Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:52:05.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking Technology to Task: Technology-Mediated TBLT, Performance, and Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2016

Nicole Ziegler
Nicole Ziegler*
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii at [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over the last few decades, task-based language teaching (TBLT) has garnered increasing attention from researchers and educators alike. With a strong and growing body of research demonstrating the efficacy of tasks to support and facilitate second language development and performance (e.g., Keck, Iberri-Shea, Tracy-Ventura, & Wa-Mbaleka, 2006), TBLT has become a leading pedagogical approach. Similarly, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) has also grown as a field, with the use and integration of technology in the classroom continuing to increase (Petersen & Sachs, 2015). As these fields have matured, a reciprocal relationship has developed (Lai & Li, 2011), with the literature on tasks and technology seeking to not only examine how technology might support and facilitate language learning, but how TBLT might serve as a framework to more thoroughly investigate CALL. In light of the expanding research on tasks and technology, this review article aims not only to provide a current state of the art of how technology-mediated TBLT facilitates and supports second language development and performance, but also to describe how technology can contribute to our understanding of how features of TBLT, such as task design features and task implementation, influence the success of second language acquisition. Suggestions for possible research agendas in technology-mediated TBLT are also made.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 36 , March 2016 , pp. 136 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2016 

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

REFERENCES

Adams, R., & Nik, N. (2014). Prior knowledge and second language task production in text chat. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 51–78). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Adams, R., Nik, N., & Newton, J. (2015). Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 64–81.Google Scholar
Aldrich, C. (2009). Learning online with games, simulations, and virtual worlds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Appel, C., & Gilabert Guerrero, R. (2006). Finding common ground in LSP: A computer-mediated communication project. In Macià, E. A., Cervera, A. S., & Ramos, C. R. (Eds.), Information technology in languages for specific purposes (pp. 75–90). New York, NY: Springer.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 (4), 689–725.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (2014). Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online language classes. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 95–122). London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15, 201–229.Google Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455–464.Google Scholar
Black, R. W. (2006). Language, culture, and identity in online fanfiction. E-learning and Digital Media, 3, 170–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120–136.Google Scholar
Blake, R. J. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 19–35.Google Scholar
Böhlke, O. (2003). A comparison of student participation levels by group size and language stages during chatroom and face-to-face discussions in German. CALICO Journal, 21, 67–87.Google Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M. (2011). Perceived benefits and drawbacks of synchronous voice-based computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 419–432.Google Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M. (2013). Interactional feedback in synchronous voice-based computer mediated communication: Effect of dyad. System, 41, 543–559.Google Scholar
Burston, J. (2015). Twenty years of MALL project implementation: A meta-analysis of learning outcomes. ReCALL, 27 (1), 4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral interaction. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing [e-book]. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning & Technology, 1, 19–43.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (1998). Analysis of interaction sequences in computer-assisted language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 753–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2005). Interactionist SLA theory in CALL research. In Egbert, J. & Petrie, G. (Eds.), Research perspectives on CALL (pp. 53–64). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. Modern Language Journal, 93, 741–753.Google Scholar
Chiu, Y.-H., Kao, C.-W., & Reynolds, B. L. (2012). The relative effectiveness of digital game-based learning types in English as a foreign language setting: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, E104–E107.Google Scholar
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 17–31.Google Scholar
Chun, D. M. (1998). Signal analysis software for teaching discourse intonation. Language Learning & Technology, 2, 61–77.Google Scholar
Darhower, M. A. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the L2 classroom: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19, 249–277.Google Scholar
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University Rochester Press.Google Scholar
de la Fuente, M. J. (2003). Is SLA interactionalist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction on L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 47–81.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 50–80.Google Scholar
Ducate, L., & Lomicka, L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 9–28.Google Scholar
Duran, G., & Ramaut, G. (2006). Tasks for absolute beginners and beyond: Developing and sequencing tasks at basic proficiency levels. In Branden, K. Van den (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 47–75). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2008). Blogging: Fostering inter-cultural competence development in foreign language and study abroad contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 421–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 51–71.Google Scholar
Fernández-Garcia, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in non-native speaker-non-native speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19, 279–294.Google Scholar
Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 67–86.Google Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In Van Patten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–199). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Llanes, À. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47 (3–4), 367–395.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2003). Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction: En busca de esmeraldas. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (1), 86–104.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2008). Computer-mediated learning of L2 pragmatics. In Soler, E. Alcon & Martinez-Flor, A. (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 114–132). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25, 165–198.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2014a). 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, 35, 1–28.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2014b). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37.Google Scholar
Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18, 105–121.Google Scholar
Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distance language courses. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 66–82.Google Scholar
Hsu, H. C. (2012). Investigating the effects of planning on L2 text-chat performance. CALICO Journal, 29, 619–638.CrossRefGoogle 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, 1–28.Google Scholar
Hwang, P. A. (2008). Linguistic characteristics in synchronous and asynchronous CMC. English Language & Literature Teaching, 14, 47–66.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, N., & Oliver, R. (2003). Chat-line interaction and negative feedback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 60–73.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. 2002. Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.Google Scholar
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421–452.Google Scholar
Jauregi, K., Canto, S., de Graaff, R., Koenraad, T., & Moonen, M. (2011). Verbal interaction in Second Life: Towards a pedagogic framework for task design, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations and negotiated interactions in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 79–98.Google Scholar
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 441–454.Google Scholar
Kenning, M. M. (2010). Differences that make the difference: A study of functionalities in synchronous CMC. ReCALL, 22, 3–19.Google Scholar
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457– 476.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627.Google Scholar
Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kötter, M. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and code-switching in online tandems. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 145–172.Google Scholar
Lai, C., Fei, F., & Roots, R. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26, 70–90.Google Scholar
Lai, C., & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28, 1–24.Google Scholar
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 102–120.Google Scholar
Lai, C., Zhao, Y., & Wang, J. (2011). Task‐based language teaching in online ab initio foreign language classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 95, 81–103.Google Scholar
Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 457–482.Google Scholar
Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: Global and local considerations. Language Learning & Technology, 8 (3), 44–65.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish, ReCALL, 13, 232–244.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2002). Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on non-native discourse. System, 30, 275–288.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2007). Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 635–649.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2010). Fostering reflective writing and interactive exchange through blogging in an advanced language course. ReCALL, 22, 212–227.Google Scholar
Lee, L., & Markey, A. (2014). A study of learners’ perceptions of online intercultural exchange through web 2.0 technologies. ReCALL, 26, 281–297.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2001). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51, 113–155.Google Scholar
Liao, P. L., & Fu, K. (2014). Effects of task repetition on L2 oral (in written form) production in computer-mediated communication. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 8, 221–236.Google Scholar
Lo, J. J., Wang, H. M., & Yeh, S. W. (2004). Effects of confidence scores and remedial instruction on prepositions learning in adaptive hypermedia. Computers & Education, 42, 45–63.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ma, L., Van Vosselen, N., Gierts, S., & Vandamme, F. (2002). Evaluation of a virtual environment: The elementary spoken Chinese prototype (ESCvar prototype). Communication & Cognition, 35, 257–275.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. (2012). Interactionist approach. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–24). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–498.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 408–452). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–208). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Meunier, L. E. (1998). Personality and motivational factors in computer-mediated foreign language communication (CMFLC). In Muyskens, J. (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and foreign language education (pp. 145–197). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36, 437–455.Google Scholar
Murray, L., & Hourigan, T. (2008). Blogs for specific purposes: Expressivist or socio-cognitivist approach? ReCALL, 20, 83–98.Google Scholar
Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker-von Ditfurth, M. (2010). Task-based language teaching and task-supported language teaching. In Hallet, W. & Königs, F. G. (Eds.), Handbuch Fremdsprachendidaktik (pp. 203–207). Stuttgart, Germany: Seelze.Google Scholar
Murphy, L. (2011). I'm not giving up: Maintaining motivation in independent language learning. In Morrison, B. (Ed.), Independent language learning: Building on experience, seeking new perspectives (pp. 73–85). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Nielson, K. B. (2014). Evaluation of an online, task-based Chinese course. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 295–322). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nik, N. (2010). Examining the language learning potential of a task-based approach to synchronous computer-mediated communication (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Nik, N., Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2012). Learning to write via text-SCMC: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 23–39.Google Scholar
Nuevo, A. M. (2006). Task complexity and interaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 226–253). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2014). Promoting foreign language collaborative writing through the use of web 2.0 tools and tasks. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 115–148). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Park, E. Y. (2008). Effects of task repetition on synchronous computer-mediated communication. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 11, 29–45.Google Scholar
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32.Google Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (1999). Why-talk? Investigating the role of task-based interaction through synchronous network-based communication among classroom learners of Spanish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Davis.Google Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence in the virtual foreign language classroom. In Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 79–103.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2011). Towards a research agenda for the use of three-dimensional virtual worlds in language learning. Calico Journal, 29 (1), 67–80.Google Scholar
Petersen, K., & Sachs, R. (2015). The language classroom in the age of networked learning. In Leow, R. P., Cerezo, L., & Baralt, M. (Eds.), Technology and L2 learning: A psycholinguistic approach. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second‐language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and second language learning (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 1. On the Horizon, 9, 1–6.Google Scholar
Purushotma, R., Thorne, S. L., & Wheatley, J. (2009). 10 key principles for designing video games for foreign language learning. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Education Arcade, Open Language & Learning Games Project. Retrieved from http://knol.google.com/k/10-key-principlesfor-designing-video-games-for-foreign-language-learning Google Scholar
Pyun, O. C. (2003). Effects of networked language learning: A comparison between synchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom‐based study. Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.Google Scholar
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, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Pütz, M. & Sicola, L. (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner's mind (pp. 243–268). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–38). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2005). Task design for audiographic conferencing: Promoting beginner oral interaction in distance language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 417–442.Google Scholar
Sadler, R., & Nurmukhamedov, U. (2008, March). Second Life and task-based learning. Paper presented at the CALICO Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13, 96–120.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2011). SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28, 1–23.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2012). L2 performance in text-chat and spoken discourse. System, 40, 335–348.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2014). Lessons from the fandom: Technology-mediated tasks for language learning. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 239–262). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2010). Investigating L2 performance in text chat. Applied Linguistics, 31 (4), 554–577.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversation ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Shekary, M., & Tahririan, M. H. (2006). Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. Modern Language Journal, 90, 557–573.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2003). Focus on form, tasks, and technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 391–411.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., Xiaoyue, B., Qian, L., & Wang, Z. (2012). The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 16, 170–187.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87, 38–57.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365–98.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 33–58.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2009). The relationship between scrolling, negotiation, and self-initiated self-repair in a SCMC environment. CALICO Journal, 26, 231–245.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2010). Employing eye-tracking technology in researching the effectiveness of recasts in CMC. In Hult, F. M. (Ed.), Directions and prospects for educational linguistics (pp. 79–97). Springer.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2012). Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning and Technology, 16, 53–81.Google Scholar
Smith, B., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Features of CMC technologies and their impact on language learners’ online interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 703–729.Google Scholar
Smith, B., & Gorsuch, G. (2004). Synchronous computer-mediated communication captured by usability lab technologies: New interpretations. System, 32, 553–575.Google Scholar
Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 82–119.Google Scholar
Steel, C. H., & Levy, M. (2013). Language students and their technologies: Charting the evolution 2006–2011. ReCALL, 25, 306–320.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 19, 399–431.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2008). A dynamic approach to social interaction: Synthetic immersive environments and Spanish pragmatics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.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. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 149–182). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. L. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive environments, and mobile resources for language education. Calico Journal, 25, 528–546.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (2013). Task-based language teaching and CALL. In Thomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 341–358). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Thorne, S., Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2015). Technologies, identities, and expressive activity. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 215–233.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L. (2013). Digital literacies. In Hawkins, M. (Ed.), Framing languages and literacies: Socially situated views and perspectives (pp. 192–218). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online gaming. Modern Language Journal, 93 (s1), 802–821.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L., & Payne, J. S. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, Internet-mediated expression, and language education. CALICO Journal, 22, 371–397.Google Scholar
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 82–99.Google Scholar
Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 141–159.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Zou, B., Wang, D., & Xing, M. (2013). Students’ perception of a wiki platform and the impact of wiki engagement on intercultural communication. System, 41, 245–256.Google Scholar
Wang, S., & Vásquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the research tell us? CALICO Journal, 29, 412–430.Google Scholar
Wang, Y. (2006). Negotiation of meaning in desktop videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. ReCALL, 18, 122–146.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7–25.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81, 470–481.Google Scholar
Yamada, M., & Akahori, K. (2007). Social presence in synchronous CMC-based language learning: How does it affect the productive performance and consciousness of learning objectives? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 37–65.Google Scholar
Yanguas, Í. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It's about time. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 72–93.Google Scholar
Yanguas, Í. (2012). Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29, 507–531.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457–477.Google Scholar
Yuksel, D., & Inan, B. (2014). The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing. ReCALL, 26 (3), 333–354.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO journal, 21, 7–27.Google Scholar
Zheng, D., Li, N., & Zhao, Y. (2008, March). Learning Chinese in Second Life Chinese language school. Paper presented at CALICO Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N., & Mackey, A. (2014). Pre-task planning, performance, and perceptions: A study of L2 text-chat. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Columbia, SC.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (under review). Pre-task planning and performance: A study of L2 text-chat.Google Scholar