Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:42:11.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Technology-Mediated Task-Based Language Teaching

from Part IV - Methodology and Pedagogy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Michael H. Long
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

Technology has been increasingly incorporated into the second language learning classroom and curriculum, highlighting the need for researchers and educators to consider how it has affected the tasks they facilitate, as well as their mediating effects on second language learning and teaching. This chapter explores how the unique advantages of various forms of technology can enhance and support the developmental and performance-related benefits of TBLT. We propose that technologies that follow a ‘learning by doing’ philosophy, facilitate learner involvement in everyday tasks, and provide spaces to engage with the language and other speakers are ideal tools to enact TBLT in ways that are not possible in traditional language classrooms. Examples of such tools and tasks are presented together with research that supports their effectiveness for language learning. The chapter ends with a look into the future of technology-mediated tasks, including some challenges that need to be resolved for the advancement of technology-mediated TBLT.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Further Reading

Ahmadian, M. J. and García Mayo, M. del P. (2018), eds. Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. and Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 5080.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2016). A practical guide to integrating technology into task-based language teaching. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014), eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lai, C. and Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28, 498521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 533.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. 1st ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. and Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL-SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 1737.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., and Norris, J. (2009), eds. Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–63.Google Scholar

References

Adams, R. and Nik, A. N. M. A. (2014). Prior knowledge and second language task production in text chat. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 5178.Google Scholar
Adams, R., Amani, S., Newton, J., and Nik Mohd Alwi, N. A. (2014). Planning and production in computer-mediated communication (CMC) writing. In Byrnes, H. and Manchón, R. M., eds. Task-based language teaching. Vol. 7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 137–61.Google Scholar
Adams, R., Nik, A. N. A. M., and Newton, J. (2015). Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via chat. Second Language Writing, 29, 6481.Google Scholar
Alley, M., Samaka, M., Impagliazzo, J., Mohamed, A., and Robinson, M. (2014). Workplace learning using mobile technology: A case study in the Oil and Gas industry. In Bayyurt, Y., Kalz, M., and Specht, M., eds. Communications in computer and information science. Vol. 479. Berlin: Springer, pp. 250–57.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689725.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (2014). Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online language classes. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., and Robinson, P. J., eds. Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 59122.Google Scholar
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching: Autonomy in language learning. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Black, R. W. (2005). Access and affiliation: The literacy and composition practices of English-language learners in an online fanfiction community. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49, 118–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. (2008). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and language learning. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Blyth, C. (2018). Immersive technologies and language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 225–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonner, E. and Reinders, H. (2018). Augmented and virtual reality in the language classroom: Practical ideas. Teaching English with Technology, 18(3), 3353.Google Scholar
Canto, S., de Graff, R., and Jauregui, K. (2014). Collaborative tasks for negotiation of intercultural meaning in virtual worlds and video-web communication. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 183212.Google Scholar
Collentine, K. (2010). Measuring complexity in task-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. In Thomas, M. and Reinders, H., eds. Task-based language learning and teaching with technology. London and New York: Continuum, pp. 105–30.Google Scholar
Collentine, K. (2011). Learner autonomy in a task-based 3rd world and production. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 5067.Google Scholar
Cornillie, F., Thorne, S. L., and Desmet, P. (2012). ReCALL special issue: Digital games for language learning: challenges and opportunities. ReCALL, 24, 243–56.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. and Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 5080.Google Scholar
Duff, P. A. (2012). Identity, agency, and second language acquisition. In Gass, S. M. and Mackey, A., eds. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 410–26.Google Scholar
Dyson, L. E. (2014). A vodcast project in the workplace: understanding students’ learning processes outside the classroom. In Bayyurt, Y., Kalz, M., and Specht, M. eds. Communications in computer and information science. Vol. 479. Berlin: Springer, pp. 258–71.Google Scholar
Elola, I. and Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 3049.Google Scholar
Gadelha, R. (2018). Revolutionizing education: The promise of virtual reality. Childhood Education, 94(1), 4043.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: from the Age of Mythology to today’s schools. In Barton, D. and Tusting, K., Beyond communities of practice: language power and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 214–32.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2014). The need for needs analysis in technology-mediated TBLT. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 2350.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2019a). Task-Based Language Teaching and L2 Pragmatics. In Taguchi, N., ed., Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics. London: Routledge, pp. 338–52.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2019b). Technology and L2 pragmatics learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 113–27.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. and Diez-Ortega, M. (2020). Gaming alone or together: L2 beginner-level gaming practices. Perspectiva, 38(2), 121.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 122.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2016). Individual versus interactive task-based performance through voice-based computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 4059.Google Scholar
Grgurovic, M., Chapelle, C. A., and Shelley, M. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25, 165–98.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. and Baralt, M. (2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1393–420.Google Scholar
Holden, C. and Sykes, J. M. (2012). Mentira: Prototyping language-based locative gameplay. In Dikkers, S., Martin, J., and Coulter, B., eds. Mobile media learning: amazing uses of mobile devices for teaching and learning. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press, pp. 111–31.Google Scholar
Hsu, H. C. (2012). Investigating the effects of planning on L2 text-chat performance. CALICO Journal, 29, 619–38.Google Scholar
Hsu, H. C. (2015). The effect of task planning on L2 performance and L2 development in text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Applied Linguistics, 32, 128.Google Scholar
Jeong, N.-S. (2011). The effects of task type and group structure on meaning negotiation in synchronous computer-mediated communication. In Plonsky, L. and Schierloh, M., eds. Selected proceedings of the 2009 Second Language Research Forum. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 5169.Google Scholar
Keller-Lally, A. M. (2006). Effect of task-type and group size on foreign language learner output in synchronous computer-mediated communication. PhD dissertation. University of Texas at Austin, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Kost, C. (2011). Investigating writing strategies and revision behavior in collaborative writing projects. CALICO Journal, 28, 606–20.Google Scholar
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2013). Re-skilling language learners for a mobile world. The International Research Foundation for English Language Education (TIRF), Monterey, USA. Retrieved from: www.tirfonline.org/english-in-the-workforce/mobile-assisted-language-learning/re-skilling-language-learners-for-a-mobile-world/.Google Scholar
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Lee, H., and Norris, L. (2017). Mobile learning revolution: Implications for language pedagogy. In Chapelle, C. A. and Sauro, S., eds. The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning. Oxford: Wiley & Sons, pp. 217–33.Google Scholar
Lai, C. (2017). Autonomous language learning with technology: Beyond the classroom. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Lai, C. and Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28, 498521.Google Scholar
Lai, C., Fei, F., and Roots, R. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26, 7090.Google Scholar
Lai, C. and Zheng, D. (2018). Self-directed use of mobile devices for language learning beyond the classroom. ReCALL, 30(3), 299318.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2012). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27, 260–76.Google Scholar
Lin, H. (2014). Establishing an empirical link between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and SLA: A meta-analysis of the research. Language Learning & Technology, 18, 120–47.Google Scholar
Meyer, L. (2016). Students explore the earth and beyond with virtual field trips. THE Journal, 43(3), 2225.Google Scholar
Michelson, K. and Dupuy, B. (2014). Multi‐storied lives: Global simulation as an approach to developing multiliteracies in an intermediate French course. L2 Journal, 6, 2149.Google Scholar
Nielson, K. (2013). Online language learning in the workplace: Maximizing efficiency, effectiveness, and time-on-task. Proceedings from the International Conference of E-Learning in the Workplace. June 12–14, New York.Google Scholar
Nik, A. N. A. M. (2010). Examining the language learning potential of a task-based approach to synchronous computer-mediated communication. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Nik, A. N. M. A., Adams, R., and Newton, J. (2012). Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 2339.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In Mackey, A. and Polio, C., eds. Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA: Research in honor of Susan M. Gass. New York: Erlbaum/Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Oskoz, A. and Elola, I. (2014). Promoting foreign language collaborative writing through the use of Web 2.0 tools and tasks. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 115–48.Google Scholar
Payne, S. and Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 732.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 79103.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2010). Massively multiplayer online role-playing games as arenas for second language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23, 429–39.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. and Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL-SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 1737.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003). Computer–mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 3857.Google Scholar
Rama, P. S., Black, R. W., van Es, E., and Warschauer, M. (2012). Affordances for second language learning in World of Warcraft. ReCALL, 24, 322–38.Google Scholar
Reinders, H. and Pegrum, M. (2017). Supporting language learning on the move: an evaluative framework for mobile language learning resources.’ In Tomlinson, B., ed. SLA research and materials development for language learning. New York: Routledge, pp. 219–31.Google Scholar
Reinders, H. and Wattana, S. (2012). Talk to me! Games and students’ willingness to communicate. In Reinders, H., ed. Digital games in language learning and teaching. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 156–88.Google Scholar
Reinders, H. and Wattana, S. (2014). Can I say something? The effects of digital game play on willingness to communicate. Language Learning & Technology, 18, 101123.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, J. (2019). Gameful second and foreign language teaching and learning. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P., ed. Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 338.Google Scholar
Satar, H. M. and Özdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 596613.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2004). Cyberdiscursive tug-of-war: Learner repositioning in a multimodal CMC environment. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19, 5572.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2014). Lessons from the fandom: Technology-mediated tasks for language learning. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 239–62.Google Scholar
Scholz, K. and Schulze, M. (2017). Digital-gaming trajectories and second language development. Language Learning & Technology, 21, 99119.Google Scholar
Schwienhorst, K. (2012). Learner autonomy and CALL environments. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shekary, M. and Tahririan, M. H. (2006). Negotiation of Meaning and Noticing in Text-Based Online Chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 557–73.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2012). Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning and Technology, 16, 5381.Google Scholar
Smith, B. and Gorsuch, G. (2004). Synchronous computer-mediated communication captured by usability lab technologies: New interpretations. System, 32, 553–75.Google Scholar
Sydorenko, T., Hellermann, J., Thorne, S. L. and Howe, V. (2019). Mobile Augmented Reality and Language‐Related Episodes. TESOL Quarterly, 53(3), 712–40.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2008). A dynamic approach to social interaction: Synthetic immersive Environments & Spanish pragmatics. PhD dissertation. University of Minnesota. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/304582040?accountid=27140.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2014). TBLT and synthetic immersive environments: What can in-game task restarts tell us about design and implementation? In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 149–82.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. and Reinhardt, J. (2012). Language at play: Digital games in second and foreign language teaching and learning. New York: Pearson-Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Sylvén, L. K. and Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL, 24, 302–21.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., Li, Q., and Tang, X. (2017). Learning Chinese formulaic expressions in a scenario‐based interactive environment. Foreign Language Annals, 50(4), 641–60.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L. (2008). Transcultural communication in open internet environments and massively multiplayer online games. In Magnan, S. S., ed. Mediating discourse online. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 305–27.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L. and Black, R. (2008). Language and literacy development in computer-mediated contexts and communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 133–60.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L., Fischer, I., and Lu, X. (2012). The semiotic ecology and linguistic complexity of an online game world. ReCALL, 24(3), 279301.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. and Payne, J. S. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, Internet-mediated expression, and language education. CALICO Journal, 22, 371–97.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., and Norris, J. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Introducing the reader. In Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., and Norris, J., eds. Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 113.Google Scholar
Wang, S. and Vásquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the research tell us? CALICO Journal, 29, 412–30.Google Scholar
Winke, P. (2013, October). Supporting teachers’ efforts in implementing technology-mediated tasks. Presented at the Task-based Language Teaching conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Yeh, E. and Wan, G. (2019). The use of virtual worlds in foreign language teaching and learning. In Information Resources Management Association, ed. Virtual reality in education: Breakthroughs in research and practice. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 645–92.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 115132.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. and Granena, G. (2010). The effects of task type in synchronous computer-mediated communication. ReCALL, 22, 20.Google Scholar
Yuksel, D. and Inan, B. (2014). The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing. ReCALL, 26(3), 333–54.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016a). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–86.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016b). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–63.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2017). The contingency of recasts, learners’ noticing, and L2 development: Insights on saliency from multiple modalities. In Gass, S., Spinner, P., and Behney, J., eds. Salience and SLA. New York: Routledge, pp. 269–90.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2018). Pre-task planning in L2 text-chat: Examining learners’ process and performance. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 193213.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. and Phung, H. (2019) Technology-mediated task-based interactions: The role of modality. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170, 251–76.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×