Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T01:29:04.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology-mediated task-based language teaching: A research agenda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2020

Bryan Smith  and
Marta González-Lloret
Bryan Smith*
Affiliation:
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Marta González-Lloret
Affiliation:
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Honolulu, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses key concepts in the emerging field of technology-mediated task-based language teaching (TMTBLT) and provides a research agenda for moving this sub-field forward in a theoretically sound and data-driven way. We first define TMTBLT and discuss the importance of considering technological affordances and specific learning contexts when matching individual technologies with particular tasks. We then explore the notion of task, specifically task complexity and sequencing, and how the introduction of technology may interact and modify tasks' features. Next, we examine the use of mobile apps and social media within a task-based language teaching (TBLT) framework and highlight areas primed for exploration or in need of reconciliation. Finally, we call for TMTBLT studies to capture and evaluate learner process data. Within each area above we propose a series of specific research tasks that incrementally build on previous research in both face-to-face and technology-mediated environments, which may help us better understand how tasks and technologies intersect to promote language learning.

Type
Thinking Allowed
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , October 2021 , pp. 518 - 534
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, R., & Nik, A. N. M. A. (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, Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, R., Nik, A. N. M. A., & Newton, J. (2015). Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 64–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M. (2019). Mobile technology and home broadband 2019. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet.org/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/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, 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M. (2014). Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online language classes. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. J. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 59–122). London, UK/New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Belz, J. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 60–81.Google Scholar
Blin, F. (2016). The theory of affordances. In Caws, C. & Hamel, M.-J. (Eds.), Language-Learner Computer Interactions. Theory, methodology and CALL applications: Language Studies, Science and Engineering 2 (pp. 41–64). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bromley, H. (1998). Introduction: Data-driven democracy? Social assessment of educational computing. In Bromley, H. & Apple, M. (Eds.), Education, technology, power (pp. 1–28). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Chun, D., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 64–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collentine, K. (2013). Using tracking technologies to study the effects of linguistic complexity in CALL input and SCMC output. CALICO Journal, 30, 46–65.Google Scholar
Common Sense Media. (2019). Common Sense Research Reveals Everything You Need to Know About Teens’ Use of Social Media in 2018. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/about-us/news/press-releases/common-sense-research-reveals-everything-you-need-to-know-about-teensGoogle Scholar
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Translanguaging and identity in educational settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 50–80.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, R. (2007). How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students’ behavior in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 409–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2017). Technology and task-based language teaching. In Thorne, S. & May, S. (Eds.), Language and Technology. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 1–13). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google 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, Netherlands/ Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (2018). Pragmatics, tasks, and technology: A synergy. In Taguchi, N.- & Kim, Y. (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 191–214). Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2016). Individual versus interactive task-based performance through voice-based computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 40–59. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44481Google Scholar
Healey, D., Hegelheimer, V., Hubbard, P., Ioannou-Georgiou, S., Kessler, G., & Ware, P. (2008). TESOL Technology Standards Framework. TESOL Inc.Google Scholar
Hubbard, P. (2011). Evaluation of courseware and websites. In Arnold, N. & Ducate, L. (Eds.), Present and future promises of CALL: From theory and research to new directions in language teaching (pp. 407–440). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Google Scholar
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robison, A. J. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2017). Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34, 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Non-issues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, L., & Onof, C. (2008). Stigmergic epistemology, stigmergic cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 9, 136–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mekheimer, M. A. A. (2012). Assessing aptitude and attitude development in a translation skills course. CALICO Journal, 29, 321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, M., & Smith, B. (2018). Measuring lexical alignment during L2 chat interaction: An eye-tracking study. In Gass, S., Spinner, P., & Behney, J. (Eds.), Salience in second language acquisition (pp. 244–268). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nik, A. N. A. M. (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, A. N. M. A., Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2012). Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 23–39.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2017). New CALL-SLA research interfaces for the 21st century: Towards equitable multilingualism. CALICO Journal, 34, 285–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porte, G. K. (Ed.) (2012). Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge, UK/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reinders, H., & Wattana, S. (2015). Affect and willingness to communicate in digital game-based learning. ReCALL, 27, 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, J., & Zander, V. (2011). Social networking in an intensive English program classroom: Insights from language socialization. CALICO Journal, 28, 326–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Gilabert, R. (2016). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual-task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 703–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Hama, M. (2014). The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts: Task complexity, input frequency, and recasts. Language Learning, 64, 615–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (Ed.) (2001). Cognition and second language instruction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, B. R. (2015). ‘I am what I am’: Multilingual identity and digital translanguaging. Language Learning & Technology, 19(3), 69–87.Google Scholar
Shin, S.-K. (2015). Teaching critical, ethical, and safe use of ICT to teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 181–197.Google Scholar
Silver, L., Smith, A., Johnson, C., Taylor, K., Jiang, J., Anderson, M., & Rainie, L. (2019). Mobile connectivity in emerging economies. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet.org/2019/03/07/use-of-smartphones-and-social-media-is-common-across-most-emerging-economiesGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language learning (pp. 183–205). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 85–103.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2009). The relationship between scrolling, negotiation and self-initiated self-repair in an SCMC environment. CALICO Journal, 26, 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B., Alvarez-Torres, M., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Features of CMC technologies and their impact on language learners’ online interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 703–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B., & Renaud, C. (2013). Using eye-tracking as a measure of foreign language learners’ noticing of recasts during computer-mediated writing conferences. In McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), Language learning & language teaching (pp. 147–166). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 38–67.Google Scholar
Ushioda, E. (2013). Motivation matters in mobile language learning: A brief commentary. Language Learning & Technology, 17, 1–5.Google Scholar
Wang, S., & Vásquez, C. (2014). The effect of target language use in social media on intermediate-level Chinese language learners’ writing performance. CALICO Journal, 31, 78–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In Fotos, S. & Brown, C. (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second and foreign language classrooms (pp. 15–25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar