeda, K., & Watanabe, Y. (2008). Task-based critical pedagogy in Japanese EFL classrooms: Rationale, principles, examples. In M. Mantero, P. Chamness Miller, & J. L. Watzke (Eds.), Readings In Language Studies, Volume 1: Language Across Disciplinary Boundaries (pp. 45– 72). St. Louis, MO: International Society For Language Studies. Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3d ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Matsuzawa, M. (2004, March 30). SELHI in action/School focuses on task-based approach. Daily Yomiuri, pp. 1–3. Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D. (1999). Exploring language teachers’ practical knowledge about teaching reading comprehension. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 59–84. Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (2002). Developing a strategic plan to cultivate “Japanese with English abilities”. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901.htm. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (2003). Regarding the establishment of an action plan to cultivate “Japanese with English abilities”. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/03072801.htm. Norris, J. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The Handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Sato, M., & Asanuma, S. (2000). Japan. In P. Morris & J. Williamson (Eds.), Teacher education in the Asia-Pacific region: A comparative study (pp. 107–131). New York, NY: Falmer. Shimahara, N. K. (1998). The Japanese model of professional development: Teaching as craft. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 451–462.



Chapter 12.  Task-based language teacher education in Japan  Shimahara, N. K. (2002). Teaching in Japan: A cultural perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62. Tanaka, H., & Fukada, Y. (2004). Application of team-teaching techniques to teacher training courses. Paper presented at the The Fifth Pan-Asian Conference on Language Teaching at FEELTA, Vladivostok. Van den Branden, K. (2006). Training teachers: Task-based as well? In K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 217–248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yonesaka, S. (1999). The pre-service training of Japanese teachers of English. The Language Teacher, 23(11), 9–15. Yoshida, K. (2008). The effects of teaching practice on the development of students’ English proficiency. In T. Ogura, H. Kobayashi, S. Inagaki, M. Hirakawa, S. Arita, & Y. Terao (Eds.), Studies in language sciences 7 (pp. 23–37). Tokyo: Kurosio.

chapter 13

Incorporating a formative assessment cycle into task-based language teaching in a university setting in Japan Christopher Weaver Toyo University, Japan

This chapter explains how a formative assessment cycle can inform the development, implementation, and evaluation of pedagogical tasks in a taskbased syllabus by reporting the results of a study that examined 46 Japanese university business students’ competence to deliver a PowerPoint presentation in English. A Many-Facet Rasch analysis of student ratings of the PowerPoint presentations combined with a discourse analysis of the presentations revealed a gap between the students’ English presentation and their PowerPoint design skills. A gap also existed between the students’ descriptive and explanatory skills. A formative assessment cycle can thus identify specific competencies that need further development to ensure a smooth transition from an EFL classroom to a real-world use of English in a business situation. The study presents a successful example of how a formative assessment cycle can provide the teacher and the students in an EFL TBLT program setting with informative feedback that identifies students’ level of competence to perform a given task, the difficulty of that task, and ways in which students can develop towards target task performances.

Introduction Although assessment is an integral component of task-based language teaching (TBLT), teachers face a myriad of issues when deciding how to best design, implement, and evaluate assessment practices within a TBLT curriculum. At its core, taskbased language assessment (TBLA) involves evaluating the degree to which language learners can use their L2 to accomplish given tasks. A well-designed and implemented assessment can also provide teachers and language learners with a detailed account of task performance that can inform future task-based instruction and L2 development. The purpose of this chapter is to examine how assessment can be

 Christopher Weaver

conceptualized as a cyclical framework aiming to maximize the synergy between task performance and TBLT. Assessment within a TBLT curriculum can fulfil two broad purposes: summative assessment or formative assessment (Norris, 2009). Summative assessment primarily involves the use of tasks to make high-stakes decisions concerning L2 learners’ level of competence to perform specific tasks or task-types. An example of summative assessment is the Occupational Foreign Language Test which assesses L2 listening and speaking competence as it relates to the tourism and hospitality industry (Brown, 1993). Although typically occurring at the end of a TBLT curriculum, summative assessments can be an important means of evaluating program design and implementation. Formative assessment, on the other hand, involves the use of tasks to provide feedback to language learners and teachers throughout a TBLT curriculum. The analysis of task performances in formative assessments can help teachers identify specific gaps in learner competences as well as track learner L2 development over time. A formative assessment cycle thus helps teachers to be more responsive to learners’ internal syllabus, which is exposed through the performance of tasks (Long & Norris, 2000).

A formative assessment cycle in TBLT Incorporating a formative assessment cycle into a TBLT curriculum involves a number of steps outlined in Figure 1. This particular formative assessment cycle draws upon the evidence-centred design framework (Mislevy, Steinberg, & Almond, 2002) in addition to other evidence-based approaches to TBLT assessment (e.g., Long & Norris, 2000; Norris, 2009; Norris, Brown, Hudson, & Yoshioka, 1998), as well as a series of empirical studies that investigated the design process of high-stakes university entrance examinations in Japan (Weaver & Sato, 2008).

Task selection

Feedback

Task definition

Assessment implementation

Assessment criteria

Task performance

Figure 1.  Framework for a formative assessment cycle in TBLT



Chapter 13.  Task-based language teaching in a university setting in Japan 

The first step in the formative assessment cycle involves task selection. Typically in formative assessments this selection involves pedagogical tasks designed to help learners develop the competences needed to perform target tasks or task-types identified by a needs analysis as being important to the learners (Long, 2005). The second step entails defining the task to be used in the formative assessment. The definition of tasks, which has taken on a life of its own in the TBLT literature, can be quite overwhelming for some teachers and sometimes hinder the adaptation of TBLT in the language classrooms. From a formative assessment perspective, task definition should involve identifying five task features (Ellis, 2003): (a) the goal or the general purpose of the task, (b) the verbal or non-verbal input the task supplies to language learners, (c) the conditions under which information in the task is presented (ideally these conditions are representative of target tasks (e.g., Norris et al., 1998)), (d) the methodological procedures for performing the task, and (e) the task’s predicted outcomes such as the linguistic and cognitive processes required by task performance and the product coming out of it. The third step involves establishing the assessment criteria. When defining the assessment criteria, teachers need to keep focused on what they would like to learn from the learners’ performance of the task (Mislevy et al., 2002). Assessment criteria can involve the processes undertaken while performing a task and/or features of the final product after completing the task. When evaluating task processes, teachers should evaluate L2 competences required of target task performances (for example, a sociolinguistic measure that examined the use of address terms in a German speaking test (Norris, 2001)). From a task product perspective, the assessment criteria may simply be defined as the successful completion of a given task, for example locating a journal article about a particular topic in a university library (Robinson & Ross, 1996). Regardless of the choices teachers make, language learners should have access to the assessment criteria so that they will have a clear idea of how they will be evaluated. This access can also deepen learners’ understanding of the task because the assessment criteria highlight the essential qualities of a successful task performance (e.g., Byrnes, 2002). Moreover, teachers should take advantage of a wide range of data collection techniques such as discourse analysis methods, raters utilizing scoring rubrics (e.g., Bonk & Ockey, 2003), and/or self-assessments (e.g., Matsuno, 2009) to provide learners with the most informative feedback possible. The fourth step is the language learners’ performance of the task. The doubleended arrow located between task description and task performance in Figure 1 captures the interactional nature existing between these two steps. In some cases, task performances reveal a re-interpretation of the task (e.g., Loschky & Bley-Vroman, 1993) or learner discourse that is interwoven in the task performance, but is not directly related to the task (e.g., Thornborrow, 2003). In order to capture this level of detail, video and audio recordings of oral task performances are essential for creating a refined account of learner L2 output. Tasks designed for other modes of

 Christopher Weaver

communication such as writing will require different kinds of documentation that can serve as a useful resource in post-task feedback sessions with students. The fifth step is the application of the assessment criteria. Similar to task performances, the double-ended arrow signifies the interactional nature existing between raters, the assessment criteria, and the task description (Bachman, 2002). In addition, there is always the possibility that scores assigned to learners may reflect not only their task performance, but also rater bias and/or limitations of the assessment criteria (Skehan, 2001). Teachers thus should utilize a variety of measures and data collection techniques that can be triangulated to provide a valid and reliable measure of learners’ task performances. The sixth step of the assessment cycle entails providing feedback to learners. Ultimately, the aim of formative assessment is to provide feedback from a variety of possible perspectives, in order to inform improvements in teaching and learning, with learners obviously constituting the primary recipients of assessment information. Although teachers may be tempted to provide learners with comprehensive feedback on their task performance, at least in formative assessments used at the lesson or unit level, they should keep their feedback focused to help language learners not only identify current gaps in their competence, and track their L2 development over time (Norris, 2009). After providing learners with focused feedback, teachers return to the first step of the formative assessment cycle to select the most effective pedagogical task to address current gaps in L2 competence and advance learners towards target task performances. The formative assessment cycle thus helps teachers and language learners maximize opportunities for L2 development in TBLT by strengthening the interdependence that exists between task selection, task and assessment criteria definitions, task performance, application of assessment criteria, and reflections on task performances.

An empirical investigation of a formative assessment cycle in a Japanese context To illustrate how these steps work together in a formative assessment cycle in practice, this chapter reports the results of an empirical study that investigated the competence of 46 Japanese university business students to deliver a PowerPoint presentation in English aiming to persuade their peers to invest in a particular company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The study was guided by three research questions: Research Question 1: To what extent does students’ use of assessment criteria to evaluate their peers’ PowerPoint presentations vary? Research Question 2: To what extent do students vary according to their level of competence to deliver a PowerPoint presentation in English?



Chapter 13.  Task-based language teaching in a university setting in Japan 

Research Question 3: To what extent do the different task requirements for each section of the PowerPoint presentation vary in difficulty? Moreover, how difficult is it to convince other business students to invest in a company? Although the answers to these research questions primarily address the implementation of the assessment criteria and the evaluations of the students’ task performances, they also provide teachers with the quantitative and qualitative information necessary to identify which types of competences students need to develop further in order to progress towards target task performances. Moreover, these research questions create an opportunity for teachers to reflect upon the effectiveness of the formative assessment cycle in a TBLT program.

Method Participants The participants in this study were 46 Japanese first year Business Administration students attending a prestigious private university located on the outskirts of Tokyo, Japan. The 18 females and the 28 male students, who ranged from the ages of 19 to 21, were taking a year-long business presentation course organized around a series of pedagogical tasks designed to develop students’ oral English presentation and PowerPoint design skills. The tasks in the curriculum are sequenced according to task difficultly, which is defined by a number of factors such as the purpose of the presentation (e.g., sales pitch), the type of speech required to achieve that purpose (e.g., persuasive speech), the content knowledge required for the presentation, the length of the presentation, and the number of slides required in the PowerPoint.

The task The students were required to give a PowerPoint presentation in English about a publicly traded company listed on the New York Stock Exchange that they thought would be a good investment (see Appendix A for the task instructions). The presentation had three sections. Each section had specific task requirements defining the type of information that the students needed to convey in their oral presentation and on their PowerPoint slides. The first section of the presentation required students to describe the company they chose and explain the reason for their choice. The second section required students to describe how the stock price of the company had changed over a four-week period (from December 2006 to January 2007) and provide a possible reason for the variability in the stock price. The third section required students to describe three areas of future growth for the company and explain why they thought the company

 Christopher Weaver

would make a good investment opportunity. Although the task description and assessment criteria defined the parameters of the task, the students had complete control over the content of their PowerPoint presentations. It was up to each student to determine the most effective way to construct a PowerPoint presentation that would convince their peers to invest in their company. The delivery of the PowerPoint presentations ranged from three to five minutes. This particular task was designed and incorporated into a year-long business presentation course for a number of reasons. Business students need analytical skills to research and evaluate which companies would be a good investment of their time when they look for a job after graduation. Moreover, Japanese business students increasingly need practical English communicative competence and polished PowerPoint presentation skills to be successful in Japan’s more competitive job market. The use of tasks such as this one, however, creates a number of challenges in the Japanese educational context. The highly competitive university entrance examinations influence the manner in which English as a foreign language is taught and learnt in Japanese junior and senior high schools (e.g., Guest, 2000; Watanabe, 1996). The use of the yakadoku method, which relies heavily on translation, creates the expectation that the teacher is the primary source of knowledge within the classroom and students should be the consumers of this knowledge (Gorsuch, 1998). These roles and related responsibilities, however, have begun to shift recently with the introduction of communicative language teaching in senior high school English classrooms in Japan (Nishino, 2008; Sakui, 2004, 2007). Some post-secondary institutions in Japan have also begun redefining EFL education from a requirement for graduation to an opportunity where students develop the necessary competences needed to perform real-world tasks.

Materials The students evaluated their peers’ PowerPoint presentations using assessment criteria written in Japanese (see Appendix B for an English translation). The assessment criteria were the end product of a previous pedagogical task in which the students watched a video of five PowerPoint presentations delivered in the previous academic year. In small groups, the students ranked the five PowerPoint presentations from the most to the least convincing. Then they identified what aspects of the students’ task performances led to a convincing or non-convincing presentation. The student groups reported back to the entire class, leading to a detailed list of factors thought to influence the students’ task performances. These factors were then organized into two broad categories: speaking skills and PowerPoint design skills. Finally, the teacher and the students selected two speaking skills and two PowerPoint design skills for each section of the presentation. The speaking skills were selected on the basis of whether or not they emphasized the interactive nature of a PowerPoint presentation where the goal of the presenter is to have the audience clearly understand the company being profiled and why this particular company is a good investment opportunity. The PowerPoint



Chapter 13.  Task-based language teaching in a university setting in Japan 

design skills were selected to highlight the importance of constructing PowerPoint slides that presented a clean and focused message. In addition, students were asked to provide a holistic evaluation of the entire presentation from the perspective of two speaking skills and two PowerPoint design skills. Using a 4-point Likert scale, the students completed the evaluations by indicating the extent to which they felt the presenter and the PowerPoint slides met the task requirements defined in the assessment criteria. The points of the scale were labelled in Japanese “1. Strongly Disagree,” “2. Disagree,” “3. Agree,” and “4. Strongly Agree”. Finally, students had to decide whether or not they would invest in a company based upon their peer’s presentation. This “call to action” was evaluated using a 2-point dichotomous scale labelled in Japanese “1. No, this presentation has not convinced me to invest in this company.” and “2. Yes, this presentation has convinced me to invest in this company.”

Procedure One of the goals of the year-long business presentation course was to involve students in the assessment process. The rationale for this goal was to help students develop an ownership of the TBLT-based course and help them gain a deeper understanding of the tasks as well as the competences and the level of performance required to successfully complete the tasks. At the beginning of the course, the teacher explained how the formative assessment cycle (Figure 1) would guide the creation and the delivery of the six PowerPoint presentations outlined in the course description. The task of presenting a company listed on the stock exchange was the second of three presentations that the students delivered in the first semester of the business presentation course. Following the formative assessment cycle, the students first watched a video of a PowerPoint presentation from the previous academic year as an introduction to the task. This introduction led to a collaborative process where the teacher and the students defined what the task entails. As previously discussed students then watched five videos of past PowerPoint presentations and collaboratively constructed the assessment criteria with the teacher. The students then evaluated another five videos of PowerPoint presentations with the assessment criteria that they constructed. This step helped the students become comfortable using the criteria in a real time assessment situation as well as allowed for the opportunity for criteria refinement if needed. Afterwards the students were then randomly selected to deliver their PowerPoint presentation, which were video and audio recorded. Halfway through the presentations, the students watched another video of three PowerPoint presentations. The second set of videos acted as a norming session to check if the students had changed the manner in which they were using the assessment criteria (e.g., Myford & Wolfe, 2003; Wilson & Case, 2000). The students’ ratings of the PowerPoint presentations were then analyzed using Rasch measurement theory. With the results of this analysis, the teacher first provided students with an overall account of their task performances compared to the speaking

 Christopher Weaver

skills and the PowerPoint design skills featured in the assessment criteria. Afterwards, the teacher conducted one-on-one feedback sessions with students to review the ratings that each student received for his/her speaking skills and PowerPoint design skills. The next step involved students transcribing their PowerPoint presentations. The transcriptions were then used in teacher-class and teacher-student feedback sessions as a qualitative means to identify specific linguistic and/or behavioural competences that influenced students’ task performances. From start to finish, the progression through the entire formative assessment cycle took five 90-minute class periods.

Analysis The students’ evaluations of their peers’ presentations were analyzed with a Many-Facet analysis. A Many-Facet analysis involves an extended version of the Rasch measurement model (Rasch 1960/1980) to analyze rating data that has multiple facets of interest. In the case of this study, the four facets of interest were: the students as raters, the students as presenters, the difficulty of the task requirements for each section of the presentation, and a holistic “call to action” evaluation of the presentation. A Many-Facet Rasch analysis determines the probabilities of ordered-category ratings for these different facets and calibrates them on a shared frame of reference known as the logit scale (Linacre, 1989). As a result, it is possible to make direct comparisons between the different facets. The students used a version of conversation analysis (Tsui, 1994) when they transcribed their task performances (see Appendix C for the conversation analysis conventions). Unlike the transcriptions presented in this chapter, which provide a very detailed account of task performance, the students focused upon the level of fluency in which they delivered their presentation. This feature of speech was identified in the previous formative assessment cycle as being a factor that mediated students’ effective delivery of their PowerPoint presentations. Of special interest was when and where students paused when they spoke. Looking for the occurrences of micro-pauses and prolongation of sounds, students examined whether pauses in their speech occurred at major syntactic boundaries, referred to as “juncture pauses”, or within syntactic units, which are called “hesitation pauses” (Lounsbury, 1954). The aim of this analysis was thus to reveal how features of fluency can mediate students’ ability to deliver a convincing argument of why their company is a good investment opportunity.

Results Figure 2 shows the results of the Many-Facet Rasch analysis of the students’ evaluations of their peers’ PowerPoint presentations. Before reporting the results, a few remarks explaining how to interpret Figure 2 are in order. The first column in Figure 2 is the logit scale, which acts as the common frame of reference when interpreting each



Chapter 13.  Task-based language teaching in a university setting in Japan 

facet and the relationships between the different facets. For this study, the logit scale ranges from –2 to 4 logits. The second column is “the students as raters” facet. The students are ordered according to the severity with which they used the assessment criteria to evaluate their peers’ presentations. The one student located above zero logits is more severe in their evaluations compared to the students located below zero logits. The gender of the raters is indicated with the number one for females and the number two for males. The level of 46 business students’ competence to deliver a PowerPoint presentation in English is shown in the third column. The students are identified by their company’s ticker symbol and a number indicating their gender (i.e., 1 is female and 2 is male). For example, the student located at the bottom of the third column has the code MMM2, which means that this male student gave a presentation about the 3M Company being a good investment opportunity. Students located above zero logits were rated as being more competent to deliver a presentation in English whereas students located below zero logits were evaluated as being less competent. The fourth column lists the difficulty of the different task requirements for each section of the presentation. The different task requirements are first indicated with a number specifying the section of the presentation (i.e., 1 is the first slide of the Logit Severe raters

More competent students

More difficult task requirements

PG2

2SE price explanation

Invest

2

1

1 0 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 –1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 –2 2 1 2

2 2 2 2

KDE2 TOT2 SLW2 CAJ1 FDX2 SKM2 ZNH2 AFL1 DCM1 DCM1 HMC1 DCM1 DCM2 MTU2 DCM1 KNM2 MSFT2 MTU1 SNP2 UBS2 CHU2 KNM1 KNM2 MDCO1SNE2 VIP2 2 2 2 SNE1 SNE1 IKR1 MITSY2 MO2 NWA2 2 2 GU2 GFI2 NYT1 RLH2 XOM1 2

XOM1 SNE1 SNE2 1 1 2 2 DCM2 HIT1 DIS2 ENT2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2

HSC convincing argument 1SE company explanation 3SE strengths explanation

HPI needed information

2SD price description HSD information description 1PP company picture

Yes

3SD strengths description HPE powerpoint enhancement

1SD company description 2PP stock price 3PB brief points 3PS company strengths

NO

2PC price change

MMM2

2

1PN company name

1

–3 2

–4 Logit Lenient raters Less competent students

Less difficult task requirements

Figure 2.  Many-Facet Rasch analysis of the student PowerPoint presentations

Invest

 Christopher Weaver

presentation, 2 is the second, and 3 is the third) or the letter “H” for the holistic evaluations of the entire presentation. The task requirements are then identified with either an “S” indicating a speaking skill or a “P” indicating a PowerPoint design skill. Following that is a short two-word description of the task requirement. Task requirements that have a score exceeding zero logits are more difficult than task requirements with a score below zero, which are less difficult to perform. The final column on the right side of Figure 2 is the holistic “call to action” evaluation of the presentations defined in terms of whether or not students would invest in the company based upon their peer’s presentation. The decision to invest in a company (i.e., “Yes”) is located at 0.29 logits. Students would thus probably invest in the companies listed in column 3 above this logit score. On the other hand, students would probably not invest in companies that had a logit score lower than –0.29 logits (i.e., “No”).

The application of the assessment criteria The severity with which the students used the assessment criteria to evaluate their peers’ PowerPoint presentations varied considerably from .07 logits (i.e., the most severe rater) to –3.41 logits (i.e., the most lenient rater). The students as raters tend to cluster into three groups along the continuum of rater severity (see the second column in Figure 2). The first cluster is a group of 17 students who were slightly lenient in their ratings of their peers (i.e., they have a logit score ranging from 0 to –.62 logits). The next cluster of 14 students is more lenient with their ratings (i.e., their logit scores range from –.96 to –1.7 logits). The last cluster of 12 students is the most lenient in their use of the assessment criteria (i.e., their logit scores range from –1.93 to –2.25 logits). A fixed chi-square value of 2348.6 with 45 degrees of freedom indicates a .001 probability, after allowing for measurement error, that the students could be considered equally severe. The separation index for rater severity is 7.44, which suggests that amongst the 46 students there are ten statistically distinct levels of rater severity (Fischer, 1992). This clear indication that the raters differ significantly in their severity provides a strong rationale for utilizing a Many-Facet Rasch analysis because this statistical approach takes into account differences between raters in determining students’ level of competence to deliver a PowerPoint presentation in English.

The range of student competence to deliver a powerpoint presentation According to Figure 2, student competence to deliver a PowerPoint presentation in English ranged from –1.5 logits (i.e., the least competent student) to 1.3 logits (i.e., the most competent student). Remembering that the score of zero logits differentiates the less competent from the more competent students, 18 students were located below zero logits while the remaining 28 students were located above this point. The students tend to cluster in a couple of positions along the continuum of competence. The first cluster is located around –1 logits (i.e., a group of seven less competent students). The



Chapter 13.  Task-based language teaching in a university setting in Japan 

next cluster is just above zero logits (i.e., a group of 12 slightly competent students) and the last cluster is located at .55 logits (i.e., a group of eight more competent students). A fixed chi-square value of 1693.6 with 45 degrees of freedom indicates a .001 probability, after allowing for measurement error, that the students have an equal level of competence to deliver the PowerPoint presentation in English. The separation index for student competence is 6.11, which suggests that amongst the 46 students there are eight statistically distinct levels of student competence.

The difficulty level of the task requirements Table 1 shows the level of difficulty students had performing the different task requirements of the PowerPoint presentation. Once again, task requirements that have a score exceeding zero logits are more difficult than task requirements with a score below zero. A fixed chi-square value of 2543 with 15 degrees of freedom indicates a .001 probability, after allowing for measurement error, that the different task requirements have an equal level of difficulty. The separation index for the task requirements is 13.69, which suggests that there are eighteen statistically distinct levels of difficulty amongst the 16 task requirements. The different task requirements tend to cluster together in four groupings along the continuum of difficulty (see the fourth column in Figure 2). The first cluster is located around .7 logits (i.e., a group of four quite difficult task requirements composed of three speaking skills and one PowerPoint design skill). The next cluster is at .33 logits (i.e., a group of two difficult speaking skills). The third cluster is located at zero Table 1.  Level of difficulty of the task requirements Less Difficult

More Difficult

Task Requirement

Logit

Mean Sq

1PN company name 2PC price change

–1.91 –1.19

1.12 1.09

3PS company strengths 2PP stock price 3PB brief points 1SD company description 3SD strengths description

  –.56   –.39   –.38   –.27   –.05

1.05 1.07 1.07 1.04   .80

HPE PowerPoint enhancement

  –.03

  .89

Task Requirement

Logit

Mean Sq

1PP company picture HSD information description 2SD price description 3SE strengths explanation HPI needed information 1SE company explanation HSC convincing argument 2SE price explanation

  .03   .30

1.14   .73

  .33   .62   .64   .70   .86

  .99   .93   .63 1.02 .7

1.29

  .95

 Christopher Weaver

logits (i.e., a group of three task requirements composed of one speaking skill and two PowerPoint skills) and the last cluster is located at –.39 logits (i.e., a group of four less difficult task requirements composed of one speaking skill and three PowerPoint design skills). There are also a number of gaps between the clusters indicating a marked difference in the level of difficulty amongst the different task requirements. In other words, the PowerPoint design skill of making the first slide displaying the company’s name (–1.91 logits) is significantly easier than making the second slide displaying the change in the company’s stock price (–1.19 logits). In terms of the specific task requirements for the three sections of the presentation, the less difficult task requirements were largely composed of the five PowerPoint design skills. The two less difficult speaking skills involved describing the company (1SD) and three of its strengths (3SD). The more difficult task requirements were the three speaking skills requiring students to explain the underlying rationale for choosing the company (1SE), the reason behind the company’s stock price changes (2SE), and the three areas of future growth that make the company a good investment (3SE). Choosing a picture or an image to represent the company’s business (1PP) was the only difficult PowerPoint design skill. Examining the holistic evaluations of the students’ presentations, the easiest task requirement (–.03 logits) was the PowerPoint design skill of making three slides that visually supported the overall message of the presentation (HPE). Making a PowerPoint presentation that provided enough information about the company (HPI) was more difficult (.64 logits). The speaking skill of delivering a presentation with enough descriptive information about the company (HSD) was moderately difficult (.30 logits). The most difficult overall speaking skill (.86 logits) was to provide a convincing argument about why to invest in the company (HSC). A Many-Facet Rasch analysis also produces fit statistics that indicate the extent to which the 16 task requirements work together to define a meaningful variable. Infit mean-square values greater than one indicate more variation in the ratings for a task requirement than what the Rasch model expects. The high mean-square values for task requirements 1PN and 1PP thus suggest that high ratings for these requirements do not seem to correspond to high ratings for the other task requirements; similarly, lower ratings do not seem to correspond to low rating for the task requirements. This finding suggests that there is potential variability amongst students’ task performances and/or how students applied these rating criteria. The smaller mean-square values of HPE, HPI, HSD, and HSC also suggest that these holistic evaluations are not functioning independently from the other task requirements. As a result, a case could be made for dropping the holistic evaluations when revising the assessment criteria for future use because they do not seem to make an independent contribution to the measurement of students’ competence to deliver a PowerPoint in English.



Chapter 13.  Task-based language teaching in a university setting in Japan 

The holistic “call to action” evaluation The difficulty that students experienced presenting a convincing argument to invest in a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange is also reflected in the “call to action” facet. Figure 2 shows that the positive response of “yes” to the presented investment opportunities is located at 0.29 logits. In other words, students were probably willing to invest in only 21 out of the 46 companies presented.

A more refined account of students’ task performances Thus far, the teacher can provide the students with an overall account of their competence to deliver a PowerPoint presentation in relation to the different task requirements and the holistic “call to action” evaluation. From a formative assessment perspective, the teacher can determine that the speaking skills pose a greater challenge for the students than PowerPoint design skills. More specifically, the students need help with their explanatory speaking skills compared to their descriptive skills. Students, on the other hand, can compare their overall level of competence to their peers and more importantly they can determine whether or not they successfully convinced their peers to invest in their company. This level of feedback, however, does not provide the teacher or the students with a detailed account of what students need to do to progress towards more target task performances. Student FDX2, for example, received a competence score of .61 logits for his PowerPoint presentation about the Fed Ex Corporation being a good investment opportunity. Although his logit score alone has no pedagogical meaning, it can be quite informative when mapped against the expected and observed ratings that he received from his peers (see Figure 3). The straight line of numbers in Figure 3 represents the Student FDX2’s level of competence (.61 logits). In other words, the numbers are the ratings that the Rasch –5

–4

–3

–2

–1

0

(1) .1.

.3.

–5

–4

–3

–2

–1

0

.4. 3 .4. 2 3 .4. 3 2 .4. 4 .4. 3 .3. 3 3 3

1

2

3

4

.4. .4.

(4)

.4. .4. .4. 1

.4. 2

3

4

Task requirements 1PN company name 1PP company picture 1SD company description 1SE company explanation 2PP stock price 2PC price change 2SD price description 2SE price explanation 3PS company strengths 3PB brief points 3SD strenghts description 3SE strenghts explanation HPI needed information HPE powerpoint enhancement HSD information description HSC convincing argument

Figure 3.  Expected and observed ratings of Student FDX2’s PowerPoint presentation

 Christopher Weaver

measurement model expects Student FDX2 to receive from his peers based upon his level of competence. For example, the Rasch model expects that this student should receive the rating of 4 for the PowerPoint design skill of clearly displaying the company name on the first slide of the PowerPoint presentation (i.e., 1PN). The dots on either side of the four (i.e., .4.) indicate that four was the observed rating Student FDX2 received from his peers. The next number in the line indicates that the Rasch model expects a rating of three for the PowerPoint design skill of selecting an image representative of the company and its business (i.e., 1PP). The student, however, received a rating of one. The brackets on either side of this rating indicate that this rating is highly unexpected for a student who has a level of competence of .61 logits. Continuing down the line of numbers, there are two more occasions (i.e., 1SE and 3PB) where Student FDX2 received a rating lower than expected; five instances (i.e., 1SD, 2PP, 3PS, 3SD, and HPI) where he received the rating expected from the Rasch model; six instances (i.e., 2PP, 2SD, 3SE, HPE, HSD, and HSE) where he received a rating exceeding the expectations of the Rasch model, and one instance (2SE) where he received an unexpectedly high rating for his explanation of the change in the company’s stock price. In sum, Student FDX2 received a mixture of positive and negative evaluations on his PowerPoint design skills and generally positive evaluations on his descriptive and explanatory skills. These evaluations were also accompanied by higher than expected holistic evaluations of his PowerPoint presentation. The difference between the expected and the actual ratings of Student FDX2 task performance is also reflected in a mean-square infit statistic of 1.27, which indicates that the two unexpected ratings for the task requirements 1PP and 2SE do not seem to fit with the other ratings of this student’s task performance. Yet, what still remains unknown is what was lacking in Student FDX2’s PowerPoint design skill in the first slide of his presentation (1PP) and how he was able to provide the unexpected explanation for the variability of the FedEx’s stock price (2SE). Incorporating a qualitative aspect into the formative assessment cycle can thus provide another source of feedback for the teacher and the students.

A discourse analysis of student FDX2’s task performance Student FDX2’s delivery of his PowerPoint presentation is a combination of scripted and non-scripted speech. The task description stated that students would not able to read off a piece of paper when they delivered their presentations. Students often circumvented this task requirement by reading off their PowerPoint slides. This is illustrated by the excerpt below. Excerpt 1 Student FDX2’s presentation of the first PowerPoint slide 1. 2. 3. 4.

Well I’d like to introduce Fed Ex- ((presenter turns away from the audience and reads off the PowerPoint slide)) Fed Ex Corporation. This company provides a portfolio of transportation and eco e commerce and business service through companies.



Chapter 13.  Task-based language teaching in a university setting in Japan 

Fed EX Corporation • FedEx provides a portfolio of transportation, ecommerce and business services through companies.

Figure 4.  Student FDX2’s first PowerPoint slide

Stock price $96 $94 $92 $90 $88 $86 $84 $82 $80 $78 07–Dec 14–Dec 21–Dec 28–Dec 04–Jan

Stock price

Figure 5.  Student FDX2’s second PowerPoint slide

In Excerpt 1, Student FDX2 turns away from his audience in line 1 after a false start with the company’s name and continues to read off the PowerPoint slide in lines 2 to 4 with relative ease, though he has a little trouble with the word “e-commerce” in line 3. His fairly fluent scripted presentation, however, lacks an explanation of why he selected the Fed Ex Corporation as a company worthy of investment. Moreover, his first PowerPoint slide (see Figure 4) lacks any visual representation of the Fed Ex Corporation and its business. These two omissions led to lower than expected ratings of Student FDX2’s performance in the first section of the presentation (i.e., a rating of one for 1PP and 1SE). The second PowerPoint slide (see Figure 5) provides less of a written script for Student FDX2. As a result, his speech rate varies with noticeably lengthened enunciation of “next” and “and” in line 5 of Excerpt 2. Changes in fluency, however, can increase the audience’s level of comprehension of the presentation. For example in line 6, Student FDX2’s micro-pause followed by a slow delivery of the current stock price of 84 dollars helps to make this information more salient. As a result, his peers give him the highest rating of four for his description of the company’s stock price. Excerpt 2 Student FDX2’s presentation of the second PowerPoint slide   5. And n:: next the stock stock price is going down and down. And:: it it used to be 120   6. dollar. But it is going down to (.) . I don’t know why. December has a

 Christopher Weaver

  7. Christmas ((presenter turns away from the PowerPoint slide and looks at the   8. audience)) Christmas:::: ya Christmas ((presenter looks back to PowerPoint slide))   9. and every people (.1) send a present but I don’t know why the price going down. 10. But (.2) I think the (.) it’s bottom pr price. So the stock price ((presenter turns away 11. from the PowerPoint slide and looks at the audience)) will be going up. Student FDX2’s orientation of his body during this section of the presentation has a similar effect of drawing the audience’s attention to specific pieces of information. In lines 7, he turns away from the PowerPoint slide and looks at the audience repeating that Christmas is the reason why he thought the price of the Fed Ex Corporation would increase. Student FDX2 turns to the audience once again in line 9 to assure his audience that the price of the company’s stock will increase in the future. This direct engagement with the audience contributed to the unexpectedly high rating (i.e., a rating of four for 2SE) for his explanation of the variability in the company’s stock price. The third slide of the presentation (see Figure 6) once again provides Student FDX2 with a comprehensive script of his presentation. The amount of text on his third PowerPoint slide, however, resulted in a lower than expected rating from his peers (i.e., a rating of three for 3PB). In line 12 of Excerpt 3, he turns his body back towards the PowerPoint slide and states that there are three reasons to invest in the Fed Ex Corporation. The unscripted nature of this introduction is apparent with the false start of “you” in line 12 and the lengthened enunciation of “this” in line 13. Excerpt 3 Student FDX2’s presentation of the third PowerPoint slide 12. And ((presenter looks back to PowerPoint slide)) three reason why y- you should 13. buy this:: stock. The first is the stock price is cheaper than other months. And (.) 14. second the stock price is bottom (.) so maybe the price going up. And third (.) come 15. Easter soon people use portfolio transportation. ((presenter turns away from the 16. PowerPoint slide and looks at the audience)) (.3) Finished thank you. From lines 13 to 15, Student FDX2 reads off his PowerPoint slide in rapid succession explaining why the Fed Ex Corporation is a good investment opportunity. Once again, he uses micro-pauses to aid audience comprehension. This time he pauses slightly between the three different reasons for investment. Once finished, Student FDX2 turns • The stock price is cheaper than other months. • The stock price is bottom. So maybe the price will going up. • Come easter soon, people use portfolio transportation.

Figure 6.  Student FDX2’s third PowerPoint slide



Chapter 13.  Task-based language teaching in a university setting in Japan 

back towards the audience in line 15, waits three-tenths of a second, and then concludes his presentation with “finished thank you.” His delivery of the third section of the PowerPoint presentation received the expected rating of four for his description of the company’s strengths (3SD) and a higher than expected rating for his explanation of why to invest in the company (i.e., a rating of four for 3SE). Overall, his peers gave Student FDX2 a higher than expected rating of four for his PowerPoint design skills (HPE), his explanatory skills (HSE), and his ability to deliver a convincing argument (HSC). However, the audience identified that the student needed to improve upon his skills of creating a PowerPoint presentation that featured the necessary information needed to invest in the Fed Ex Corporation (i.e., a rating of three for HPI). The audience also responded positively to his “call to action” to invest in the Fed Ex Corporation.

Discussion The results of this empirical study may prompt some teachers interested in TBLT to question the need and/or the feasibility of incorporating a similar formative assessment cycle into their own classrooms. The discussion of the results will thus focus upon how the quantitative and qualitative data arising from this study was incorporated in the teacher-student feedback sessions, the pedagogical choices made in the business presentation course, and the ongoing refinements taken to improve the effectiveness of the formative assessment cycle. The first research question focused upon the variability of students’ use of the assessment criteria to evaluate their peers’ PowerPoint presentations. The second column of Figure 2 shows that rater severity ranged from –.07 logits to 3.41 logits meaning that students’ use of the assessment criteria composed ten statistically distinct levels of rater severity. This large discrepancy between the student raters raises a couple of pedagogical issues. The first is the possibility that the differences in rater severity could reflect real differences in how the audience evaluated the PowerPoint presentations, which in turn could lead to a larger variety of recommendations of how the presenter could develop towards a target task performance. Weaver (2011), for example, found that Japanese university students who were rated by their peers as being the most competent in a job interview conducted in English were also the most severe raters of their peers. Follow-up interviews with these students revealed that their severe ratings reflected an evaluation of their peer’s level of grammatical competence, a criterion that was not even included in the task’s assessment criteria. Teachers can attempt to reduce the range of rater severity with training sessions aiming to standardize the use of the assessment criteria; however, within a classroom setting that may be impractical and consume valuable classroom time (Luoma, 2004). In the context of this study, a Many-Facet Rasch analysis is used to help the teachers take account of these

 Christopher Weaver

differences and control their influence on the evaluation of task performances (Linacre & Wright, 2002). The use of peer evaluations, however, does have a number of potential pedagogical benefits. Learners may deepen their understanding of the task requirements as they use the assessment criteria and observe their peers comply with these requirements to various degrees of success. Peer assessment also has the additional benefit in that students are engaged and attentive when other students are delivering their PowerPoint presentations. Moreover, the responsibility of evaluating one’s peers helps strengthen students’ sense of ownership over the formative assessment process and the TBLT program as a whole. As learners progress towards target task performances, there is also an increasing need for the inclusion of real-world assessment criteria along with the involvement of raters from the target context in order to define what competent communication entails in real-world contexts (Grove & Brown, 2001; Jacoby & McNamara, 1999). For example, Student FDX2 received higher than expected ratings for his explanation of the Fed Ex Corporation’s variable stock price. Yet, the discourse analysis of his presentation revealed in Excerpt 2 line 9 that he did not know the reason behind the company’s declining stock price during the Christmas season. One would expect that raters from the business world would evaluate this students’ explanation differently from students who also had a difficult time explaining the reason underlying the variability in their own companies’ stock prices. Achieving reliable formative assessment feedback is thus intertwined with issues of validity and the need to explicitly define the characteristics of a target task performance. The second research question of this study focused upon determining the students’ level of competence to deliver a convincing PowerPoint presentation. The formative assessment cycle in this chapter draws upon a variety of quantitative and qualitative techniques to define and refine what student competence entails. The graphical output from the Many-Facet Rasch analysis (Figure 2) inevitably causes a certain degree of uncertainty amongst teachers and students the first time they try to interpret the results of the analysis. Teachers and students are more likely expecting a number that represents a certain level of competency. By consulting the first and second columns in Figure 2, it is possible for students to determine their level of competence measured with the logit scale. Yet similar to other number-based representations of competence, a logit score has little meaning without context. Figure 2 provides teachers and students with a number of different contexts to define task competence. In the beginning of the first teacher-class feedback session, the teacher asked students to identify themselves in the second column of Figure 2. Once students circled their company’s ticker symbol, they can quickly see how they compare to their peers. The teacher, however, quickly redirected the students’ focus to the fourth column of Figure 2 with the message that competence cannot be defined solely by comparing oneself to others in the class. Equally important is students’ level of competence to successfully complete the task at hand. In the context of this study, 21 out of 46 students



Chapter 13.  Task-based language teaching in a university setting in Japan 

were rated by their peers as being able to deliver a convincing PowerPoint presentation in English. At this point in the teacher-class feedback session, the teacher directed the students’ attention to the third column in Figure 2. In this column, the teacher and the students identified the relative difficulty of the different task requirements. The 46 business students could see that their PowerPoint design skills were significantly stronger than their English speaking skills. The take-away is that when students have time to prepare a written text, generally they are able to effectively summarize the necessary information. In terms of speaking skills, students experienced a greater level of difficulty when they needed to explain something about their respective companies compared to when they had to describe something. Being able to provide more convincing explanations, however, may entail a deeper level of content knowledge in addition to the linguistic competence required to effectively deliver this information. Student FDX2, for example, was at a loss why the Fed Ex Corporation stock price would decline during the busy Christmas holiday season when people could be expected to massively use courier services to deliver gifts. What this student may have failed to realize is that the Fed Ex Corporation faces stiff competition from the U.S. Postal Service (2009, December 14). Providing an explanation of a company’s stock price (2SE) thus not only requires students to draw upon specific language skills such as hedges, but also their general knowledge of the world and more specifically their understanding of the economic conditions that influences stock prices. It must be remember, however, that Figure 2 provides an overview of student competency relative to the different task requirements. An effective formative assessment cycle must also take into account the possibility of individual differences. In the case of Student FDX2, the feedback that he received in his teacher-student feedback session was in many ways different from the feedback given to the entire class. Figure 2 and Table 1 show that the explanatory speaking skill requirements (i.e., 1SE, 2SE, and 3SE) pose a significant challenge for the students as a group. Because Student FDX2’s overall level of competence (.61 logits) is lower that the level of difficulty of task requirements 1SE (.7 logits), 2SE (1.29 logits), and 3SE (.62 logits), Figure 2 and Table 1 might lead the teacher to provide erroneous feedback to this student. Figure 3, however, shows that Student FDX2 received higher than expected ratings for his ability to explain a possible reason for changes in the company’s stock price (2SE) and why the three future growth areas make the company a good investment opportunity (3SE). Student FDX2, however, needs to focus on providing a better explanation at the beginning of his PowerPoint presentation of why he selected FedEx (1SE). The combination of the teacher-class and teacher-student feedback sessions can thus help teachers take into account important individual differences when they select the next pedagogical task to help students advance towards target task performances. The third research question of this study aimed to determine the relative difficulty of the different task requirements and the difficulty of convincing one’s peers to invest in a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. These points of interest can help teachers gain a deeper understanding of the selected task and how the task and/or the

 Christopher Weaver

task procedures might be improved in the future. For example, when the PowerPoint presentation about companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange was used again in the next academic year, the four holistic evaluations (i.e., HPI, HPE, HSD, and HSC) were replaced with a set of assessment criteria that evaluated students’ level of engagement with the audience during the three sections of the PowerPoint presentation. Another adjustment made was that students were asked to focus on one type of industry (e.g., consumer goods) for the entire year-long business presentation course so that they could develop a more comprehensive level of content knowledge about that particular industry, which in turn helped them when they needed to provide explanations about factors that could potentially influence the performance of the companies they selected. The graphical output of a Many-Facet Rasch analysis, however, can take teachers only so far. In the first teacher-student feedback session with Student FDX2, the teacher told him that, “Your explanation of the FedEx’s stock price was really good, but you need to explain why you choose this company in the first section of your PowerPoint presentation.” This type of feedback gives this student a direction in which to focus his efforts. Yet, Figure 3 provides no information about what made his explanation concerning the stock price (2SE) effective compared to his explanation of his motivation for choosing FedEx (1SE). A Many-Facet Rasch analysis thus naturally leads to a focused qualitative inquiry (Smith 2000). In the case of this particular formative assessment cycle, a discourse analysis using conversation analysis techniques was used to define specific behaviours of interest. Although discourse-analytic methods have been discounted as a practical means of conducting planned formative assessments (e.g., Ellis, 2003), a guided discourse analysis can be effectively integrated into a formative assessment cycle when students undertake the transcribing duties and examine specific features in their transcriptions through teacher-class and teacher-student interactions. The benefits of doing so are numerous. A guided discourse analysis of task performances can help teachers and students clarify the connection between the ratings students received from their peers and the students’ actual task performance. Teachers can also use the transcriptions to monitor the extent to which students are incorporating lessons learnt from previous task performances. For example, during the discourse analysis-based feedback sessions, the students examined the number and the location of micro-pauses in their first and second PowerPoint presentations. The aim was to draw students’ attention to how pauses within syntactic units can sometimes create the impression of a lack of fluency, but can also increase the saliency of important information in a presentation such as when Student FDX2 described the drop in FedEx’s stock price in line 6 of Excerpt 2. By repeating this type of analysis throughout the year-long business presentation course, the students not only produced a very refined account of how their level of fluency developed over time, but they also gained a deeper understanding of how hesitation pauses can be effectively used to achieve a specific communicative purpose. Finally, a discourse analysis can help teachers identify areas of competence that were not featured on the task assessment criteria,



Chapter 13.  Task-based language teaching in a university setting in Japan 

but need to be incorporated in future formative assessment cycles (e.g., Leedham, 2005). For example, Student FDX2’s PowerPoint presentation, much like the majority of his peers, featured large sections of highly scripted speech where he read directly off his PowerPoint slide. Although the fluency of his delivery increased during these times, his connection with the audience suffered because he had his back turned to them. As a result, the task assessment criteria for the next PowerPoint presentation included items that evaluated of the speakers’ location relative to the audience.

Conclusion A formative assessment cycle can help teachers establish a framework for systematically implementing TBLT in their classrooms. As the teacher and students progress through the different steps of the formative assessment cycle, there are numerous opportunities to gain a deeper understanding of the componential features of the task at hand and the requirements that need to be satisfied in order to successfully perform the task. In this particular study, a Many-Facet Rasch analysis identified that students’ explanatory skills was one area of competence requiring further development. The follow-up guided discourse analysis also revealed how students could use hesitation pauses to increase the saliency of important information in their presentations and the need in future formative assessment cycles to evaluate the interaction between highly scripted speech and the presenter’s level of engagement with the audience. The combination of a Many-Facet Rasch analysis and a discourse analysis used in this study, however, may not meet the specific needs of other educational contexts. Teachers can draw upon a number of other quantitative-qualitative combinations to evaluate their students’ task performances from a variety of informative perspectives. The whole idea is to set-up a dynamic and responsive feedback mechanism that can provide students with personalized opportunities for learning in a meaningful context, where gaps in L2 competence arise from the performance of a task according to learners’ internal syllabus rather than originating from an external syllabus. In sum, a formative assessment cycle is an iterative process in which L2 use and informative feedback can help transform hindsight into foresight, which in turn advances students closer to target task performances that are meaningful to them.

References Bachman, L. (2002). Some reflection on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 453–476. Bonk, W., & Ockey, G. (2003). A many-facet Rasch analysis of the second language group oral discussion. Language Testing, 20(1), 89–110.

 Christopher Weaver Brown, A. (1993). The role of test-taker feedback in the test development process: Test-takers’ reactions to a tape-mediated test of proficiency in spoken Japanese. Language Testing, 10(3), 277–301. Byrnes, H. (2002). The role of task and task-based assessment in a content-oriented collegiate foreign language curriculum. Language Testing, 19(4), 419–437. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fischer, W. J. (1992). Reliability statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 6(3), 238. Gorsuch, G. (1998). Yakudoku EFL instruction in two Japanese high school classrooms. JALT Journal, 20(1), 6–32. Grove, E., & Brown, A. (2001). Tasks and criteria in a test of oral communication skills for firstyear health science students: Where from? Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 10(1), 37–47. Guest, M. (2000). “But I have to teach grammar!”: An analysis of the role “grammar” plays in Japanese university English entrance examinations. The Language Teacher, 20(11), 23–29. Jacoby, S., & McNamara. (1999). Locating competence. English for Specific Purposes, 18(3), 213–241. Leedham, M. (2005). Exam-orientated tasks: Transcripts, turn-taking, and back-channeling. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 93–102). Basingstok, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Linacre, J. (1989). Many-facet Rasch measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA Press. Linacre, J., & Wright, B. (2002). Construction of measures from many-Facet data. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(4), 486–512. Long, M. (Ed.). (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Long, M., & Norris, J. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In M. Byram (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language teaching (pp. 597–603). London: Routledge. Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–167). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lounsbury, F. (1954). Transitional probability, linguistic structure and systems of habit-family hierarchies. In C. Osgood & T. Sebock (Eds.), Pyscholinguistics: A survey of theory and research problems (pp. 92–101). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matsuno, S. (2009). Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese university EFL writing classrooms. Language Testing, 26(1), 75–100. Mislevy, R., Steinberg, L., & Almond, R. (2002). Design and analysis in task-based language assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 477–496. Myford, C., & Wolfe, E. (2003). Detecting and measuring rater effects using many-facet Rasch measurement: Part 1. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4(4), 386–422. Nishino, T. (2008). Japanese secondary school teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding communicative language teaching: An explanatory study. JALT Journal, 30(1), 27–50. Norris, J. (2001). Use of address terms on the German speaking test. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 248–282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norris, J. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.



Chapter 13.  Task-based language teaching in a university setting in Japan  Norris, J., Brown, J., Hudson, T., & Yoshioka, J. (1998). Designing second language performance assessments. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Rasch, G. (1960/1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research, expanded edition (1980) with foreword and afterword by B. Wright ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Robinson, P., & Ross, S. (1996). The development of task-based assessment in English for academic purposes programs. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 455–476. Sakui, K. (2004). Wearing two pairs of shoes: Language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal, 58(2), 155–163. Sakui, K. (2007). Classroom management in Japanese EFL classrooms. JALT Journal, 29(1), 41–58. Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 167–185). Harlow, UK: Longman. Smith, E., Jr. (2000). Metric development and score reporting in Rasch measurement. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1(3), 303–326. Thornborrow, J. (2003). The organization of primary school children’s on-task and off-task talk in a small group setting. Research on language and social interaction, 36(1), 7–32. Tsui, A. (1994). English Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. United States Postal Service. (2009, December 14). Postal service ready for busiest mailing day. Retrieved. from http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2009/pr09_110.htm. Watanabe, Y. (1996). Does grammar translation come from the entrance exams? Preliminary findings from classroom-based research. Language Testing, 13(3), 318–333. Weaver, C. (2011). Interpretations and Implementations of a task assessment criteria. Manuscript submitted for publication. Weaver, C., & Sato, Y. (2008). Tracking and targeting: Investigating item performance on the English section of a university entrance examination over a four year period. JALT Journal, 30(1), 105–128. Wilson, M., & Case, H. (2000). An examination of variation in rater severity over time: A study in rater drift. In J. M. Wilson & G. Engelhard (Ed.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice (Vol. 5, pp. 114–118). Stamford, CT: Ablex.

 Christopher Weaver

Appendix A You are a junior analyst at a brokerage firm. You need to deliver a three-slide PowerPoint presentation about a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange that you think is a good investment opportunity. Your PowerPoint presentation should include the following information: Slide

PowerPoint

Presentation

One

Name of the company Picture representing the company’s business Current stock price of the company Stock price from December 2006 to January 2007 Three future growth areas for the company

Describe which company you chose and the type of business they do Explain why you chose this company Describe the current stock price Explain a possible reason for changes in the company’s stock price Describe three future growth areas for the company Explain why these future growth areas make the company a good investment opportunity

Two

Three

Your peers will evaluate your presentation using the Assessment Criteria below. You will not be able to read off a piece of paper while you are delivering your PowerPoint presentation.



Chapter 13.  Task-based language teaching in a university setting in Japan 

Appendix B Assessment criteria Slide 1 PowerPoint Design Skills

Speaking Skills

Slide 2 PowerPoint Design Skills

Speaking Skills

Slide 3 PowerPoint Design Skills

Speaking Skills

It was easy to see the name of the company on the PowerPoint slide. It was easy to understand what kind of business the company is involved in from the picture on the PowerPoint slide. I could easily understand the presenter’s description about what type of business this company does. I could easily understand the presenter’s explanation why he or she chose this company. I could easily see the price of the stock on the PowerPoint slide. I could easily see how the price of the stock changed on the graph on the PowerPoint slide. I could easily understand the presenter’s description about how the price of the stock changed. I could easily understand the presenter’s explanation why the price of the stock changed. I could easily see the three areas for future growth on the PowerPoint slide. There was not too much text used to describe the future growth areas on the PowerPoint side. I could easily understand the presenter’s description of three areas for future growth. I could easily understand the presenter’s explanation of why these future growth areas make this company a good investment.

The PowerPoint Presentation on the Whole PowerPoint Design Skills The PowerPoint presentation enhanced the presenter’s oral presentation. The presenter’s PowerPoint gave me enough information so that I could decide whether or not to invest in this company. Speaking Skills The presenter’s description of the company gave me enough information to decide whether or to invest in this company. The presenter’s explanation of why I should invest in this company was a very convincing argument. Call to Action – Based upon this presentation, I would invest in this company.

 Christopher Weaver

Appendix C Transcription conventions length of silence (.) micro-pause - sudden cut-off of the current sound :: prolongation of the previous sound. The number of colons indicate the length of prolongation. ? rising intonation . falling intonation > < increase in tempo

chapter 14

Language teachers’ perceptions of a task-based learning programme in a French University Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret University of Nantes, France

This study is based on a large-scale research project concerning a taskbased blended language learning programme for first-year Business English undergraduate students in a university in Northwest France. The programme is entering its fourth year (it was extended to third-year students in January 2011). The project is funded by the Région des Pays de la Loire and involves a team of ten researchers. The team have found encouraging results concerning learner involvement and satisfaction. However, as teachers play a key role in the successful implementation of any innovative programme, this study aims to explore the teachers’ attitudes to their changing and increasingly complex roles within that environment. It examines teachers’ self-perceptions and attitudes to learning and teaching, after two years of implementing the programme, involving as it did a change from face-to-face teacher-centred approaches to computer-mediated and task-based teaching. Qualitative data derived from interviews with 14 teachers involved in the task-based blended learning programme are presented and discussed. Results indicate that most of the teachers accept and are adapting to their new, multifaceted role. Group dynamics and teamwork have contributed to this, apparently playing a key role in developing a common culture in terms of their approach to language teaching. However, some teachers have reservations, particularly about the increased workload associated with the provision of more personalised support for students, and to some extent about the shift away from a transmission-based approach to teaching, which is implied in a TBLT programme. Institutional and cultural factors are also highlighted as a major constraint.

 Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret

Theoretical background and context of the study Introduction The implementation of a Task-Based Learning and Teaching (TBLT) programme at the University of Nantes (France) was triggered by the need to solve a number of problems inherited from an obsolete and inadequate system. The system needed reorganising to ensure greater coherence and cohesion within the Business English syllabus of the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Cultures, better adaptation of the syllabus to the real world, greater efficiency of learning of both content and language, and a reduction in the drop-out rate. The innovation process began in 2007, with the mobilisation of a team of fourteen (including two technicians) to develop a new learning programme. Apart from one individual, the teaching staff involved in the team were not conversant with English Teaching methodology, second language acquisition (SLA) theories, or TBLT. However they were aware of the problems with the existing programme, and complained about having to cope with large groups of students, and about the inefficiency of teaching in such conditions. After a year of regular voluntary meetings and training sessions, the team came up with an innovative task-based programme coupled with a technological dimension (as a means of dealing with large numbers of students). The team started designing tasks in 2008 and gained approval from the university governing body for implementation in 2009 with the financial support of the regional government authority (Région des Pays de la Loire). Accountability to the regional government authority required a complete evaluation of the implementation of the system, including the impact on students’ language learning and adoption of the system (Narcy-Combes & McAllister, 2011; Buck & McAllister, 2011), as well as teachers’ involvement, the subject of the present study. The evaluation process was begun in 2009. The purpose of the present study, which is part of the wider evaluation, is to examine the teachers’ views of the TBLT programme after two years of experience with it. Specifically, it aims to investigate teachers’ cognitions relating to the basic principles underpinning the programme, to understand their beliefs about the nature of their pedagogic roles and practices, and to examine their views about the advantages and limitations of the programme. One reason for this focus is that teachers’ engagement with the programme and with its development would likely be affected by their orientation to the principles that it was based on. It was also thought important to understand how they felt about the programme, whether they were new to it or early adopters, so as to make decisions about future developments. In this instance, the researchers’ role did not merely include evaluating and giving recommendations on what to do for the programme implementation, as this could have been resented by the teachers. Two of the researchers were also involved in the programme as teachers, partly in order to enhance the credibility of the project in the eyes of the teachers, and partly to increase the validity of the study itself.



Chapter 14.  Task-based learning programme in a French University 

This chapter explores the teachers’ views through an analysis of a corpus of interviews with fourteen teachers involved in the programme in 2011. However, to better interpret the study, we first describe the institutional context and how the innovation came to be introduced. We then describe the innovation, in terms of the rationale, the programme design, and the resulting redefinition of the role of the teachers.

Managing resistance to change in the French context Implementing such a programme in a French university proves a challenging task in itself. Due to its dual educational approach where an élite system exists together with an “egalitarian” one, French universities stand apart from the rest of the world. The brightest students do not go to university, but to highly selective Grandes Ecoles, which attract the major share of private and public funding. In contrast, French universities do not select their students on entry. Any student with a baccalauréat1 has the right to take up a state university place, and more and more students are obtaining the baccalauréat due to government policy. The fees are also quite low by international standards. The result is that France’s public universities are overcrowded and under-funded. Only one in seven students will survive to complete the full course of studies from year one to year four: the drop-out rate is appalling. Universities are also still very conservative and do not accept innovation easily, though this is slowly changing. As Joffe (2000, p. 4) puts it, “traditional universities are filled with traditional instructors” who are often not open to novel ideas and programmes. She adds that the novelty of a new teaching method can be “overwhelming and frightening” for some teachers (Joffe, 2000, p. 13). In this case, the task-based and technology dimensions of the programme represented a potentially threatening new way of doing things for the teachers. Despite the fact that the proposed learning environment was grounded in innovative educational approaches, supported by theory and research findings, and had been carefully constructed, its implementation faced unforeseen difficulties, thus highlighting the fact that what might be widely accepted in one context might not be easily transferable to another. When presented for the first time to the university’s governing body the project originally triggered hostile reactions and fierce resistance. It was necessary at that stage to set out to understand what underlying phenomena were involved, and we thought that the literature on work psychology and organisational studies could help to shed light on the situation. For example, work psychology suggests that resistance to change is a self-protection mechanism that can take the form of avoidance strategies, rebellion, opposition, and rejection, whether that change comes from the students themselves, the teachers, 1. The baccalauréat is an academic qualification which French students take at the end of secondary education.

 Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret

or the institution (Goguelin, 1989). As such, it should not be interpreted as a negative phenomenon, but seen as an integral part of the innovation process, which itself is destructive by nature. In this sense, it should be considered as a parameter to be questioned, analysed, and integrated into the project itself (Bareil, 2004). The proposed innovative course was a paradigmatic revolution from instruction to autonomy, from transmission to construction of knowledge, and from teacher-centred to learner-centred learning and individualisation (Soubrié, 2008). The teachers involved were likely to have to leave their comfort zone and face uncertainty, triggering anxiety as their interpersonal and intrapersonal balance was disrupted. And indeed they expressed fears of losing face due to technophobia and of losing their pedagogical freedom. They also thought that the students might refuse to do the tasks, that their relations with the students might be altered for the worse, and that the innovation would mean an overall increase of their workload. Even so, they could immediately see the benefits of dealing with smaller groups of students and shared the widespread concerns about the drop-out rate. This provided one cornerstone for the innovation. In the French context in general resistance should be expected, whether active or passive, individual or collective, conscious or unconscious. For Michel Crozier (1963), who adapted Max Weber’s model to the French context, France has a bureaucratic type of organisation which implies a high degree of control, rigid and complex regulations, lengthy and slow procedures, and a disregard for individual needs, which does not facilitate the implementation of new projects. Change will be accepted only if individuals can see how they can benefit from it, and if they can be certain that they will be allowed to go back to the old ways if desired (Bareil, 2004; Rogers, 2003; Fullan, 2007). The researchers had to acknowledge these facts, listen to the fears expressed, and resist the temptation to minimise them. Then action had to be taken. Seminars were organised every month to explain what was new, reassure, and also listen to objections and offer the participants an opportunity to take part in the project, which implied flexibility and pragmatism. Training sessions were provided on request to reduce anxiety due to technophobia. All along, the watchword has been “communicate”. Common sense holds that a minority cannot influence an overwhelming majority of people. Social psychology, however, shows that common sense can be overridden if the minority group has a strong conviction of the validity of their views, and takes a cogent and well-founded stance, and this may lead to deep and durable change (Anzieu & Martin, 2000). This approach implies theoretical and technical rigor, but also time – to communicate with and inform participants and decision-makers – and the pragmatism needed to avoid conflict. The whole process also requires patience. This was the other main cornerstone that enabled the innovation to be introduced. Having sketched out the broader context for the innovation, we now turn to the specifics of the programme itself.



Chapter 14.  Task-based learning programme in a French University 

Rationale for the TBLT programme The TBLT programme, in which this research was conducted, involves more than 800 students enrolled in their first year of a three-year undergraduate degree course in Languages and International Trade at Nantes University. Students can study up to three languages, including English, which is compulsory, and Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Arabic, Chinese, or Japanese. They also study business-related subjects including law, economics, and management. Despite the programme attracting increasing student numbers in the first year (up by 29% between 2008 and 2010), it also experiences a 40% + drop-out rate at the end of the first year, a trend which begins at the end of the first semester. This state of affairs has raised questions for the team of teachers as to why students drop out and what can be done to reduce the problem. The size of language classes, which can vary from 45 to 60 students per class, is a contributing factor to student failure, because personalised follow-up proves difficult in such conditions. In addition, placement tests show that students’ language levels are heterogeneous, with only 25% attaining the required B2 level on entering university (see Table 1). As a response to these problems, a task-based approach was developed in conjunction with a distance learning facility provided through a learning platform (Moodle), and with tutorials, all with a view to coping with large groups of often demotivated students, many of whom choose this course as a last resort. The task-based approach would enable us to provide students with real-life tasks, directly linked to the students’ career prospects, potentially triggering their motivation and involvement, and hopefully fostering a degree of learner autonomy. In addition the programme design would enable the face-to-face tutorials to be organised in smaller groups, favouring more peer and student-teacher interactions, which had the potential to promote more effective second language (L2) acquisition processes. The programme was initially designed for first-year students studying English within a programme of Languages and International Trade. It has since been extended to third-year students. For institutional and practical reasons, the blended element of the programme is only implemented during the second semester, although the TBLT programme as a whole is used throughout both first and second semesters. Table 1.  1st Year Student Proficiency Levels at the Beginning of Semester 2, 2010 CEFR Language Level A1 A2 B1 B2 (target level) C1/C2

Number of students (n = 285)

Percentage

   9   68 135   55   18

  3% 24% 47.5% 19%   6.5%

Note: CEFR is the Common European Framework of Reference.

 Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret

Programme design Following on from the broader rationale outlined above, a number of guiding principles were adopted as a working basis for the design of the programme, drawing on a broad range of literature (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Ellis, 2003a; Willis & Willis, 2007; Willis, 2009). This led towards a holistic approach to language learning, a learnercentred programme, and seeking a balance between focus on meaning and focus on form. There are many definitions of what constitutes a task, but the team chose to work with Van den Branden’s (2006) definition: “A task is an activity in which a person engages in order to attain an objective, and which necessitates the use of language” (p. 4). An underlying assumption is that the development of any programme is crucially influenced by teachers’ beliefs about L2 acquisition, following Chapelle (2003), who argued that the implementation of a learning environment depends on the adoption of a congruent language acquisition theory. In our case, the development of the programme was grounded in a socio-constructivist and cognitivist approach to language learning, combining social tasks and individual tasks for metareflection and practice (NarcyCombes, J.-P., 2012; Bertin, Gravé, & Narcy-Combes, 2010). Given the nature of the TBLT project, it follows that there is special interest in exploring the beliefs about L2 acquisition and about the teaching practices of teachers who have been involved in the programme, and to relate the findings to the assumptions that underpinned the innovation. According to socio-constructivist and cognitivist approaches to language learning and evaluation (Bruner, 2000; Robinson, 2001), learning is not transmitted from teacher to learner, but rather constructed by the learner through social interaction and individual involvement and reflection (Kintsch, 2009; Lantolf, 2000; Little, 2007). Accordingly, the programme proposed social tasks which were complex holistic tasks leading learners to interact and collaborate, without direct interference from the teacher (see below for an example). In addition, self-training, in the form of repetition and practice, plays a key role in ensuring long term acquisition (Bygate, 2009). Hence, focused tasks were proposed to learners for that purpose. A TBLT programme requires a certain degree of autonomy in order for a learner to function. However, the idea of autonomy, in the sense defined by Holec (1981, p. 3), as “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning”, represents a challenge to the cultural and educational tradition in France, where learners are accustomed to a more passive role in the traditional classroom setting and are often reluctant to learn in a wholly self-directed manner, while teachers themselves are not always ready to grant learners the autonomy they would require to perform the tasks (for a full up-to-date discussion of differences in the field across cultures see Ehrenberg, 2010). Thus, the question of learner autonomy represents a significant challenge in the French context, and the issue could not be ignored. The programme combines two hours of face-to-face teaching with 2–3 hours of autonomous group work and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC). The latter are self-paced, so the actual duration depends on the rhythm of the



Chapter 14.  Task-based learning programme in a French University 

students. The face-to-face teaching is broken down into two distinct classes: students meet with the teacher for one hour as a whole class of 45 students and one hour in tutorials of fifteen students. The plenary session is used for feedback, focus on form, and vocabulary or skills-based focus, while the tutorials are used for task performance (for types of tasks, see below) and to encourage meta-reflection based on personalised feedback and support from teachers (in accordance with Swain’s (2000) work on the role of “noticing” and “meta-reflection” in second language acquisition). The CMC part of the course is based on Moodle, an open source virtual learning platform, and comprises three distinct spaces: – a space containing lesson materials, that is, documents with detailed instructions relating to the preparatory work to be carried out and task objectives; – a self-training centre which contains interactive grammar, vocabulary, and listening exercises to help students work on those morphosyntactic, phonetic, and lexical areas they have most difficulty with as highlighted by the teacher’s feedback; – a space reserved for the teacher’s specific group where students can upload their written work for correction and where the teacher provides feedback; it includes a class forum to promote the development of a community of learners. Students work on eight tasks during a twelve-week semester. The tasks are designed to be student-centred and involve collaborative learning and problem solving. They are in the form of real-life business scenarios (Roots-Buck, 2005) with an overriding focus on meaning and authenticity, however a beneficial focus on form has also been integrated. The topics of the tasks relate to the syllabus of the course which focuses on business and economic issues (for example, creating a company, outsourcing, and counterfeiting). The fact that the tasks are relevant to students’ interests is a key factor in fostering motivation. Dörnyei (2005) describes task motivation as a complex processing system comprising three interrelated mechanisms: firstly, the engagement of learners in task execution; secondly, the continuous appraisal process of task performance; and finally action control (pp. 81–82). He particularly emphasises the role of focused engagement in an activity which can lead to improved performance on a task. This can be exemplified as follows for an oral presentation. The students are given a brief about a specific theme, here “outsourcing”. TASK A: OUTSOURCING Oral Presentation Brief: InterState is currently considering outsourcing all or part of its call-centre in order to reduce its operating costs. Several groups of managers have been asked to research different host countries in order to host a pilot project. The management teams will be meeting later on in the day to present their recommendations.

 Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret

Students take an active role in gathering and evaluating information, discussing ideas, and reaching an agreed outcome. They work in groups of three to four students, which they organise themselves outside official class time. Thus, the learners are empowered to take responsibility for their own learning experience to help them progress towards greater autonomy. Preparatory tasks include building vocabulary relevant to the issue, gathering data in the form of a webquest, listening and reading for information, and reactivating useful forms (e.g., here they might need to make predictions about the future by referring to situations that may possibly happen). The purpose of preparatory tasks is to make sure that they have access to the input necessary to deal with the subject. Typical outcomes include a jointly prepared oral presentation of the students’ work, role-plays involving negotiation of meaning, or a collaborative written product in the form of a business report. The tasks have no expected “correct” answer and so are open to the learner’s interpretation. Individual feedback is provided by the teacher to cater for individual differences. Learners can then log on to the self-training centre for individual training. Several authors such as Dörnyei (2005), Ellis (2004), Robinson (2002), and Skehan (1991) have highlighted the importance of individual differences (IDs) among language learners in terms of their success in mastering a second language (L2). Dörnyei (2005, p. 7) mentions individual factors such as personality, ability/aptitude, motivation, learning styles, and language learning strategies as being key predictors of L2 learning success. The tasks described above were written collaboratively by all the teachers initially involved in the programme working in tandem, with meetings of the whole team once a month to discuss, review, and where necessary modify each task. The other components of the programme – remedial exercises, links to external sites, and a teacher’s resource bank – were also created collaboratively. In addition, the team met regularly for ICT training, specifically for the use of the Virtual Learning Environment. This kind of teamwork is uncommon in a French university context and constitutes a dimension of change for the teachers involved in the programme.

Redefinition of the teacher’s role The TBLT approach outlined above, along with the transition from a traditional faceto-face learning environment to a blended one, imply a fundamental change in the teacher’s role in the classroom and in teacher-student relationships. As noted above, traditionally, in the French context, foreign language classes can often be very teacherdirected and a transmission approach dominates. Samuda (2009, p. 380) reminds us that in this type of context the teachers operate as “provider[s] of bite-sized input, supplier[s] of feedback and engineer[s] of controlled progressions of classroom activity”, leading them to adopt roles such as “controller”, “organiser”, and “assessor”. In the sociocultural and task-based perspective, learners become more empowered by taking greater responsibility for their own language learning, and the teacher’s main role is,



Chapter 14.  Task-based learning programme in a French University 

according to Van den Branden (2009), “to act as a true interactional partner, negotiating meaning and content with the students, eliciting and encouraging their output, focusing on form when appropriate and offering them a rich, relevant and communicative input” (p. 401) (a principle that would of course be endorsed by some general educationists within the French context). In this sense, the teacher complements and supports the interactions and form-meaning relationships stimulated by the task in order to favour L2 development (Samuda, 2009, p. 398). This leads the teacher to adopt a very different set of roles including those of “monitor”, “language adviser”, and “chairperson” according to the different stages of the task cycle (Willis, 2009). In addition, Hampel (2006, p. 112) emphasises the “democratic and learner-centred features” inherent in many online environments which further support this shift away from hierarchical and transmission learning approaches. She contends that “the role of the tutor is less that of a traditional instructor than that of a facilitator, supporting student learning” and interactions (p. 113). In the same vein, Lamy and Goodfellow (1999) stress equality in the classroom whereby the instructor has “to relate to learners on a personal basis and more often as a colleague than an authority” (p. 461). They claim that some situations will require instructors to take greater control of the classroom, particularly when encouraging meta-reflection skills among students, but instructors should also know when to withdraw support from learners as they become more autonomous. Understanding the redefined roles of the teacher in this type of programme explains our interest in exploring teachers’ beliefs about the nature of their pedagogic roles and practices, and how their beliefs relate to the design features and principles of the programme. Teachers are key figures in the success of the whole project. Whatever the learning project, the beliefs and representations of the primary agents in its implementation will be key. Strikingly, the part teachers play in a task-based learning environment has tended to be overlooked until recently (Samuda, 2009). Van den Branden (2009, p. 404) stresses the link between teachers’ perceptions and actions in the classroom and how they in turn influence and are influenced by students’ perceptions and actions. This means that, when implementing a new learning system, it is particularly important to evaluate the impact of the programme on teachers as well as learners (Narcy-Combes M.-F., 2008). Two years of implementation of the programme provided a valuable opportunity to investigate teachers’ thinking to shed light on the innovation, on the demands that TBLT can place on teachers, and on the extent to which their thinking reflected the impact of both the support processes and the hands-on experience of the programme. There had been seminars, interactions during meetings, teamwork on task designing, training to use ICT, and tutorials with smaller numbers of students. Would a common culture emerge from it? Would teachers’ views converge with each other, with the assumptions underpinning the new programme, and indeed with its key design features? These questions motivate the study reported in the next section.

 Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret

Empirical study Aims of the study The main aims of this study were to investigate the beliefs of teachers on a TBLT programme about the nature of language learning, and about their pedagogic roles and practices, in order to relate them to the theoretical assumptions of the design team, and to the design features of the programme, so as to gain insights into factors affecting its appropriation and development. The study focused on the following research questions: Following two years’ experience of working on the new TBLT programme, what are teachers’ beliefs about (RQ1) second language acquisition and (RQ2) their own roles and practices as language teachers

The underlying assumptions motivating this study are that:

(1) Representations of L2 acquisition that do not correspond to the current theories could potentially hinder the successful implementation of the TBLT programme. (2) Resistance from teachers to the adoption of new roles and teaching practices could have an impact on their appropriation and usage of the TBLT programme, which could in turn negatively impact students’ acceptance and adoption of the programme.

The findings will be discussed in relation to the assumptions and principles informing the design of the programme.

Methods Participants Fourteen teachers agreed to contribute to this study, including eleven teachers already involved in the TBLT programme, a further two who were about to start teaching in the programme at the time of the interviews, and one who only taught in the traditional face-to-face first semester programme. The study provides a representative and balanced view of teachers’ attitudes to the programme as only one teacher involved in the TBLT programme refused to be interviewed. The group of fourteen teachers includes twelve women and two men of whom ten are French natives and four are native English speakers. The majority are experienced teachers who have worked between six and twenty or more years in higher education, while four are relatively new teachers with less than three to four years’ experience. As previously mentioned, eleven have taught in the TBLT programme since it was first



Chapter 14.  Task-based learning programme in a French University 

implemented in 2009 and so had two years of experience with it at the time of the study. This includes six teachers who were involved in the initial development of the programme in 2008, and four who were specifically recruited for the programme. In terms of their professional status at the university, two are professors, six are senior lecturers, three are qualified teachers, and three are doctoral students on temporary contracts.

Interviews The study (data collection, data analysis, and interpretation) was carried out by three researchers, the authors of this paper, who will be referred to as “the researchers”. They all taught in the programme at some point. One instigated the programme and was involved in its development and another was specifically responsible for carrying out its evaluation. The experience and views of the sample group of teachers were explored via in-depth, semi-structured interviews. This method allows participants to guide the interview, so that key themes raised by the participant are discussed, and not just those planned in advance by the researchers (Blanchet & Gotman, 2007). Fourteen interviews were conducted lasting approximately 30 minutes each and generating a total of 7 hours and 38 minutes of recorded material. All interviews took place in French using the same interviewer to ensure consistency. The recordings were transcribed, and hesitations and speech meanders were retained so that the final transcription reflected accurately the teachers’ verbalisations. For the purpose of this chapter, teachers are referred to as T1, T2 etc. in order to protect their identity, and their comments have been translated from French to English. The overall corpus count was 73,792 words, and the data analysis was conducted using two different methods. Firstly, the three researchers undertook a content analysis, following Bardin (2007). Secondly, to ensure objectivity and methodological triangulation, a statistical textual analysis was conducted with specific software (Alceste)2. The first step involved a quantitative thematic analysis (Bardin, 2007, p. 130) by manually examining the fourteen individual interview transcripts for salient and recurring themes. Each of the three researchers conducted this analysis independently, then compared their results, and reached agreement concerning the themes to retain. Instances of the identified themes were counted and frequencies ranked across all interviews. From this step, the researchers identified the common themes which emerged across the individual accounts and grouped them under 14 broad categories. Thus, the categories and subthemes were not predetermined by the researchers, but derived inductively from the analysis of the teachers’ discourse. For the purpose of this study, we 2. Alceste is a textual data analytical software tool incorporating sophisticated statistical processing developed by France’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S.) with the support of the Agence Nationale pour la Valorisation de la Recherche (ANVAR).

 Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret

have retained 5 of the 14 themes which specifically relate to teachers’ views about L2 acquisition and the teachers’ pedagogic roles and practices (i.e., those relating to the research questions). The themes were assigned code numbers and the researchers then went through each transcript assigning the codes to the relevant sections when any of the themes were mentioned. The next step involved cross-checking results and reaching consensus. Bardin (2007) refers to the data segments resulting from this analysis as «context units» (CUs) (p. 138) which can range in length from a phrase to a paragraph. In parallel, the researchers used the Alceste software to analyse the corpus in order to cross-check the themes obtained manually. Alceste is based on three approaches: lexicometrics, content analysis, and data analysis. The analysis works by applying a set of statistical clustering techniques to the text in order to obtain a ranking of its semantic units, which is derived from the recurrent distribution of words in the text. The software first identifies and counts the different words and forms of language in the corpus. Then, it automatically identifies and segments the text into sequences of sentences termed «elementary context units». Finally, cluster analysis is used in order to structure the corpus after its segmentation and to eliminate non-relevant data. Cluster analysis uses the presence/absence of words in order to construct the clusters. Alceste carries out successive splits of the text in order to find the strongest vocabulary links (co-occurrences) and then to extract categories of representative terms. As a result, each cluster, which can be considered as a semantic context, is characterised by its specific and related vocabulary. The final output is a hierarchical classification of the clusters with calculations of the coefficient of association between a word and its cluster (using Chi² statistic to measure the strength of the links). Alceste confirmed the themes identified by the manual content analysis. However, although Alceste can be used for content analysis, it does not provide such a fine-tuned analysis; for example, it is unable to distinguish between positive and negative statements linked to a given theme. For that reason, in the present study, the researchers chose to refer to the data output obtained manually for content analysis while Alceste was used solely for verification of the themes.

Results Main themes reported by teachers Out of the 14 main themes identified by the manual content analysis of the interviews and subsequently confirmed by Alceste, we have retained five relevant to the research questions addressed in this study: (1) views on L2 acquisition, (2) teachers’ roles, (3) group work, (4) investment (of time and effort, etc.), and (5) autonomy. In what follows, we present the results of the manual content analysis relating to the two research questions (RQ). The first theme relates to RQ1 and deals with teachers’ beliefs about L2 acquisition. This theme comprises six subthemes focusing on the SLA theories



Chapter 14.  Task-based learning programme in a French University 

which teachers claimed to either endorse or oppose. Then in relation to RQ2, we explore the teachers’ beliefs about their pedagogical roles in the programme followed by their perceptions of the practical implications of the programme which include group work, student and teacher investment, and dealing with student autonomy.

Beliefs about second language acquisition We will first examine the teachers’ own perceptions about L2 acquisition. This is important in helping us understand to what extent their beliefs are convergent with the SLA-based assumptions underpinning the programme and to what extent they are convergent with each other. Although it may be difficult to say that all the teachers agree on the interpretation of the concepts they mention, we assume that an agreement on the principles underpinning the programme would tend to show that a common culture might have emerged, whereas predominant diverging views might endanger the teachers’ long term commitment. Table 2 shows the subthemes relating to SLA theories documented in the teachers’ interviews, together with the number of teachers who endorsed the theory or expressed views contrary to the theory. The results are presented in descending order of frequency in terms of the number of teachers who mention a given subtheme. Overall, the most frequently mentioned subthemes relating to SLA theories, which were highlighted by more than half of the 14 interviewees, were the themes of interactions/co-construction (11 teachers), meta-reflection (8), and practice and repetition (7). We will now examine these and the other subthemes in more detail. Interactions/co-construction. One of the key underlying assumptions of this programme is that learners play an active role in constructing their linguistic knowledge through social interactions with their peers and teachers (Lantolf, 2000). Table 2 shows that the majority of teachers (11) in this study endorsed this view. This subtheme comprises the most comments (27 CUs) and was particularly important for five teachers (T2, T3, T4, T5, and T12), whose comments represent 70% of the total number of CUs. Teachers highlighted the importance of student participation, interactions, dialogic processes (such as scaffolding), and proactiveness when performing a task as helping to promote L2 acquisition. Illustration of teachers’ views relating to interactions/co-construction 1. “It’s about learning from others and helping each other...they will learn if they are active, not passive.” (T12) 2. “The learner becomes a social actor within his group. It’s about the co-construction of a project, co-construction of performance. Uh it’s all the instances of scaffolding, negotiation, clarification, and repetition, uh all that. That’s the strong point for me.” (T2)

 Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret

Meta-reflection. A further assumption underlying this programme is the emphasis on the role that “noticing” and meta-reflection play in L2 acquisition (Schmidt, 1995; Swain, 2000; Van Patten, 1994). More than half the teachers (8) highlighted the importance of providing feedback to students on their task performance to focus their attention on problem areas in order to encourage students to reflect critically on the language being studied, as well as on their own learning experience. Meta-reflection is the second most important subtheme in terms of the number of teachers endorsing it and the number of CUs. This was particularly important for one teacher (T6) whose comments account for almost a third of the total CUs in this subtheme. The remaining mentions are spread evenly across teachers. However, some teachers may interpret this concept differently depending on other views they hold with respect to language teaching and learning, for example T6, T7, and T10 also support transmission approaches, so their assumptions about instruction and acquisition may be very different from the other teachers. One teacher’s (T11) views are not in line with the assumptions of the programme, as she questions the role of correction in L2 acquisition. Illustration of teachers’ views relating to meta-reflection 3. “I find that when we highlight a problem... and tell the student that it has appeared three times in his work and that the same problem keeps occurring despite us having worked on it. uh, then ask why does that keep occurring, so they reflect on it.” (T9) 4. “So I try, but it doesn’t always work (laughter), to make them aware of what is causing them a problem and often it has something to do with grammar. So that they are capable of having a kind of critical reflection on what they are doing uh.” (T14) Practice and repetition. Swain (2000) argues that learner output is key to L2 acquisition. In line with this view, the new programme assumes that producing the target language, in the sense of using the language, enhances fluency (Ellis, 2003b) and repetition of tasks, as highlighted by Bygate (2009), leads to improved performance. Seven teachers endorsed this view mentioning the importance of regular practice, particularly oral production, for favouring language acquisition. They highlighted the benefits of students performing tasks which encourage them to participate more actively in class and speak spontaneously. Four teachers emphasised the role of repetition and how it helps students not only to become more confident at speaking in class, but also get better at the task. However, one teacher (T6) in this group interpreted this concept in a different way from the other teachers. The comments of this teacher, who supports transmission approaches, focused on the use of repetitive drill exercises in class in a behaviourist way rather than in a way that might fit the underpinning theory of the TBLT programme. Illustration of teachers’ views relating to practice and repetition 5. “They have more opportunities to practise, more opportunities to produce.” (T1)



Chapter 14.  Task-based learning programme in a French University 

6. “It’s by doing that they will learn. And given that they are doing a lot there, well, inevitably, I think it makes them more active. They have to produce a lot of English.” (T14) Transmission of knowledge. An underlying assumption of the programme is that learners are not simply receiving information given by the teacher, but are actively engaged in building their linguistic knowledge (Kintsch, 2009). A transmission model of education is therefore relegated to a non-central role within the TBLT programme. Ten teachers mentioned this subtheme, although there is a notable divergence in their beliefs, with four teachers explicitly stating that they were against transmission approaches (T1, T2, T4, T8) and four who were clearly in favour (T6, T7, T10, T11) (see Table 2). Particularly favourable towards the use of transmission modes was T6, whose comments account for almost half of the CUs (6 out of 13), and T11. On the other hand, the other two teachers exhibited a more balanced view in that they equally favoured other SLA theories underpinning the programme. A further two teachers had a more ambivalent view as they favoured transmission approaches under certain circumstances (for example, grammar instruction), but in other respects were generally against this approach. Thus, these results suggest that two teachers may have given more importance to a transmission approach than assumed within the design of the programme, while four others are less categorical. This shows that for some teachers there is no clear-cut positioning, which is indeed compatible with the views of many regarding TBLT (e.g. Willis & Willis, 2007). However it is also of course possible that there are inconsistencies in how people think and speak about a teaching approach, and it is also possible that views on one aspect of language teaching and learning could influence other aspects of their thinking. Thus, those who were well-disposed towards the use of transmission approaches may also have interpreted key terms such as practice, repetition, and meta-reflection in different ways from the other participants. Illustration of teachers’ views relating to transmission of knowledge 7. “I don’t believe in transmission. Because as long as we are transmitting, we are in fact in an extreme narcissistic position and everything we transmit is about ourselves and uh there is no exchange and no-one benefits from that.” (T4) 8. “I like to share ideas, communicate them...I inspire rather than teach. I like the fact of giving ideas to someone, inspiring someone.”(T6) The role of input. Input, in terms of the language content a learner is exposed to, is one part of the processing model for L2 acquisition that forms the underlying assumption of the programme (Ellis, 2003b). The developers of the programme took the view that input should be contextualised. Four teachers recognised that exposure to meaningful and authentic input is essential to L2 acquisition and they actively encouraged students to get exposure outside the classroom. Only one teacher (T6) supported the explicit instruction of grammar in a non-contextualised way by focusing the learners’

 Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret

attention on forms and structures coupled with practice. This strategy is not entirely in contradiction with the theoretical positioning of the programme as it was used within a broader task-based approach in which grammatical features were systematically introduced within clear familiar contexts. Illustration of teachers’ views relating to the role of input   9. “I try to encourage the students to work outside the university context and to take advantage of all opportunities available to them, such as watching a film or series in English with or without subtitles. Also to read as much as possible in English and to meet with English students at the university.” (T1) 10. “I explain to students that they have to surround themselves with the language and that way they’ll discover gaps in their knowledge and progress.” (T9) Individual differences. In line with authors such as Dörnyei (2005), Ellis (2004), Robinson (2002), and Skehan (1991), the programme assumes that individual differences between learners are key to determining L2 learning success and have to be taken into account by teachers in the classroom. In this study 4 teachers recognised the need to cater for individual differences, pointing specifically to differences in learning abilities and styles. One teacher highlighted the difficulty of dealing with heterogeneous language levels in the classroom when working on tasks and wondered if she should continue at a certain level and risk leaving some students behind. Illustration of teachers’ views relating to individual differences 11. “I find that we have to arbitrate between the very, uh, very diverse levels [of students].” (T14) 12. “..it depends on a lot of parameters. I think it depends on their individual profile. Uh particularly in that no student learns the same way.” (T1) Table 2.  SLA Theories Reported by the 14 Teachers SLA theory subthemes

1.  Interactions/co-construction 2.  Meta-reflection 3.  Practice and repetition 4.  Transmission of knowledge 5.  The role of input 6.  Individual differences

Number of Number of teachers endorsing teachers with key principles reservations about key principles 11  8  7  6  4  4

1 1 6 1

Number of CUs in subtheme

27 22 20 20  8  4



Chapter 14.  Task-based learning programme in a French University 

Table 3.  Teachers’ Stance on SLA principles underpinning the programme Number of teachers expressing positive views

Number of teachers expressing negative views

Number of teachers expressing mixed views

7

2

4

Overview by teacher. Having seen to what extent teachers’ beliefs are convergent with the SLA-based assumptions underpinning the programme, we will now explore to what extent their beliefs are convergent with each other. Table 3 sums up the positioning of 13 teachers with respect to the SLA theories underpinning the programme. It shows that the views of 7 teachers are uniformly in line with the theoretical assumptions of the programme, whereas the views of two teachers (T6 and T11) oppose these assumptions as they strongly favour transmission accounts of SLA. A further 4 teachers expressed mixed views. One teacher (T13), who was a new contractor teacher at the time of the study and who has since left the programme, did not express her views on L2 acquisition. Closer examination of the beliefs held by the 7 teachers who support the theoretical position of the programme revealed that they all share the idea that social interaction and co-construction are key to L2 acquisition. Similarly, the 4 teachers who expressed mixed views all share a cognitive perspective on L2 acquisition and agreed on the importance of the role of meta-reflection in L2 acquisition.

Teachers’ beliefs about their pedagogical roles We will now examine the teachers’ beliefs about their roles to understand if they are in line with the pedagogic requirements of the TBLT programme. An underlying assumption of the programme is the shift from a purely transmission role, where the teacher directs and controls language learning, to multiple roles such as monitor, adviser, tutor, and facilitator, where the teacher supports interactions and student learning (Hampel, 2006; Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999; Willis, 2009). Specifically, Willis (2009) identifies three roles for the teacher depending on the stage of the task cycle, “monitor” at the task stage, “language adviser” at the planning stage, and finally “chairperson” at the report stage. Willis and Willis (2007) suggest a broader range of six roles, but the account that follows limits itself to Willis’ approach (originally published in 1996). Table 4 identifies 8 roles endorsed by the teachers in this study and presents the results in descending order of frequency in terms of the number of teachers who endorse a given role. The majority of teachers appear in several categories with some teachers explicitly recognising the multifaceted nature of their role. We will first examine those roles identified by the teachers – six in number – which are in line with Willis’ original account. These were endorsed by 12 teachers. Then we will review a further role which emerged from the data but does not have a counterpart in the

 Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret

classification defined by Willis (2009). This is a “social role” which focuses on the teachers’ belief that they have a social responsibility to help prepare students for life and for their future career. Finally, we will review the “transmitter” role, a potentially controversial aspect within a TBLT programme. The task stage – teacher as facilitator and guide. According to Willis (2009, p. 227) at this stage students work on the task in small groups while the teacher monitors from a distance observing and encouraging students, but without intervening or correcting them unless there is a communication breakdown. She refers to this role as “monitor”. The terms used by the teachers in this study to describe this role were “facilitator” and “guide”. Five teachers described themselves as a facilitator. They saw their role as facilitating access to learning resources (on-line and in the classroom), as well as facilitating learning and interactions in the classroom by eliciting and stimulating student output, and by encouraging students to take greater initiative and risk when performing tasks. Three of the same teachers and one other also described themselves as a “guide”. In their view, this involves guiding students on how to use resources, clarifying task instructions, and providing some guidelines for the accomplishment of tasks. As with Willis’ (2009) definition, the teachers did not mention error correction for these roles. Illustration of teachers’ views relating to facilitator and guide roles 13. “But we also facilitate the student’s work and learning.” (T1) 14. “The role is a little bit like a guide...we give students some direction and support [to accomplish tasks]” (T5) The planning stage – teacher as adviser and mediator. Willis (2009, p. 232) attributes the role of “language adviser” to teachers at the planning stage of the task cycle when students are preparing oral or written presentations. She argues that the focus at this stage is on helping students understand their objectives, providing advice on language according to students’ needs, and encouraging learner independence. We can associate two of the roles identified by teachers in this study with this stage: “adviser” and “mediator”. “Adviser” emerged as the most frequently cited role by teachers: 9 teachers endorsed it and the subtheme comprises 28 CUs. It was particularly important for four teachers (T1, T9, T12, and T14), whose comments account for almost two-thirds of the total number of CUs. From the teachers’ perspective, this role involves listening to students, providing advice on content and language, and also helping them to define learning strategies that will favour language acquisition and greater learner autonomy. The notion of “accompanying” students was strongly emphasised by teachers, which includes being available outside of class time so students will not feel isolated and providing follow-up (sometimes psychological). Three teachers (T1, T12, and T4) saw this role as being necessary in the French context, while two others (T8 and T14) highlighted the difficulties associated with the context in terms of having to advise large numbers of students. A further 3 teachers (T4, T8, and T12) viewed this role as



Chapter 14.  Task-based learning programme in a French University 

desirable in the sense that they perceived the exchange with students both enriching and interesting. Four teachers endorsed the mediator role which they said involves them helping students to bridge the knowledge gap between what they actually know and what they should know by drawing their attention to the gaps, providing scaffolding, and encouraging them to self-correct. Illustration of teachers’ views relating to adviser and mediator roles 15. “So my role would be to show students how they can progress in English, give them advice uh so they understand what they have to do uh to improve their mastery of the language.” (T9) 16. “We have to help them identify their problems, uh, it’s something we have to give them feedback on so they can self correct, therefore we have to target our comments correctly. It’s not just something which is a sanction.” (T13) The report stage – teacher as animator and tutor. According to Willis (2009, p. 233), at this stage, when students present to the class or produce a written report, the teacher acts as a “chairperson”. This role entails introducing the presentations, managing the speakers and timing, summing up at the end, and providing feedback on content and language. The roles identified by teachers in this study corresponding to the report stage are “animator” and “tutor”. Two teachers endorsed the “animator” role and saw it as involving managing the different groups of students and their interactions in class when performing a task, keeping time, and summarising at the end. Five teachers endorsed the “tutor” role which they said focuses on providing personalised corrective feedback based on the students’ individual needs as highlighted during task performance. Illustration of teachers’ views relating to animator and tutor roles 17. “And then when we do group work we take on the role of an animator. We manage the different groups and activities, we re-explain and reformulate etc.” (T1) 18. “We are also tutors insofar as we give students individual feedback based on their productions.” (T1) Teacher’s social role. One of the advantages of adopting a TBLT approach is that it combines language teaching with a response to the very social needs of the learner. This “social role” was traceable in the utterances of 7 teachers and incorporates both a socio-affective and professional dimension. It involves stimulating learning through establishing a level of empathy between the teacher and student. In addition, teachers perceived that they have a social responsibility to help prepare students for life and the global community and also to prepare them for their future career by proposing realistic tasks and authentic business situations.

 Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret

Illustration of teachers’ views relating to social role 19. “The way we work in this programme encourages interactions with the students which are often continued outside the classroom and help them to feel more involved. I believe we have a social role uh we have to build a social link with students. That’s important.” (T8) 20. “It’s a big responsibility, I owe it to them to help them get a job, training and to learn to reflect critically.” (T3) Teacher as transmitter. As mentioned earlier, consistent with a TBLT approach, the programme entails a shift from teacher-directed instruction to student-centred learning, with a transmission approach to teaching becoming ancillary rather than central. Hence given the traditional importance of this mode of teaching, teachers’ thinking on this aspect of their role is of particular interest. As Table 4 shows, five teachers endorsed the “transmitter” role believing they should transmit information, knowledge, and methodology to students. Of these five, the comments of two in particular (T6 and T11) showed they strongly favoured the adoption of language-centred and transmission approaches in the classroom. The claim for centrality of this role would be inconsistent with assumptions underpinning the approach. The three others (T8, T9, and T14), however, emphasised a mix of roles in the classroom (see Table 5). We can draw some parallels here between the teachers’ stance on L2 acquisition (see Table 3) and the roles they said they adopted in the classroom Illustration of teachers’ views relating to transmitter role 21. “Well, in any case I’ve always been convinced that we have to transmit uh work methods and approaches...” (T8) In sum, all 14 teachers accepted the types of roles intended by the TBLT programme (see Table 5). Of these, 12 acknowledged the 6 roles we identified as corresponding to the different stages of the task cycle (Willis, 2009) while 2 chose only to mention the social role (T10 and T11). Twelve teachers referred to their role as a multiple one Table 4.  Pedagogical Roles Endorsed by Teachers Pedagogical roles 1.  Adviser 2.  Social role 3.  Transmitter of knowledge 4.  Facilitator 5.  Tutor 6.  Guide 7.  Mediator 8.  Animator

Number of teachers

Number of CUs in subtheme

9 7 5 5 5 4 4 2

28 11 13  7  5 12  5  2



Chapter 14.  Task-based learning programme in a French University 

endorsing between two to four different roles, that is to say, all teachers with the exception of T4 and T10 (see Table 5). Their comments are in general evenly spread among the roles, however, some teachers emphasised certain roles, for example T1 (adviser and guide), T9, T12, and T14 (adviser), and finally T6 (transmitter of knowledge). It is noticeable that there is acceptance of a transmission orientation amongst the various teaching roles. As previously mentioned, we can again draw some parallels between the teachers’ stance on the SLA theories underpinning the programme (refer to Table 3 and the summary that follows it) and the roles they said they adopted in the classroom. The 7 teachers (T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T8, and T12) whose beliefs seemed consistently congruent with the theoretical assumptions of the programme, and all who favoured interaction and co-construction, endorsed roles such as facilitator and guide, which stress interactions in the classroom, and mediator, which supports co-construction (see Table 5). Three of the 4 teachers (T7,T9, and T14) who expressed mixed views relating to SLA theories, and all who favoured a cognitive stance, endorsed roles such as adviser and tutor which emphasise language feedback and a focus on form. Illustration of teachers’ views relating to multiple roles 22.  “And uh so we have to take on several roles in one sense.” (T1) 23.  “I think as a teacher, we are a guide, a facilitator, coach and all those kind of things. I see it more in terms of a multiple role.” (T2) Table 5.  Summary of Roles Endorsed by Each Teacher Teacher

Roles (number of CUs)

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14

Adviser (5), facilitator (2), tutor (1), guide (4), animator (1) Adviser (2), facilitator (1), guide (1) Social role (1), facilitator (1), mediator (1) Adviser (3) Adviser (1), facilitator (2), guide (3) Adviser (1), transmitter of knowledge (5), tutor (1), guide (4) Social role (1), tutor (1) Adviser (3), social role (1), transmitter of knowledge (3), mediator (1) Adviser (4), transmitter of knowledge (2), mediator (2) Social role (2) Social role (2), transmitter of knowledge (2) Adviser (5), facilitator (1), tutor (1), animator (1) Social role (1), tutor (1), mediator (1) Adviser (4), transmitter of knowledge (1), social role (3)

 Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret

Teachers’ perceptions of the practical implications of the TBLT programme In this final part of the study, we will explore the teachers’ perceptions of the practical implications of the TBLT programme. What emerged from the data was that teachers expressed their degree of satisfaction with the new programme, but also pointed at its limitations. They specifically mentioned three themes relating to their practices, namely group work, student and teacher investment, and autonomy. These themes provide further elements of response to RQ2 as to whether teachers’ practices are in line with the pedagogic requirements of the programme. There is some overlap, however, with RQ1 because teachers’ views on L2 acquisition will condition what they believe their practices should be, as acknowledged by Van den Branden (2009): “What language teachers do in the classroom is inspired by what they know, believe, and think” (p. 403). Group work. A major feature of the TBLT and sociocultural approaches, which underlies the new programme and differs from the teachers’ former classroom practices, is the use of collaborative group work to enhance classroom communication. Group work was a recurring theme in the teachers’ dialogue, with Alceste ranking it statistically as the second most important one. The content analysis revealed that teachers’ perceptions of group work were largely positive with more than three times as many positive mentions of group work as compared to negative mentions (see Table 6). In total, 13 teachers showed support for this approach and reported four key benefits associated with group work (see Table 6). However, it should be noted that 4 teachers’ comments account for just over half the total number of CUs (T8, T9, T10, and T12). As summarised in Table 6, from the point of view of ten teachers, the main benefit of working on tasks in tutorials with small groups of students was that students were encouraged and, indeed, obliged to present and speak more in class. A key point that emerged was that working in small groups gave students more confidence to “dare” to speak in front of the class. Seven teachers believed that this active oral participation coupled with greater student investment and mutual assistance contributed to students’ progress. Another advantage highlighted by 9 teachers was the ability to provide more individualised feedback and support to students as a result of group work. Teachers distinguished two types of individualisation: from an L2 acquisition development perspective, they were able to identify individual students’ difficulties more easily and provide them personalised post-task feedback; from a socio-affective perspective, teachers felt they established a more personalised relationship with students by getting to know them individually. This, according to some teachers, was a radical change from the traditional way of teaching at the university. Despite these clear benefits, five teachers highlighted negative aspects associated with group work (see Table 6). T12 stressed the difficulty of managing heterogeneity in terms of students’ language and motivation levels. T9 highlighted a problem encountered with some students who perceived her feedback as negative criticism which led



Chapter 14.  Task-based learning programme in a French University 

to hostility. T7 and T14 found evaluating students problematic; they cited difficulties in evaluating students’ individual contributions to collaborative written tasks (T7) and in evaluating oral contributions when everyone spoke at the same time in class. Finally, three teachers (T3, T12, T14) mentioned the students’ lack of autonomy with respect to organising their groups and working effectively in groups. Illustration of teachers’ views relating to group work Positive views 24. “They work more, they are more involved and in particular they are more active. Uh the oral activities oblige them to speak in front of the whole class and that’s something they don’t do during the first semester.” (T10) 25. “The most noticeable change is that we get to know them [the students] very quickly whereas before it was impossible for me to know my groups. I didn’t know them.” (T4) Negative views 26. “One of the negative things about group work, written tasks in particular, is that we don’t really know who does what...It is difficult to know what each student is worth.” (T7) Student and teacher investment. Robinson (2009, p. 197) reminds us that working on meaningful real-world tasks can increase student interest and investment in classroom pedagogic activities. Our previous analysis highlighted an association between group Table 6.  Positive and Negative Views Reported for Group Work Positive mentions about group work 13 teachers (49 CUs)

Negative mentions about group work 5 teachers (13 CUs)

Increased oral participation (20 CUs) 10 teachers Individualised follow-up/feedback (10 ECUs) 9 teachers

Students’ lack of autonomy (4 CUs) 3 teachers Difficulty in evaluating students’ contributions to group work (3 CUs) 2 teachers Students’ negative reaction to feedback (2 CUs) 1 teacher

Greater student investment and active role (11 CUs) 7 teachers Co-construction (8 ECUs) 4 teachers

Heterogeneity of language levels (2 CUs) 1 teacher Students’ lack of motivation (1 CU) 1 teacher Time consuming (1 CU) 1 teacher

 Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret

work and increased student investment in terms of their work effort. Here we will discuss teachers’ views regarding a possible link between tasks and student investment. Ten teachers perceived tasks as having a positive impact on student investment: tasks were seen to push students to work more and become more active and involved inside and outside the classroom. Two teachers in particular appreciated this aspect: T1 and T10, whose comments accounted for more than 40% of the total number of CUs (15 out of 34). Eight of the teachers stressed the fact that the pre-task preparation requirements of the programme and the relative frequency of scheduled tasks obliged students to work. Nevertheless, according to 8 teachers, not all students demonstrated the same level of investment and this was linked to individual differences and students’ lack of autonomy. Specifically, this lack of investment translated into unequal contributions to group work and low usage of the on-line self-training centre by some students. It was particularly problematic for T5, whose comments accounted for a quarter of the total. Illustration of teachers’ views relating to student investment 27. “They worked more because finally the tasks, uh, if they want to prepare them well, they require a lot of time.” (T9) 28. “It’s a voluntary step to go and look at the resources and work on-line. I think that could explain why some students progress and realise that they are progressing.” (T10) 29. “[The students worked more due to] the fact that there are eight tasks to work on during the semester including four oral tasks which oblige them to speak. Uh, it’s a very sustained pace, perhaps too much sometimes.” (T14) Illustration of teachers’ views relating to students’ lack of investment 30. “I noticed that a lot of students don’t use the self-training centre.” (T10) 31. “I think some students clearly put their names on the work handed in, but don’t actually do any of the work. Although the majority do the work more or less correctly.” (T3) In parallel, all teachers, with the exception of T12, noted that the new approach required greater personal investment from them in terms of time and additional effort because of the increased workload (for example, preparing and evaluating tasks, providing personalised feedback post task, and communicating with students via email or group forums etc.). They also mentioned that it required them to be more active and attentive while monitoring student interactions in class and providing the right level of scaffolding support, which they perceived as demanding. The increased workload was a greater issue for two teachers (T11 and T13), whose comments account for just over a third of the total number of CUs. Both teachers were contractual workers and have since left the programme. Three teachers (T8, T9, and T11) explicitly stated that they expected a return on their investment in terms of remuneration. Currently, teachers



Chapter 14.  Task-based learning programme in a French University 

are remunerated for the extra work undertaken in the context of this programme, for example: for task development, student follow-up, and attending meetings. Illustration of teachers’ views relating to teacher investment 32. “There’s more correction [than the first semester] because we have tasks to evaluate every week. In the first semester we only had four to correct, so we had more time.” (T1) 33. “It takes up a lot of our time. I’m a little bit overwhelmed (laugh). But it’s satisfying all the same.” (T5) 34. “This project demands a huge involvement from teachers and it’s right that they should be remunerated at least in part for uh this uh extra effort which has been the case. So that’s very good.” (T8) Autonomy. Autonomy, in terms of students taking responsibility for their own learning, is built in to the new task-based blended learning programme because of the demands of group work and of the self-directed context of the programme where students work without teacher supervision. Table 7 shows that 9 teachers perceived these features of the programme key to fostering greater learner autonomy. Ten teachers also highlighted their own role in actively encouraging and supporting students to take charge of their learning, for example, by guiding them to on-line resources, providing feedback designed to encourage meta-reflection, and helping students to work effectively in groups etc. However, only 6 teachers spoke positively about their students’ capacity for autonomy. This confirms Hurd’s assessment (2005) that we “cannot make any assumptions or expectations about learners’ willingness or ability to become autonomous learners” (p. 12). In contrast, 9 teachers, including the same 6 previously mentioned, deplored the lack of autonomy of some students suggesting it is a key problem in this context. It appeared to be particularly problematic for three teachers (T5, T12, and T14), whose comments account for more than 60% of the total. Seven teachers proposed reasons for this lack of autonomy: cultural differences whereby French students are not used to taking responsibility for themselves (T2, T4, T5, and T14), students’ lack of maturity (T2 and T13), and students’ representations about the teacher’s directive role in the classroom (T1, T2, T12). Teachers viewed this lack of autonomy as having a negative effect on student investment which, as we have already seen, resulted in a weak involvement by some students in pre-task preparation and in the use of online resources, as well as a greater passivity in class. Two teachers specifically mentioned autonomy from the point of view of the teacher’s autonomy. Little (2007) argues that learner autonomy and complementary teacher autonomy are interdependent. The two teachers in question (T3 and T8) highlighted the importance they attached to maintaining their personal autonomy within the programme by retaining their pedagogical freedom. Van den Branden (2009) affirms that for some teachers it is crucial to maintain control over what happens in the classroom.

 Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret

Table 7.  Teachers’ Views on Autonomy Subtheme Role of teacher in promoting autonomy Role of TBLT programme in promoting autonomy Students’ lack of autonomy Students’ capacity for autonomy Teacher’s autonomy

Number of teachers

Number of CUs in subtheme

10  9  9  6  2

18 19 26  8  4

Illustration of teachers’ views relating to autonomy 35. “Distance learning means they have to be more autonomous, they have to prepare their tasks and function in groups and all that is very good. It means they have to become responsible.” (T5) 36. “It’s true that the French tend to want to be supported, we could say “spoon fed”, it’s a bit like that all the same, uh, in our culture. I think it’s not surprising, but a cultural revolution is necessary. The question is: will it happen?” (T4)

Discussion The aim of the study was to explore teachers’ attitudes to the innovative TBLT programme after two years’ experience working on it as part of a broader programme evaluation for the stakeholders. Specifically, we wanted to investigate their beliefs about L2 acquisition, and about their pedagogic roles and practices, so as to relate them to the assumptions and intentions of the design team, with the broader view of evaluating the future prospects of the programme. With respect to teachers’ beliefs about SLA the results are mixed. It was postulated that representations that do not correspond to the assumptions underlying the programme could hinder its successful implementation. We wondered whether a common culture would emerge after two years of active participation in the development of the programme. The study shows that the thinking of at least half the teachers converges to that of the design team, that two seem somewhat divergent, while a further four cannot be clearly positioned. As we have seen, 11 of the 14 teachers interviewed, while not endorsing all the specific principles drawn on in the design of the programme, nonetheless appear to be developing a common culture. Significant here is the fact that only five of the teachers already had prior knowledge of SLA theories, which may also help to account for some of the apparent contradictions and incoherencies in some of the teachers’ utterances and for their different interpretations of concepts. The findings suggest that sharing views and teamwork in a non-threatening environment can contribute to the evolution of teachers’ representations in the long run, although it is impossible to say how far this was



Chapter 14.  Task-based learning programme in a French University 

due to the particularities of the innovation and the way it was conducted, or how far it reflected their readiness for change. In contrast, the more transmission-oriented views of two teachers (T6 and T11) on L2 acquisition appear to be to some degree inconsistent with the broad assumptions of the design team, though it does need to be acknowledged that there are potential inconsistencies even within the data of individual teachers. For example, it is worth noting that 13 of the 14 teachers endorsed the value of group work, and it is of course quite possible for a teacher both to believe in the value of an element of transmission-oriented teaching and at the same time in the importance of ensuring an element of student-centred or group-based work. It is perhaps significant however that the two teachers concerned both chose not to participate in team meetings nor in the development of the programme. The direction of causality cannot of course be inferred from this. Concerning the pedagogic implications of the programme, the thinking of all teachers seemed convergent with the types of roles anticipated in the design of the programme, with 12 specifically endorsing the types of roles identified by Willis (2009) in her TBLT framework. It is also clear that the overwhelming majority of the teachers (12) see themselves as taking on a multiplicity of roles in this type of programme, including adviser, facilitator, guide, and tutor. Five of the teachers continue to espouse the use of a transmitter role. This was particularly important for T6 and T11, the same two teachers whose beliefs about L2 acquisition were at odds with the theoretical assumptions used by the design team. We were able to draw some further parallels between the teachers’ beliefs about L2 acquisition and the roles they said they adopted in the classroom. Specifically, those teachers that saw a significant role for interaction and co-construction also endorsed roles such as facilitator, guide, or mediator, which are congruent with the use of pedagogic activities which emphasise interaction and coconstruction in the classroom. On the other hand, teachers that favoured cognitive approaches tended to endorse roles such as adviser and tutor which focus on providing language feedback. This suggests some degree of convergence in their views on L2 acquisition and classroom roles. Further research is planned to examine how the teachers perform the roles in the classroom by analysing classroom interactions and then comparing what teachers say about their practices to what they actually do in class. The programme gained support from the teachers at the start because they were interested in the potential benefit for them to deal with smaller groups of students in face-to-face tutorials. In that respect, the teachers clearly recognised the benefits of the TBLT practice of groupwork in terms of greater student involvement in the tasks and increased oral participation in class, which they saw as promoting language acquisition. Working with smaller groups also enabled them to provide a more individualised form of teaching. These perceived benefits may have contributed to the teachers’ endorsement of the theoretical underpinnings of the programme. It is possible that the more they perceived the approach to pay off, the more they endorsed it. However, the increased personal investment required is problematic for thirteen of the fourteen teachers interviewed and some teachers may not remain committed to the programme

 Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret

because of this additional workload. The lack of student autonomy in this context requires teachers to provide increased support therefore adding to their workload. It appears then that what was gained on the one hand was counterbalanced on the other. Clearly, the researchers will have to consider the issue and study what solutions could be proposed. The subject is on the agenda for future negotiations with the regional government authority and the university governing body in the coming months.

Conclusion Teachers’ representations and beliefs should be taken into account when innovation is implemented. As this study shows, innovative TBLT programmes can represent a radical departure from prevailing teaching practices and the process of change requires time, pragmatism, and continued efforts in communicating the benefits to all involved. We have seen how the role of the teacher has been redefined in the TBLT environment and results indicate that the majority of teachers seem to have accepted this changing role. Despite the fact that we identified converging views on L2 acquisition, apparent incoherencies and disparities indicate that group discussion, seminars, and teamwork should be encouraged and become part of the programme – and not be limited to the experimental phase – as they could play a key role in developing a common culture between teachers in terms of language learning approaches. Teachers’ recognition of the key benefits of the programme may have contributed to their endorsement of its underlying principles. In this case, the TBLT approach was seen as promoting the implementation of smaller class sizes and a focus on group work, which led to greater student motivation and involvement and enabled teachers to provide more personalised support. On the other hand, the study also highlights key issues for them in terms of increased workload and students’ autonomy which are linked. With regard to student autonomy, it remains an issue in this context and we cannot assume that the task-based blended learning programme will automatically lead to learner autonomy. Indeed, the idea of autonomy does not necessarily fit easily with the French culture, where it is often assumed by students (at least in language programmes) that the teacher has sole responsibility for directing learning, defining objectives, evaluating work, and assessing progress. Thus, teachers have a key role to play in preparing students for autonomy by helping them to develop their self-management and critical reflection skills through dialogue and feedback which could in turn contribute to reducing their workload. Nevertheless, the issue of workload is not limited to student’s lack of autonomy and the successful implementation and extension of the programme could be under threat if this problem is not resolved. The team are working to address this issue by examining solutions grounded in theory which could require institutional adaptation and approval.



Chapter 14.  Task-based learning programme in a French University 

References Anzieu, D., & Martin, J-Y. (2001). La dynamique des groupes restreints. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Bardin, L. (2007). L’analyse de contenu. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Bareil, C. (2004). Gérer le volet humain du changement. Montréal: Les Éditions Transcontinental. Bertin, J-C., Gravé, P., & Narcy-Combes, J-P. (2010). Second language distance learning and teaching. New York, NY: Hershey. Blanchet, A., & Gotman, A. (2007). L’enquête et ses méthodes, l’entretien. Paris: Armand Colin. Bruner, J. (2000). Culture et modes de pensée: l’esprit humain dans ses œuvres. Paris: Retz. Buck, J. & McAllister, J. (2011). Mise en place d’un dispositif d’apprentissage hybride à l’université. Les Cahiers de l’Apliut, 30(1), 83–101. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow, UK: Longman. Bygate, M. (2009). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J.M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 249–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chapelle, C.A. (2003). English language learning and technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crozier, M. (1963). Le phénomène bureaucratique. Paris: Le Seuil. Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ehrenberg, A. (2010). La société du malaise. Paris: Odile Jacob. Ellis, R. (2003a). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2003b). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learning. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 525–551). Oxford: Blackwell. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change 4th edition. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Goguelin, P. (1989). Le management psychologique des organisations. Paris: Editions Sociales Françaises. Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1), 105–121. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press for the Council of Europe. Hurd, S. (2005). Autonomy and the distance language learner. In B. Holmberg, M. Shelley, & C. White (Eds.), Distance education and languages: evolution and change (pp. 1–19). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Joffe, L.S. (2000). Getting connected: Online learning for the EFL professional. In Crossroads of the New Millennium. Proceedings of the Technological Education and National Development (TEND) Conference, (2nd, April 8 – 10, 2000, United Arab Emirates). Kintsch, W. (2009). Learning and constructivism. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.) Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 223–241). London: Routledge. Lamy, M.-N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). Supporting language students’ interactions in Web-based conferencing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(5), 457–477.

 Julie McAllister, Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes and Rebecca Starkey-Perret Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: some fundamental considerations revisited. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 14–29. Narcy-Combes, J.-P. (2012). Tutoring at a distance, modeling as a tool to control chaos. In J.C. Bertin & J.-P. Narcy-Combes (Eds), Computer-Assisted Language Learning 25(2), special issue Tutoring at a Distance (pp. 111–127). London: Routledge. Narcy-Combes, M.-F. (2008). Conflits de représentations et adaptation des dispositifs d’enseignement/apprentissage. Les Cahiers de l’APLIUT, 27(1), 33–50. Narcy-Combes, M.-F. & McAllister, J. (2011). Evaluation of a blended language learning environment in a French university and its effects on second language acquisition. Asp, 59, 115–138. Robinson, P. (2001). Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, P. (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Robinson, P. (2009). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J.M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 193–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations 5th edition. New York: Free Press. Roots-Buck, J. (2005). Le scénario comme démarche d’apprentissage et mode d’évaluation. University of Nantes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Samuda, V. (2009). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: the role of the teacher. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J.M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 379–400). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schmidt, R. (Ed.) (1995). Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i Press. Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 275–298. Soubrié, T. (2008). La difficile articulation du présentiel et de la distance dans le cadre d’un cours hybride en master. Alsic, 11 (2), 105–127. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van den Branden, K. (Ed.) (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van den Branden, K. (2009). Training teachers: Task-based as well? In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J.M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 401–429). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Van Patten, B. (1994). Evaluating the role of consciousness in SLA terms, linguistic features, and research methodology. AILA Review, 11, 27–36. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007) Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willis, J. (2009). The TBL framework: The task cycle. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J.M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 227–242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

epilogue

What is next for task-based language teaching?

chapter 15

TBLT in EFL settings Looking back and moving forward David Carless

University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong This final chapter builds on issues which have been discussed implicitly or explicitly within the volume. I address five themes: research methodology; contextual adaptations; TBLT in Chinese contexts; assessment; and teacher education. I conclude by speculating on some possible future directions for TBLT and some avenues for further research.

Introduction The aim of this chapter is to identify some themes arising in this book, to include some related commentary, and to chart some issues for further exploration. As the title suggests, the chapter looks back at this volume and also at what might come next. The chapters have already been admirably summarized in Shehadeh’s introduction, so one of my aims is to indicate some common themes. My choice of issues is necessarily something of a subjective enterprise, and I should first acknowledge that the realities of my role as a teacher educator and researcher in the Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong bias me towards issues in Chinese (and wider East Asian) contexts and those related to the implementation of TBLT in state school systems. The contributors to this book all researched TBLT in EFL contexts, and bringing together the chapters in a single volume is a highly valuable extension of the existing literature. Part of the editors’ rationale for the volume is that it provides alternative perspectives to the current knowledge base on TBLT which, at least in its first decades, has been dominated by studies conducted in Anglophone settings. Given that context is an issue I discuss later in the chapter, the geographical spread of the contributions is worth some comment. The majority of the chapters come from Asian settings, a fitting echo to the seminal early work on task-based teaching in the Bangalore Communicational Teaching Project (Prabhu, 1987). The multiple contributions from Japan are also a noteworthy feature. Europe is comparatively under-represented in the collection with just three chapters from Turkey, Spain, and France. This balance of contributions provokes some mild surprise in view of the solid body of work on TBLT emanating

 David Carless

from Western Europe. Examples include studies of task complexity (Kuiken & Vedder, 2007) from scholars based in Amsterdam; Ramon Ribé’s account of project work in Catalonia (e.g., Ribé, 2000); and the edited collection compiled by Garcia Mayo (2007), to name but a few. Not surprisingly, the majority of the contributions focus on TBLT with young adults, mainly in university settings. This is the dominant trend, presumably for the pragmatic reason that many of us in the higher education sector are involved in advancing the English language skills of students of this type and age-group. The literature on TBLT in relation to schooling remains comparatively modest. A notable exception is Kris Van den Branden’s careful and insightful analysis of the teaching of Dutch as a second language in Flanders (Van den Branden, 2006a). It is probably fair to say that the implementation of TBLT is even more complex with school-age students than adults, in view of challenges, such as large class sizes, classroom management, limited resources, the needs of school examination systems, and the teacher factors of attitudes, understanding, and capacities. Three noteworthy chapters in the collection focus on the school sector: Chapter 2 by Sasayama and Izumi using data from Japanese high school students; Chapter 9 by Chan focused on primary schooling in Hong Kong; and Chapter 10 by Park based on data from a Korean secondary school. In what follows, I discuss five themes which occur in the collection and on which I feel qualified to comment. The first, research methodology, has already been highlighted by Shehadeh in Chapter 1. Secondly, context has been signaled as an issue above in my discussion of the geographical spread in the collection and under this theme I address the need for contextual adaptations to TBLT. Thirdly, I discuss progress in implementing TBLT in Chinese settings. The fourth theme of assessment is addressed because it is often a powerful force impacting on what teachers and students perceive as being important in the teaching and learning process. The fifth issue I address is teacher education, a key issue for the development of TBLT in EFL settings. Finally, I sketch some possible future developments.

Research methodologies used The knowledge base on TBLT is obviously most effectively advanced by rigorous studies which are a good fit for the issues they are exploring. A distinctive feature of the current collection is the range of carefully designed research methods in use. Many of the chapters use quantitative methods, including: questionnaire surveys; various procedures involving the counting and classification of classroom interaction data or the analysis of oral production; and the use of various statistical means to present data, for example, Weaver’s use of multi-faceted Rasch analysis to explore student peer assessment of a PowerPoint presentation task. Qualitative approaches are also featured, but not as frequently as quantitative ones. Chan (Chapter 9) analyzed 20 lessons in Hong Kong primary schools facilitated by



Chapter 15.  TBLT in EFL settings 

multiple data sources: classroom observations; interviews with teachers; interviews with students; and documentary analysis of artifacts, such as lesson plans, teaching materials, and student work. Chacón (Chapter 11) studied issues related to a series of film tasks through focus group interviews, reflective student diaries, and audio-­ recordings of student presentations. Mixed method approaches are often thought to be a sensible way of combining quantitative and qualitative approaches and thus exploiting assets of both. A difficulty lies in a single researcher possessing approximately equivalent expertise in both approaches. Jackson (Chapter 12) negotiates these issues well in his analysis of a course on a teacher education program in Japan. His chosen methods are written retrospective comments on student perceptions of gains from a task; analysis of classroom discourse; and a questionnaire gauging student attitudes towards TBLT in comparison with a parallel control group. This brief review of research methods used in the collection amply illustrates the range of approaches deployed. The chapters demonstrate both rigor and carefully designed research which meets the aims of a particular study. The detailed discussions of research methods serve to distinguish this collection from an earlier one by Edwards and Willis (2005) and a more recent one by Shehadeh and Coombe (2010), which mainly place emphasis on valuable accounts of practice, with data collection being less at the forefront. My own methodological bias is towards qualitative research involving naturalistic classroom observations and associated interviews with participants. More studies of this nature would, in my view, advance research on TBLT in EFL settings, but it is heartening to see in this volume researchers delving into some of the complexities of practice that are in need of empirical attention.

Contextual adaptations to TBLT The need to identify teaching approaches which are grounded in local needs and values has been well-established over the last couple of decades. Influential within this theme is research on the interplay between methodology and social context (Holliday, 1994), and the notion of context-sensitivity (Bax, 2003) in relation to communicative language teaching (CLT). Resonating with this line of thinking, an important issue lies in considering how TBLT might be adapted to suit the EFL settings in which it is being implemented, or vice versa, the extent to which educational traditions may need to change in order for effective language learning to occur. A possible repercussion is that adaptations of TBLT may involve some form of merging the global with localized methodologies (Littlewood, 2011). Implicit in such perspectives is the need for inclusive non-doctrinaire approaches to TBLT. Within such an orientation, it would be useful to identify key features central to all forms of TBLT, and explore further those aspects amenable to contextual adaptation.

 David Carless

In a number of chapters, authors refer to contextual features of their setting at macro and/or micro levels. Iwashita and Li (Chapter 7), for example, review some of the challenges for the implementation of CLT or TBLT in China, including a view of teaching predicated on a process of transmitting knowledge, information, or skill from the teacher to the student. Park (Chapter 10) notes issues, such as heavy focus on preparation for college entrance exams, rigid national curricula, and conventional teaching methods, which act as challenges for the implementation of TBLT in the Korean context. A theme which arises in relation to Chinese settings is how TBLT can be adapted to make it fit with the exigencies of the prevailing educational culture. Hu (2002, 2005), for example, has written insightfully about the interplay between cultural norms in Chinese settings, which prescribe well-established expected roles of classroom participants and their potentially different roles under CLT. Whilst caution has to be applied to avoid cultural stereotyping, TBLT in many EFL settings requires changes to conventional roles of the teacher and possibly the student. For example, TBLT approaches the acquisition of grammatical form in a different way to the more explicit teacher-fronted explanation practiced by many teachers. The chapters in Section 1 of this volume all examine how different variables impact on task-based language processing. This presages an aspect of contextual adaptations in relation to how grammar is perceived and how it is normally treated in a specific locale. This aspect may involve some move away from conventional presentation-­practiceproduction (P-P-P) routines, containing limitations which have been well-articulated by scholars (e.g., Ellis, 2003; Lewis, 1996), if not always accepted by classroom teachers. However, there may still be potential for developing productive versions of P-P-P (Carless, 2009), possibly through some form of reconciliation with task-supported teaching (Ellis, 2003; Samuda & Bygate, 2008). This may include further exploration of the complementary functions of analytic and experiential strategies, as highlighted by Littlewood (2011). The role of context in the implementation of TBLT is an issue I addressed in Carless (2007) when, on the basis of interview data from teachers and teacher educators, I proposed three dimensions of what I referred to as situated task-based approaches. These comprised: the issue (noted above) of clarifying or enhancing the role of explicit grammar instruction; integrating tasks with the needs of examinations (a theme I return to later in the chapter); and a need for balance in the modes of task interaction. For example, the latter could entail careful planning of balance between reading and writing tasks, as opposed to oral ones. The current collection seems to contain further indications that studies of TBLT tend to be dominated by a focus on oral production, although a notable exception is Chapter 5 in which Horiba and Fukaya focus on the processing of written texts, whilst in Chapter 4 Genc explores both written and oral tasks.



Chapter 15.  TBLT in EFL settings 

TBLT in Chinese contexts Two of the chapters in the volume are set within Chinese settings. Within this theme, I make reference to developments in Hong Kong over the last two decades and more recent ones in the People’s Republic of China.

Hong Kong The story of TBLT in Hong Kong is set against the backdrop of a predominantly conventional teaching culture in which grammar has generally been taught through explicit explanation and controlled practice (Andrews, 2007). My own work has particularly focused on the implementation of TBLT in Hong Kong schools, and I address selected issues within this theme, in the belief that they carry messages for other contexts. A task-based curriculum was proposed for implementation in primary schools from the mid-1990s onwards and in secondary schools from 1999. In an analysis of the Hong Kong guidelines for TBLT, Candlin (2001) put forward the case that the documentation of the educational authorities in Hong Kong was exemplary. The reality at the chalk-face revealed, however, different issues to the more idealized picture presented in curriculum guidelines. My doctoral research, conducted in the late 1990s, involved detailed case studies of teachers’ attempting to implement some version of TBLT in primary schools. The ensuing publications (Carless, 2002, 2004) highlighted three main challenges in the classrooms under discussion. These features were student use (or overuse) of the mother tongue; tensions between teacher desire for an orderly, well-disciplined environment and a ‘noisier’ activity-based classroom; and concerns about the quality and quantity of student English language production. Chan (this volume), also basing her study in Hong Kong primary schools, discusses pedagogic issues which illustrate some of the complexities of teacher enactment of tasks with young learners. She includes a detailed analysis of aspects, such as strategic use of visual input, scaffolding, and creating conditions for noticing salient features of form. TBLT was introduced in Hong Kong secondary schools from 1999 onwards. Secondary school case studies (Adamson & Tong, 2008) indicated that the version of TBLT being implemented in schools was less ‘strong’ (cf. Skehan, 1996) than that envisaged by the official government documentation and guidelines. In current manifestations of the Hong Kong school curriculum, TBLT is embedded within a “New Senior Secondary Curriculum” which involves changes to the structure and content of the curriculum. The structural element involves a move from a four-year to a threeyear course of study with students entering university one year earlier than previously. In terms of content, TBLT is supposed to be embedded within a core focused mainly on grammar, communicative functions, vocabulary and text-types; and electives, such as learning English through drama, short stories, popular culture, or social issues. A further feature is school-based assessment (SBA), explored in more detail

 David Carless

later in the chapter, whereby teacher marks awarded for work done in schools count towards the overall grade in the key high-stakes examination. Part of the rationale for SBA rests on an assumption that reforming assessment is an effective way of stimulating pedagogic change. The interplay between TBLT and SBA under the new Hong Kong curriculum at senior secondary level is an issue for ongoing attention, with the possibility that the newer examination-focused SBA will attract more resources and attention than TBLT.

China In the last few years, China has designed and promoted a so-called New Curriculum Standards (Wang, 2007) in which TBLT forms a part of an agenda for change across the school curriculum. In their contribution to this volume, Iwashita and Li investigate patterns of interaction in a task-based oral English class at the university level in China. A useful addition to our understanding of TBLT in China would be further studies in the school and university sectors. Recent research on TBLT in China reinforces some of the challenges of introducing TBLT in a mass school system. Zhang (2007), for example, found that whilst teachers claimed to be carrying out tasks, what was going on in the classrooms she researched did not contain features of what one would normally consider as TBLT. More recent case studies conducted by Deng (2011) on the implementation of TBLT in primary schools in Guangdong province used Littlewood’s (2004) communicative continuum to gauge the extent of task-based activities in the classrooms of four teachers in two contrasting schools. A significant (although hardly surprising) finding was that in the lessons observed, there were more activities which focused on forms rather than on meaning. Such activities were perceived by teacher participants as easier to manage and more effective in preparing students for examinations (Deng & Carless, 2009). One of the case study teachers (pseudonym, Jane) was, however, found to possess confidence in the effectiveness of communicative language teaching and her lessons evidenced more focus on meaning than in the lessons of the other three teachers. Jane seems to share some similar characteristics with Debbie (Iwashita & Li, this volume) who was able to promote an interactive classroom, despite contextual limitations such as a large class size. A facilitating factor, common to both the cases of Jane and Debbie, is a belief in and well-developed understanding of the potentials of communicative interaction for both language development and student motivation. Examinations are often seen as a barrier to the implementation in schools of such as communicative or task-based approaches (Deng & Carless, 2010; Littlewood, 2007). This is clearly the case in China (Iwashita & Li, this volume), although the issues are complex and interwoven with contextual factors, such as those related to teachers’ values. An analysis of changes to the writing section of the NMET (the National Matriculation English Test) used for university entrance indicated that teachers may utilise their own preferred approaches, whilst side-stepping the more communicative



Chapter 15.  TBLT in EFL settings 

aspirations of the test developers (Qi, 2007). It seems that teachers’ values and beliefs about pedagogy are even more influential than the examinations, and there is considerable variation in how teachers respond to the tension between a communicative curriculum and a more traditional examination-system (Deng & Carless, 2010). The relationship between test preparation and communicative language teaching remains an important issue for further research. This leads me to consider, in the next subsection, assessment in relation to TBLT.

Assessment and TBLT Only one chapter in the collection focuses explicitly on the important dimension of assessment in TBLT (Weaver, Chapter 13). We know that in formal mainstream educational situations where certification is at stake, assessment is what most powerfully captures the minds, or at least the study behaviors, of students. This is largely the case everywhere, but particularly so in China given its long history of examinations, dating back to the Han dynasty. This history of large-scale public testing in China is noted by Iwashita and Li (Chapter 7) as being a contextual barrier to the implementation of communicative and task-based approaches. Weaver (Chapter 13), researching Japanese business students, provides an account of the incorporation of a formative assessment cycle into a TBLT curriculum in relation to a task with a strong sense of authenticity: a PowerPoint presentation aiming to persuade peers to invest in a particular company. A positive aspect of the study involves student engagement with exemplars of performance in association with the application of explicit assessment criteria. Student engagement with exemplars and criteria is an important step in developing self-evaluative capacities which lie at the heart of formative assessment. An issue bubbling under the surface of the chapter, but not addressed in much detail, is the extent to which the processes described by Weaver actually acted formatively. In other words, to what extent did the cycle support the development of wider student learning capacities or more narrowly help them to improve their PowerPoint presentations? As the seminal work of Black and Wiliam (1998, 2003) has argued, an assessment process can only be said to have acted formatively if it advances student learning. It may be that a way forward for formative assessment in relation to TBLT is to engage more with the expanding educational literature on formative assessment (e.g., Andrade & Cizek, 2010) and developments in dynamic assessment (e.g., Poehner, 2008). Indeed, along these lines and within the TBLT literature, Norris (2009) has highlighted the formative as well as summative and other uses for task-based language assessment in his overview of task-based teaching and testing, and a handful of examples (e.g., Byrnes, 2002; Byrnes, Maxim, & Norris, 2010) point to the potential of task-based assessment as a core element of curriculum renewal initiatives.

 David Carless

A lesson from innovation theory (e.g., Barnes, Clarke, & Stephens. 2000) is that attempts to reform pedagogy often have limited impact, unless there is also change to how students are assessed. Again I wish to return to developments in Hong Kong. To stimulate the implementation of CLT and TBLT, high-stakes examinations have over the last twenty years increased the weighting awarded to oral performance, and the examinations have become increasingly task-based. The high-profile introduction of SBA involves students carrying out oral tasks within the school which are graded by the teacher and count for 15% of the English mark in the high-stakes examination at the end of secondary schooling (Davison, 2007; Davison & Hamp-Lyons, 2010). The oral tasks are either group discussions or oral presentations, in both cases responses to a print or non-print ‘text’, such as a book or movie. The use of teacher assessment in a traditionally examination-oriented system is both a powerful impetus for change and a challenge to teachers’ workloads and mindsets. In such a setting, there is a likelihood that test-takers (often with the assistance of the ubiquitous after-hours tutorial sector) may seek to subvert the aims of the test developers. A careful analysis of the discourse of test interaction (Luk, 2010) shows how students colluded in producing utterances aimed at creating the impression of being effective interlocutors for the purpose of scoring marks rather than for authentic communication. In contrast, Gan, Davison, and Hamp-Lyons (2009) analyzed the discourse derived from a task which in their particular case was based on choosing a gift for the main character in the movie Forrest Gump. They found that peer group discussion as an oral assessment format has the potential to provide opportunities for students to demonstrate ‘real-life’ spoken interactional abilities. Discourse analysis of oral production in SBA tasks looks like an emerging research interest in Hong Kong. Some form of synergy, or at least peaceful co-existence, between the needs of assessment in specific locales and communicative pedagogy is an important ongoing dilemma for TBLT in EFL settings. Some possible ways forward relevant to task-based assessment include: further development of assessment literacy amongst stakeholders, including Education Ministry officials, school and university managers, teachers, and teacher educators; greater alignment of high-stakes assessment with curriculum and pedagogy; and a focus on productive student learning to be made explicit in all forms of assessment, including high-stakes examinations (Carless, 2011).

Teacher education and TBLT For teachers to be able to develop the full potential from TBLT they are likely to need a variety of opportunities to learn about and engage with communicative and taskbased teaching. Two chapters in this volume are indicative of some of the potentials and challenges for task-based teacher education. In the study by Jackson (Chapter 12), Japanese student teachers expressed positive responses to TBLT concepts, although the extent to which they would use these notions in their future teaching was beyond



Chapter 15.  TBLT in EFL settings 

the scope of the study. Chacón’s contribution (Chapter 11), set in Venezuela, indicated positive participant perceptions of working in pairs or groups. The Venezuelan trainee teachers in the study reported that they would be willing to implement TBLT with their own students in the future. Two key issues arise from these cases, both of them in relation to support in the school context. First, to what extent would the prevailing school cultures in the two settings encourage the adoption of task-based activities? Second, what kind of quality and depth of support would novice teachers receive in implementing TBLT? A related theme in many EFL contexts is the broader background to innovation, and in particular the difficulty of providing sufficiently in-depth teacher education to illuminate the key issues in implementing TBLT successfully. This challenge is exacerbated, for example, in a setting as vast and widely dispersed as China. A further issue for China is the disparity between the mainly advanced metropolitan and coastal areas versus the rural hinterland (Hu, 2003; Iwashita & Li, this volume). In such situations, mass centralized short-term training programs are unlikely to do more than provide a basic introduction to some of the issues in TBLT. These limitations can be compounded by the perceived complexity of TBLT, an issue I have discussed elsewhere (Carless, 2009). The mode of teacher training also merits further consideration. The argument that TBLT teacher education should itself be experiential and task-based is a good one (see Van den Branden, 2006b), but this might be difficult to achieve on the scale required by China in view of the enormous numbers of teachers and sites involved. That is not to say that smaller-scale pockets of exploratory developmental work could not be attempted. For example, the ‘lesson study’ or ‘research lesson’ is a professional development method practiced extensively in Japan (see, for example, Fernandez, 2002) through which a team of colleagues analyze a taught lesson and seek ways to improve it. This could be a contextually grounded source of professional development in collectivist East Asian societies, such as China (Carless, 2011).

Future developments in TBLT The literature on educational change indicates that many innovations last only a relatively short time because they are replaced by other innovations (Waks, 2007); conditions are not receptive to the proposed change (Datnow, 2002); or they are reinvented and rebranded (Snyder, Acker-Hocevar, & Snyder, 2008). Reinvention can have positive connotations when it encourages customization of the innovation to fit it more appropriately to local conditions (Rogers, 2003), or more negative ones when it leads to dilution of its underlying principles. TBLT seems to have stood the test of time, and as Shehadeh indicates in the introduction, it possesses many markers of a well-established field of study. Its vitality, richly illustrated in this volume, is indicative of enduring interest in different facets of TBLT. In terms of future research agendas, a particularly useful and comprehensive

 David Carless

discussion has already been compiled by Samuda and Bygate (2008) in the final chapter of their book. Here I comment on selected issues which resonate with the discussion in this chapter. Although it is notoriously problematic to try to demonstrate the superiority of one teaching approach over another, it might be worth attempting a quasi-experimental research design in which experimental groups taught through TBLT are compared with control groups taught by the existing approaches being used in that setting. In a discussion of the well-known Pennsylvania project, Lynch (1996) discusses some of the myriad challenges of this kind of research: the optimum number and characteristics of teacher participants; unwanted variability in teacher implementation of the approach they are supposed to be using; and developing achievement tests that do not favor one group or another. Nonetheless, studies of this kind could help to explore differences both in process and outcome, and with due sensitivity to local context could yield valuable information. This is a research challenge awaiting a team brave enough to take it on, although clearly the lessons learned from evaluations of the Bangalore Project (e.g., Beretta, 1992) could be utilized as a starting point for such an endeavor. The acquisition of grammatical form within meaning-focused activities is at the heart of TBLT. A classic example of the interweaving of form within meaning intentions is Samuda (2001). As Samuda notes, the role of the teacher in mediating taskbased language development is well-worth further exploration (see also Van Avermaet, Colpin, Van Gorp, Bogaert, & Van den Branden, 2006). I have already alluded to the chapters in Section 1 which investigated a number of variables impacting on taskbased performance. Although Moore (Chapter 8) touches on awareness-raising activities, the current volume does not include a detailed discussion of the role of consciousness-raising (CR) tasks as a productive way of encouraging a focus on language form. This line of research within a TBLT framework does not seem to have advanced as much as one might have anticipated. CR could represent the task itself or it could be an option to encourage language analysis in the post-task stage. The post-task is a critical stage of the task cycle and seems particularly under-researched within school settings. Students’ perceptions of tasks are a further area which merits future inquiry. A general question arises: to what extent do students in different geographical settings appreciate communicative tasks as much as some proponents of TBLT appear to do? For example, a study of South African secondary school students (Barkhuizen, 1998) asked respondents to evaluate a list of fifteen language learning activities; a surprising finding for the teachers concerned was that students preferred mechanical written activities rather than oral communicative tasks. A sample of students of different proficiency levels in a private Brazilian language school, surveyed by Garrett and Shortall (2002), indicated that students perceived peer work in groups to be enjoyable but that teacher-fronted work was thought to be more likely to enhance their learning. This study also reinforces the value of attending to the voice of the learner. More on what university and/or school students think about TBLT and their perceptions of tasks



Chapter 15.  TBLT in EFL settings 

would be valuable extensions of the existing literature. Particularly valuable would be longitudinal studies, as there is some evidence (e.g. McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007) that students become more favorably disposed towards TBLT, after they have some time to engage with its practice. Both Chacón (Chapter 11) and the Hong Kong SBA tasks use film as a stimulus for task-based teaching. Notable features of Chacón’s study include: co-operative work in groups of four; peer and self-assessment; and careful design of a post-task (here a Film Guide containing some of the features often found in reviews of movies). Film as a stimulus for tasks could be an area for further research. The use of audio-visual input could be extended in various ways to build on new literacies and the development of technologies associated with Web 2.0. As a final pointer to the future, a new generation of tasks may well be inspired by analysis of discourse from YouTube or other digital media in line with changes in authentic language use. In conclusion, this volume has made useful steps in developing the knowledge base on TBLT in EFL settings. The points I have made suggest the need for the following: more reports on the implementation of TBLT from different EFL settings; detailed qualitative accounts of what is really taking place in classrooms in which the teacher is trying to implement some version of TBLT; further research on contextual adaptations to TBLT; continued scrutiny of the interface between assessment and TBLT; and a search for appropriate forms of teacher education and support for the implementation of TBLT.

References Adamson, B., & Tong, A.S.Y. (2008). Leadership and collaboration in implementing curriculum change in Hong Kong secondary schools. Asia Pacific Education Review, 9(2), 180–189. Andrade, H., & Cizek, G. (2010). (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment. New York, NY: Routledge. Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher language awareness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barkhuizen, G. (1998). Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/learning activities in a South African context. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 85–108. Barnes, M., Clarke, D., & Stephens, M. (2000). Assessment: The engine of systemic curricular reform? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(5), 623–650. Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language learning. ELT Journal, 57, 278–287. Beretta, A. (1992). What can be learned from the Bangalore evaluation? In J.C. Alderson & A. Beretta (Eds.), Evaluating second language education (pp. 250–273). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2003). In praise of educational research: Formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 29 (5), 623–637.

 David Carless Byrnes, H. (2002). The role of task and task-based assessment in a content-oriented collegiate foreign language curriculum. Language Testing, 19(4), 419–437. Byrnes, H., Maxim, H., & Norris, J. M. (2010). Realizing advanced FL writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. Modern Language Journal, Monograph. Cambridge: Blackwell. Candlin, C. N. (2001). Afterword: Taking the curriculum to task. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 229–243). Harlow, UK: Longman. Carless, D. (2002). Implementing task-based learning with young learners. English Language Teaching Journal, 56(4), 389–396. Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ re-interpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 639–662. Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35(4), 595–608. Carless, D. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT versus P-P-P debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language teaching, 19, 49–66. Carless, D. (2011). From Testing to Productive Student Learning: Implementing Formative Assessment in Confucian-heritage Settings. New York, NY: Routledge. Datnow, A. (2002). Can we transplant educational reform, and does it last? Journal of educational change, 3(3–4), 215–239. Davison, C. (2007). Views from the chalkface: English language school-based assessment in Hong Kong. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4 (1), 37–68. Davison, C., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2010). The Hong Kong certificate of education: School-based assessment reform in Hong Kong English language education. In L.Y. Cheng & A. Curtis (Eds.), English Language Assessment and the Chinese Learner (pp. 248–266). New York, NY: Routledge. Deng, C.R. (2011). Communicativeness of activities in EFL primary school classrooms in Guangdong, China: Teachers’ interpretations of task-based language teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hong Kong. Deng, C.R., & Carless, D. (2009). The Communicativeness of Activities in a Task-based Innovation in Guangdong, China. Asian Journal of English Language teaching, 19, 113–134. Deng, C.R., & Carless, D. (2010). Examination Preparation or Effective Teaching: Conflicting Priorities in the Implementation of a Pedagogic Innovation. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(4), 285–302. Edwards, C., & Willis, J. (Eds.). (2005). Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development: The case of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), 393–405. Gan, Z., Davison, C., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2009). Topic negotiation in peer group oral assessment situations: A conversation analytic approach. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 315–334. Garcia Mayo, M.P. (Ed.) (2007). Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Garrett, P., & Shortall, T. (2002). Learners’ evaluations of teacher-fronted and student-centred classroom activities. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 25–57. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



Chapter 15.  TBLT in EFL settings  Hu, G. W. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, culture and curriculum, 15, 93–105. Hu, G.W. (2003). English language teaching in China: Regional differences and contributing factors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24(4), 290–318. Hu, G. W. (2005). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 635–660. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007) Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 45, 261–284. Lewis, M. (1996). Implications of a lexical view of language. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 10–16). Oxford: Heinemann. Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. English Language Teaching Journal, 58(4), 319–326. Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching 40(3), 241–249. Littlewood, W. (2011). Communicative language teaching: An expanding concept for a changing world. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 541–557). New York, UK: Routledge. Luk, J. (2010). Talking to score: Impression management in L2 Oral Assessment and the Coconstruction of a Test Discourse Genre. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(1), 25–53. Lynch, B. (1996). Language program evaluation: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers' and learners' reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 107–132. Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Cambridge: Blackwell. Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian Approach to Understanding and Promoting L2 Development. Berlin: Springer. Prabhu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Qi, L. (2007). Is testing an efficient agent for pedagogical change? Examining the intended washback of the writing task in a high-stakes English test in China. Assessment in Education, 14(1), 51–74. Ribé, R. (2000). Introducing negotiation processes: An experiment with creative project work. In M. Breen & A. Littlejohn (Eds.), Classroom decision-making (pp. 63–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rogers, E. (2003). The diffusion of innovations (5th edition). New York, NY: Free Press. Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 119–140). Harlow, UK: Longman. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, MacMillan. Shehadeh, A., & Coombe, C. (2010) Applications of task-based learning in TESOL. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Inc. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62. Snyder, K. J., Acker-Hocevar, M., & Snyder, K. M. (2008). Living on the edge of chaos: Leading schools into the global age. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.

 David Carless Van Avermaet, P., Colpin, M., Van Gorp, K., Bogaert, N., & Van den Branden, K. (2006). The role of the teacher in task-based language teaching. In K. Van den Branden, (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice. (pp. 175–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006a). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van den Branden, K. (2006b). Training teachers: Task-based as well? In K. Van den Branden, (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice. (pp. 217–248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Waks, L. J. (2007). The concept of fundamental educational change. Educational Theory, 57(3), 277–295. Wang, Q. (2007). The National Curriculum changes and their effects on English language teaching in the People’s Republic of China. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 87–105). Boston, MA: Springer Science & Business Media. Zhang, Y.F.E. (2007). TBLT-Innovation in Primary school English language teaching in mainland China. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, & M. Verhelst (Eds.), Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective (p. 68–91). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.

About the contributors David Carless is Associate Professor and Head of the Division of English Language Education, Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong. His main research interest is in how assessment can be reconfigured to stimulate productive student learning. His latest book is entitled: From testing to productive student learning: implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings published by Routledge in 2011. Carmen Chacón is a retired English professor of the Department of Modern Languages in the Faculty of Education at the University of Los Andes, Venezuela. She holds a PhD from The Ohio State University and worked as an EFL teacher and teacher educator for more than twenty five years. She has published several ELT articles and book chapters in Venezuela and in the USA. Her research interests include non-native English speaking teachers’ (NNESTs’) issues, TESOL pedagogy, and teacher efficacy. Shirley Chan is the Director of Education and School Services of the Whole Person Development Institute (WPDI). Before joining WPDI, she was the Assistant Professor of the Hong Kong Institute of Education. Her research interests are English language teaching and learning for young learners, language assessment, curriculum change and innovation and teacher education. Currently, she works with a team of psychologists and psychiatrists to promote mind-wellness of the general public and school children by integrating education, psychology and psychiatry. Christine Coombe has a PhD in Foreign/Second Language Education from The Ohio State University. Christine is co-editor/author of numerous publications including: Language Teacher Research in the Middle East (2007, TESOL Publications), Leadership in English Language Teaching and Learning (2008, UMP) Applications of Task-based Learning in TESOL (2010, TESOL Publications), The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Assessment (2012, Cambridge University Press) and Reigniting, Retooling and Retiring in English Language Teaching (2012, University of Michigan Press). She was TESOL Convention Chair for Tampa 2006. She is currently TESOL President (2011–2012). Keiko Fukaya is a researcher at the Institute for Research in Language and Culture, Tsuda College. She worked as associate professor of English at St. Luke’s College of Nursing. She holds an MA in TESOL from College of New Rochelle, NY. Her research interests include second language reading, vocabulary acquisition and English for specific purposes. Her publications include a chapter on extensive reading in an edited book.

 Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts: Research and implementation

Zubeyde Sinem Genc is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education, Uludag University in Bursa, Turkey. She received her PhD from the Department of English, Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP), USA, specializing in TESOL and SLA. She taught EAP at IUP, and both graduate and undergraduate courses at Southern Illinois University. Her research interests include second language teacher education, SLA, task-based language teaching, and curriculum development. James Hobbs is from Britain and is an Associate Professor in the Department of Foreign Languages at Iwate Medical University, Japan. He has been living and teaching in northern Japan since 1991 and has an MSc in TESOL from Aston University. He has taught in a wide range of contexts and his research interests include language teaching methodology, medical English education, the analysis of task-generated discourse, and Japanese-English translation. Yukie Horiba is Professor of Language Education/Applied Linguistics at the Graduate School of Language Sciences, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan. She holds a PhD in second languages/cultures education from University of Minnesota. Her research interests include second language text comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, reading-writing connection, language testing, instructional task and teacher development. Her work has appeared in Discourse Processes, Language Learning, Modern Language Journal, and Studies in Second Language Acquisition, and some edited books. Noriko Iwashita is a senior lecturer in Applied Linguistics at The University of Queensland. Her research interests include the role of classroom interactions (teacherstudents and student-student) and tasks in SLA, the interfaces of language assessment and SLA, task-based assessment, and cross-linguistic investigation of four major language traits. Her work has appeared in Language Learning, Language Testing, Applied Linguistics, and Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Shinichi Izumi is a professor in the faculty of foreign studies at Sophia University. He earned his Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from Georgetown University, USA. His principal research interest is in second language acquisition and English teaching. His previous research appears in his books on focus on form and CLIL and in many international journals. He currently serves on the editorial (advisory) boards for several international journals including Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Daniel O. Jackson (M.S. in Education/TESOL, University of Pennsylvania) is a PhD student in the Department of Second Language Studies at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. His primary research interests are in task-based instruction and second language acquisition and he currently serves as managing editor for Language Learning & Technology. Before returning to the US to complete his studies, he taught and administered university EFL courses in Japan for over eight years.



About the contributors 

Mayya Levkina received a Bachelor degree in French and Spanish Linguistics from the Department of French Language from the Moscow State Linguistic University with cum laude. She then received an M.A. in Applied Linguistics from the University of Barcelona. At present she is carrying out her PhD project with the focus on task sequencing and individual differences (e.g. Working Memory Capacity and Attention) in L2 development and L2 acquisition. Huifang (Lydia) Li obtained her PhD degree in the field of Applied Linguistics from The University of Queensland, Australia in 2010. She has lectured at Anyang Normal University, Henan Province in the People’s Republic of China, The University of Queensland and Griffith University, Queensland Australia. Her particular field of interest is in facilitating roles of tasks and conversational interaction in second language learning and teaching. Aleksandra Malicka is a PhD candidate at the University of Barcelona, Spain. She obtained her Bachelor’s degree in Ethnolinguistics from Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland. She then completed a Master’s degree in Applied Linguistics and Language Acquisition at the University of Barcelona. She is currently working on her PhD dissertation on task complexity, task sequencing and language performance. Her research interests include task-based language teaching, bilingual teaching, and language policy and planning. Julie McAllister is a PhD student in language teaching methodology at the University of Nantes under the supervision of Professor M.-F. Narcy-Combes. Her research focuses on the evaluation of learning environments in a context where ICT plays an increasing role. She has been teaching business English and Marketing in higher education since 2003. Prior to this, she held several management positions in multinational companies within the IT and Telecoms sector. Paul Moore is a lecturer (language specialist) in Learning Development at the University of Wollongong. His current research interests involve several aspects of task-based language learning and teaching, including influences of interaction on performance and development, form-focused instruction, and use of the first language in the EFL classroom. He is also researching intercultural team work in higher education, and has been involved in consultations regarding the implementation of Japanese-as-a heritage-language courses in high school curricula. Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes is a full professor at the University of Nantes where she is involved in the coordination of the Applied Languages Department. Her main teaching fields include business English within this department as well as pre-service and in-service language teacher training. She originated and conducted the implementation of the Task-Based Learning and Teaching (TBLT) programme at the University of Nantes. Her research fields concern Second Language Acquisition and Language Teaching Methodology.

 Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts: Research and implementation

Moonyoung Park is an ESL lecturer, and research assistant while working towards a PhD in Applied Linguistics and Technology at Iowa State University. He has taught secondary and college level EFL/ESL courses in Korea, Thailand, and the US. His research interests include applications of TBLT and technologies in language learning and language testing. He is currently researching task-based aviation English training and testing and the use of automatic writing evaluation software in college ESL writing courses. Late Teresa Pica was Professor and TESOL program me director at the University of Pennsylvania. She was an academic advisor to universities in Korea, Spain, India, and Japan. She served on the editorial boards of many of the leading journals of language study, and had held guest lectureships at the US Department of Defense Language Institute; Temple University, Japan; the University of Sydney; the Federal University of Cuiaba, Brazil, the University of the Basque Country, and the TESOL Summer Institute. Shoko Sasayama is currently a PhD student in the Department of Second Language Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Her primary academic interests include second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Currently, her research is focused on how cognition influences language processing, performance, and learning. Pedagogically, she advocates the use of tasks in language classrooms for the development of learners’ communicative as well as linguistic competence. Ali Shehadeh is Associate Professor in and past chair of Department of Linguistics at the UAE University. His research papers have appeared in Language Learning, TESOL Quarterly, System, Journal of Applied Linguistics, and ELT Journal. He has served on the Editorial Boards of a number of international journals. Currently he is the co-editor of Brief Reports and Summaries of TESOL Quarterly and co-editor of Asian Journal of English Language Teaching. His research interests are SLA, task-based language learning and teaching, and L2 writing research and pedagogy. Rebecca Starkey-Perret is a research designer for the task-based blended language learning programme for Business English students at the University of Nantes and a PhD student in Second Language Acquisition and Classroom Oriented Research, supervised by Professor Marie-Françoise Narcy-Combes. Her professional focus is on designing materials for the programme as well as providing technical and pedagogical support for the teachers involved. Her research focuses on language teachers’ representations in French secondary schools. Christopher Weaver belongs to the Department of Business Administration at Toyo University, Tokyo, Japan. His research interests involve inquiries into pre-task planning and applications of the Rasch measurement model in task-based assessment.

Index A Affective variable questionnaire  50, 51, 55, 58, 66 AS units  157 Attentional capacity  24, 38, 59 C Carless, David  3, 6, 7, 13, 15–17, 189, 208, 272, 284, 345, 348–353, 356, 359 Chacón, Carmen Teresa  6, 7, 13–15, 17, 241, 244, 257, 271, 281, 282, 347, 353, 355, 359 Chan, Sui Ping (Shirley)  5, 7, 12, 13, 187, 189, 208, 346, 349, 359 China  4–7, 11, 137–139, 348–351, 356–358, 361 CLAN mode of CHILDES  52 Clarification request  146 Code complexity  25, 44, 190 Cognition hypothesis; Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis  9, 28, 29, 38, 40, 43–45, 59 Cognitive complexity  9, 25, 40, 47–51, 59, 61, 190, 191, 201 Communicative language teaching (CLT)  138, 217, 267, 347, 350, 351, 357 Communicative stress  25, 44, 190, 193 Computer-assisted language learning (CALL)  216, 342 Computer-assisted taskbased language teaching (CATBLT)  215, 220 Computer-mediated communication (CMC)  318 Conversation analysis  164, 294, 306 Coombe, Christine  xi, xv, 3, 8, 19, 20, 347, 357, 359 Corrective feedback  xvi, 137, 164,, 168, 181, 331 Corrective precasts  111

E Elicitation  146, 147, 149–155 English as a foreign language (EFL)  xi, 1, 3, 5, 90 ESOL (English to Speakers of Other Languages)  5 Estimation Time Judgment Task  54 Evidence-driven practice  8 Explicit correction  146, 149, 150, 152 Explicit grammar-teaching focus  5 F Feedback  11, 110, 112, 120, 121, 123, 125, 137, 138, 140–143, 222, 270, 271, 326, 331 Focus on form (FONF)  xi, 12, 141, 163–166, 217, 319360 Foreign language contexts  xi, xv, xviii, 1, 4, 19, 166 Form-focused episodes (FFEs)  164, 165 France  4, 7, 15, 16, 313–316, 345 Fukaya, Keiko  10, 89, 348, 359 G Genc, Zubeyde Sinem  10, 39, 67, 101, 348, 360 Global accuracy measures  38 glossing  94, 101, 103 Guiraud’s Index of Lexical richness  52 H Hobbs, James  11, 109, 360 Hong Kong  xv, 5–7, 12, 13, 17, 159, 187–190, 208, 283, 284, 345, 346, 349, 350, 352, 355, 359 Hong Kong Target Oriented Curriculum  5 Horiba, Yukie  10, 89, 103, 348, 360

I Incidental vocabulary acquisition  10, 91, 93, 101 Information gap task/ activity  203 Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF)  120, 123 Interactive lexical phrases  110, 112 Interactive moves  112, 116, 118, 127 International Consortium on Task-based Language Teaching (ICTBLT)  16 intersubjectivity  167, 168, 170 Iwashita, Noriko  xvi, xviii, 6, 7, 11, 30, 137, 348, 350, 351, 353, 360 Izumi, Shinichi  9, 23, 80, 82, 91, 92, 101, 269, 346, 360 J Jackson, Daniel O.  6, 14, 15, 267, 347, 352, 360 Japan  xv, 4, 6–8, 14, 16, 23, 109, 163, 267–269, 287, 345, 347, 353, 360, 362 K Korea  6, 7, 142, 152, 216, 218, 362 L L2 task performance  24, 28 Language-related episodes (LREs)  12, 168, 173, 177 Learner orientation  68 Learner’s attentional allocation  39 Levkina, Mayya  9, 43, 52, 361 Lexical chunks  112, 123 Lexical variety  31, 33, 38 Li, Huifang (Lydia)  6, 7, 11, 137–139, 158, 217, 348, 350, 351, 353, 361

 Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts: Research and implementation Limited capacity hypothesis  9, 23, 40, 80 M Malicka, Aleksandra  9, 43, 361 McAllister, Julie  7, 15, 313, 314, 361 modality  10, 67, 191 Monologic narrative tasks  27, 30 Moore, Paul J.  5, 12, 163, 354, 361 MSTTR  31, 33 N Narcy-Combes, Marie-Francoise  7, 313, 314, 318, 321, 361 Native-speaker task interaction  109 O Opinion-exchange task  125 Opinion-gap tasks  122, 123 Oxford Placement Test (OPT)  50 P Park, Moonyoung  13, 215, 217, 346, 348, 362 Pica, Teresa  xv, xvi, xvii, xix, 3, 141, 156, 165, 191, 362 Presentation-Practice­Production (PPP)  110, 348 Pre-task planning  9, 23–28, 38–40, 67, 68, 70, 253, 362 Propositional textbase  90 R Reasoning-gap tasks/ activities  114, 117 recasts  19, 111, 141, 142, 146, 157, 165, 166, 271 Resource-depleting dimensions  25–28, 39

Resource-directing dimensions  25–28, 45, 46 Rote learning  7 S Sasayama, Shoko  9, 23, 80, 82, 91, 92, 101, 346, 362 Scaffolding  12, 167, 195, 325, 349 Second language (SL) contexts  1, 3 Shehadeh, Ali  xi, xv, xvii, 1, 3, 8, 14, 155, 166, 243, 345–347, 353, 362 Situation models  91, 106 Skehan’s trade-off hypothesis; trade-off hypothesis  9, 43, 44, 59 Starkey-Perret, Rebecca  7, 313, 362 Strategic planning  9, 10, 67–70, 72, 73, 87 Student recasts  149, 150 Surface code  90 Syntactic complexity  9, 23, 26–28, 38, 40 T Target-Oriented Curriculum (TOC)  188, 189 Task-based interaction  xii, xviii, 11, 12, 137, 140–142, 151, 156, 163, 167, 180 Task-based language assessment (TBLA)  11, 14, 229, 287, 351 Task-based syllabus  2, 14, 287 Task complexity  9–11, 23–41, 55–60, 92, 109, 189, 190, 346, 357, 361 Task difficulty  9, 24, 45, 49, 50, 53, 57, 58 Task implementation  xv, 39, 67, 189, 270 Task manipulation  9, 23

Task organizers  118–120, 123 Task performance  3, 10–12, 14, 24–29, 67, 109–111, 123, 181–183, 287–290, 300, 303 Task structure  9, 11, 109–112, 127 Task-supported language teaching  8 TBLT implementation  3, 109, 124 Teacher agency  139, 140 Teacher-centered instruction  5 Teacher recasts  149, 150 Text processing  9–11, 89–93, 101–103 Time judgment task  54, 66 Topic familiarity  91, 191 Transmission-based approach  15, 313 Triadic Componential Framework  24 T-unit  31–33, 73 Turkey  xv, 16, 67, 345, 360 U Uptake  11, 142, 154, 164 V Venezuela  xv, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 241, 255–257, 283, 353, 359 Verbatim repetitions  32, 39 Vocabulary Levels Test  94 W Weaver, Christopher  14, 15, 287, 288, 303, 346, 351, 362 Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale  30 X X-Lex  46, 49, 50, 61 Y Y-Lex  46, 49, 50, 61