LINGUIST List 22.2303 Wed Jun 01 2011 Review: Applied Linguistics: Thomas and Reinders (2010) Editor for this issue: Monica Macaulay <monicalinguistlist.org> New! Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:             http://multitree.linguistlist.org/ This LINGUIST List issue is a review of a book published by one of our supporting publishers, commissioned by our book review editorial staff. We welcome discussion of this book review on the list, and particularly invite the author(s) or editor(s) of this book to join in. If you are interested in reviewing a book for LINGUIST, look for the most recent posting with the subject "Reviews: AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW", and follow the instructions at the top of the message. You can also contact the book review staff directly. Directory         1.     Zoe Handley , Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology Message 1: Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology Date: 01-Jun-2011 From: Zoe Handley <zoe.handleyeducation.ox.ac.uk> Subject: Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology E-mail this message to a friend Discuss this message Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/21/21-4515.html EDITORS: Thomas, Michael; Reinders, Hayo TITLE: Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology PUBLISHER: Continuum YEAR: 2010 Zöe Handley, Department of Education, University of Oxford, UK SUMMARY Technology offers many possibilities to create innovative tasks for use in language learning and, as ''Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology'', edited by Michael Thomas and Hayo Reinders demonstrates, many such possibilities have already been explored in the field of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL). However, as the editors explain in the first chapter of this edited volume, little reference has been made to CALL in the growing body of research on Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) and vice-versa. The present volume is an attempt to bridge the gap between these two fields of applied linguistics and to advance our understanding of technology-mediated tasks and advance task theory and research more generally. This volume is divided into two parts. Having defined TBLT and drawn out the similarities between TBLT and CALL in the first chapter, Part I, 'Research on Tasks in CALL', presents reviews of the state of the art from three different perspectives: (1) sociocultural theory, (2) psycholinguistics and the interactionist model of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), and (3) Intelligent CALL (ICALL), along with a number of original empirical studies. Part II, 'Applying Technology-Mediated Tasks', looks at the processes involved in designing computer-mediated tasks. Chapter 1, ''Deconstructing Tasks and Technology,'' by the editors, Michael Thomas and Hayo Reinders, sets the scene for the rest of the volume. In it, Thomas and Reinders define the scope of the book, motivate the focus on tasks in CALL and set out the aims of the volume. In terms of the scope of the book, Ellis' definition of tasks is adopted: ''A task is a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or receptive, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes'' (Ellis, 2003: 16). Like Ellis, the authors also adopt a weak version of TBLT in which tasks are one aspect of the curriculum which support language teaching rather than ''the basis for the entire curriculum'' (Ellis, 2003: 30). Adoption of the strong version of TBLT, according to Thomas and Reinders, may explain the omission of CALL in much TBLT literature; CALL, in contrast with much of the literature on TBLT, has tended to focus on the design of individual isolated tasks. The focus on tasks in CALL is motivated by the authors' observation that CALL and TBLT have much in common: TBLT and more recent approaches to CALL, namely integrative CALL (Warschauer, 1996), share an interest in presenting learners with meaningful tasks; CALL has explored a number of issues which have been of interest to TBLT, including complexity of student output, the Interactionist Hypothesis, implicit corrective feedback, learner anxiety, and cross-cultural communication; and both have moved towards sociocultural theories of language learning. The volume is further motivated by increasing pressure on teachers to integrate technology into their teaching. Chapter 2, ''Research on the Use of Technology in Task-Based Language Teaching'', by Müller-Hartmann and Schocker-v. Ditfurth employs Activity Theory (Engeström et al., 1999) to review CALL research on tasks through the lens of Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006). It finds that despite the fact that few studies have examined CALL from the perspective of sociocultural theory, taken as a whole, research on CALL tasks has made a number of contributions to our understanding of the role that computer-mediated tasks play in the culture of the classroom. Many of the findings of the studies reviewed could equally apply to non-computer-mediated tasks, such as the effect of assigning roles to learners and group leadership on collaboration and the quantity of language produced. The most interesting insights of the review, in my opinion, relate to the use of computer-mediated tasks in inter-cultural contexts, such as tandem e-mail exchanges, which have become much more feasible as a result of developments in CMC. The review finds that more time needs to be dedicated to developing social cohesion in inter-cultural exchanges, and that learners from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds may have different levels of motivation for tasks and different types of goal orientation. The findings imply that teachers need to be sufficiently culturally aware in order to facilitate the completion of computer-mediated tasks in inter-cultural contexts. In contrast with Chapter 2, Chapter 3, ''Task-Based Language Teaching in Network-Based CALL: An Analysis of Research on Learner Interaction in Synchronous CMC'', by Mark Peterson examines the use of computer-mediated tasks in language learning from primarily an interactionist perspective (Gass, 2000). Having discussed the affordances, both positive and negative, of computer-mediated tasks from this perspective, Peterson reviews nine studies representative of the main types of CMC. Taken together these studies show that students do engage in negotiation of meaning in tasks presented in synchronous CMC environments (Kelm, 1992; Chun, 1994), and that, as observed in the wider TBLT literature (Pica et al., 1993), the amount of negotiation of meaning varies according to task type (e.g. jigsaw versus decision-making, Blake, 2000; Smith, 2003). Furthermore, the focus of negotiation of meaning tends to be vocabulary and not grammar (Blake, 2000; Lee, 2001, 2002). It should, however, be noted that while Blake's findings confirmed those of Pica et al., (1993), Smith found the opposite, namely that decision-making tasks led to greater negotiation of meaning than jigsaw tasks. Other findings specific to the medium of CMC include the use of explicit statements of misunderstanding (Fernández-García and Martínez-Arbelaiz, 2002; Smith, 2003) and lack of focus on form and attention to errors (Lee, 2001, 2002). The former is attributed to the absence of non-linguistic cues in CMC environments and the latter to the time pressure that CMC imposes. The conclusion of this review is that CMC promotes fluency to the detriment of accuracy, a problem which Hampel (2006) suggests can be overcome through the examination of transcripts as a post-task activity. Chapter 4, ''Taking Intelligent CALL to Task'', by Mathias Schulze examines the relationship between Intelligent CALL (ICALL) and TBLT. ICALL, as Schulze explains, refers to the use of a combination of Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques in language learning, including natural language processing, user modeling and expert systems. Those familiar with ICALL, the major applications of which are grammar tutors and simulations, might be surprised at the suggestion that ICALL has a role to play in TBLT. The activities proposed in popular grammar tutors are not tasks if we adopt Ellis' (2003) definition (see above) and neither permit interaction between pairs or groups of learners. However, Schulze argues that simulations are consistent with Ellis' (2003) definition of task and that grammar tutors do have a place in TBLT as pre-task planning activities. In Chapter 5, ''Effects of Multimodality in Computer-Mediated Communication Tasks'', Glenn Stockwell observes that most CMC research to date has focused on just one mode of communication, while many CMC technologies permit multimodal communication -- for example, Skype permits communication through both speech and text. In response to this, Stockwell provides an overview of research on multimodal communication more broadly and presents a study which compares the quality of the language produced by advanced learners of English in discussion tasks in text-based chat and bulletin-board style discussion forums. Stockwell's findings are consistent with Kress's (2003) observation that different modalities bring with them both semiotic gains and semiotic losses. Using measures commonly used in research on TBLT more broadly, namely complexity and accuracy, Stockwell found that the language produced by the students in the discussion forums was more complex in terms of both syntax and vocabulary than that produced in the chat condition and that the language produced in the chat condition was more accurate than the language produced in the discussion forums. Stockwell attributes these differences to time pressure, which is greater in synchronous than in asynchronous discussion forums. In order to allow students to practice different aspects of the language, Stockwell concludes that teachers should present tasks in a variety of modes across the curriculum. Chapter 6, ''Measuring Complexity in Task-Based Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication'', by Karina Collentine, follows up Chapter 7 with an investigation of the lexico-grammatical complexity of the language produced by advanced and intermediate level students of Spanish in synchronous chat activities. Having provided a useful overview of the different measures of complexity which have been used in research on TBLT, Collentine presents a study which compares the lexico-grammatical complexity of the language produced in an interrupted-task chatting activity and a post-task chatting activity. In the interrupted-task chatting activity, the students took on the role of detectives trying to solve a murder. They solved the murder by exploring a simulation of the murder scene in which they could interview the suspects. At intervals during their exploration of the simulation, students were asked to stop and discuss what they had discovered in a synchronous chat environment. In the post-task chatting activity, the students took on the role of the residents of an apartment block who were trying to find a lost deposit-box. The students' task was to solve the problem by exploring a simulation of the apartment block in which they could interview the residents. At the end of their exploration of the simulation, students discussed what they had discovered in a synchronous chat environment. Collentine's analysis, which focused on the presence of nominal and lexical features in the language produced by students, found that the intermediate students produced more nominal features and the advanced students produced more nominal clusters, i.e. more complex language, in the post-task chatting activity than in the interrupted-task chatting activity. As in Stockwell's study, and in non-computer-mediated TBLT (e.g. Foster and Skehan, 1999), the difference in the complexity of the language produced in the chat activities is attributed to differences in time pressure, with the post-task chatting activity putting less time pressure on students than the interrupted-task chatting activity. Moving on to the second part of the book, Chapter 7, ''Task Design for a Virtual Learning Environment in a Distance Language Course'', by Regine Hampel presents a model for the development of computer-mediated tasks (Hampel, 2006) through the case of the development of a task-based blended language course presented in the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), Moodle. The model of task development adopted by the author is based on Richards and Rogers (1986/2001), an approach to non-computer-mediated curriculum design which has been adopted by other researchers in the field of CALL (Hubbard, 1992; Levy, 1999). According to this model, designing a course involves defining (1) the approach, that is, the theory of language and language learning upon which the course is based, (2) the design, that is, the syllabus or curriculum goals and the roles of the teacher and students, and (3) the procedure, that is, how those goals will be achieved using the software in the classroom. Having presented the approach adopted, namely one combining principles of cognitive and sociocultural theories of second language acquisition, Hampel goes on to present the results of a number of pilot studies that were conducted over the course of the development of the language course. The major findings of these pilot studies were that providing students with a collaborative environment does not guarantee collaboration; participation can be very unequal; and, the support of the tutor in terms of scaffolding tasks and providing students with feedback is crucial. Taking these findings into consideration and an analysis of the appropriateness of different tools within the VLE for different tasks, the design of the final system is elaborated with reference to Ellis' (2003) task framework. Chapter 8, ''Teacher Development, TBLT and Technology'', by Thomas Raith and Volker Hegelheimer, investigates the use of e-portfolios to develop trainee teachers' competencies in TBLT. Having considered the benefits of using e-portfolios to promote reflective practice, the authors put forward a set of can-do statements which can be used to assess teachers. This set of can-do statements, which comprises three main areas of competency -- (1) motivating students, (2) providing interactive support and (3) evaluating students and providing feedback -- is then used to analyse the e-portfolios of a group of trainee teachers. This analysis found a need for professional development focused on TBLT; while most of the trainee teachers reflected on the use of the target language and some reflected on negotiation of meaning, they failed to reflect on the task process and demonstrated little knowledge of task theory. In response to this, the authors present a workplan which can be used to scaffold trainee teachers' reflections on their TBLT practice. Chapter 9, ''Edubba: Real-World Writing Tasks in a Virtual World'', by Kenneth Reeder returns to the topic of ICALL. It presents the design of a piece of software which attempts to simulate the work of a professional journalist and asks whether the writing activities proposed are tasks according to Ellis' definition of a language learning task (see above). The software incorporates a virtual world, specifically a simulation of the city Edubba, a database of content distributed across characters in the simulation, and a natural language processing engine. Students complete their assignments by exploring the virtual world and interviewing the characters that they meet using natural language. The latter is made possible by the natural language processing engine. Chapter 10, ''The Enactment of Task Design in Telecollaboration 2.0'', by Mirjam Hauck illustrates the decision processes involved in the design of computer-mediated tasks through a case study. The case study focuses on the design of tasks to raise students' awareness of the affordances of different modes of communication. The pilot study found that the capacity for the tasks to raise students' awareness of the affordances of multimodal technologies was undermined by a number of factors related to the enactment of the tasks including students questioning the usefulness of such intercultural exchanges and misunderstanding regarding the goals of the tasks. In Chapter 11, ''Afterword: Future Directions for Technology-Mediated Tasks'', Gary Motteram and Michael Thomas conclude the volume with the presentation of two additional approaches to task design which have been employed in CALL projects and a discussion of the criticisms which have been waged against TBLT. In relation to the claim that TBLT is restrictive and limits creativity, Motteram and Thomas argue that this criticism is warranted given the transformations in pedagogy required to meet the needs of 'digital native' students. On the claim that TBLT is an Anglo-American methodology, Motteram and Thomas acknowledge the potential incompatibility of TBLT with different cultures and the difficulties which non-native teachers may have in implementing it, but at the same time highlight the potential that technology offers to overcome these problems by making inter-cultural exchanges possible. Regarding the question of whether TBLT promotes the development of communicative competence, Motteram and Thomas argue that the contributions to this edited volume, and in particular Chapters 5, 6 and 9, demonstrate that CMC can be used to provide students with access to increasingly authentic opportunities to communicate in the target language. Motteram and Thomas conclude that with more and more countries adopting TBLT, TBLT is becoming an important area of research. However, as with technology, we need to take into consideration where the drive for TBLT is coming from. For example, is it coming from policy makers or is it grounded in the findings of research? EVALUATION 'Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology' makes a number of useful contributions to the literature on tasks in CALL and TBLT. The reviews in Chapters 2 and 3 provide a nice introduction for those new to computer-mediated TBLT. Chapter 2, in particular, demonstrates the utility of analyzing computer-mediated tasks through the lens of activity theory and brings a new perspective to a field which has been dominated by psycholinguistic and interactionist views of language acquisition. Chapter 3 is a particularly interesting contribution which clarified my own understanding of what constitutes a task in language learning and broadened my perspective of the potential contributions of technology to TBLT. I do not, however, feel that the volume delivered on its aim to bridge the gap between CALL and TBLT and advance our understanding of TBLT and computer-mediated tasks. The links to task theory and TBLT were sparse in the majority of contributions to this volume. It is reasonable to believe that some of the findings of the reviews presented in Chapters 2 and 3, such as the effect of assigning roles to students, would equally apply to non-computer-mediated tasks and it would have been interesting to know whether these variables have been investigated in TBLT more broadly and whether the results are consistent. Further, where findings of a trade-off between accuracy and complexity are observed, there is no reference to the fact that this finding has been replicated in a number of studies in TBLT more broadly. Chapters 5 and 6, on the other hand, made more effort to draw on the TBLT literature. Chapter 6 was particularly interesting for its critical analysis of the different measures of complexity that have been used in TBLT. Chapter 5, in contrast, did not live up to its promises on a different count. While the title and introduction appeared to promise an investigation of the effects of the use of multiple modes of communication, e.g. speech and text, during computer-mediated tasks, the study actually investigated two modes of communication separately. Those interested in multimodal communication in CALL might be interested to read Sauro (2009) and Cunningham et al. (2010), among other references appearing on the topic. Chapter 8, while it provides a useful analysis of the skills teachers need to engage in TBLT, in my opinion, would benefit from an in-depth reflection on the demands of computer-mediated TBLT compared with those of non-computer-mediated TBLT. All things considered, the volume provides a useful starting point for raising the TBLT community's awareness of CALL and vice versa and paves the way for the development of a common research agenda. REFERENCES Blake, R (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish Interlanguage. Language Learning and Teaching , 4(1): 120-136. Chun, D (1994). Using computer networks to facilitate the acquisition of communicative competence. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 22(1): 17-31. Cunningham, U, Beers Fägersten, K, and Holmsten, E (2010). ''Can you hear me, Hanoi?'' Compensatory mechanisms employed in synchronous net-based English language learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(1): 161-177. Ellis, R (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Engeström, Y, Miettinen, R and Punamäki, R-L (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fernández-García, M and Martínez-Arbelaiz, A (2002). Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19(2): 279-294. Foster, P and Skehan, P (1999). The influence of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3: 215-247 Gass, S (2000). Changing views of language learning. In Trappes-Lomax, H (ed.). Change and continuity in applied linguistics: Selected papers from the annual meeting of the British Association of Applied Linguistics Edinburgh (pp. 51-67). Edinburgh: BAAL. Hampel, R (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and language learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1): 105-121. Hubbard, P (1992). A methodological framework for CALL courseware development. In Pennington, M and Stevens, V (eds.). Computers in applied linguistics (pp. 39-66). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Kelm, O (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 15(2): 441-454. Kress, G (2003). Multimodality. In Cope, B and Kalantzis, M (eds.). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 182-202). London: Routledge. Lantolf, J P and Thorne, S L (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lee, L (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13(2): 232-244. Lee, L (2002). Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on non-native discourse. System, 30(3): 275-288. Levy, M (1999). Design processes in CALL: Integrating theory, research and evaluation. In Cameron, K (ed.) Computer assisted language learning (CALL): Media, design and applications (pp. 83-107). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger. Pica, T, Kanagy, R, and Falodun, J (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In Crookes, G and Gass, S (eds.). Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Richards, J C and Rogers, T S (1986/2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sauro, S (2009). Strategic use of modality during synchronous CMC. CALICO Journal, 27(1): 101-117. Smith, B (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1): 38-57. Warschauer, M (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In Fotos, S (ed.). Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3-20). Tokyo: Logos International. ABOUT THE REVIEWER Zöe Handley is currently Oxford University Press Research Fellow in the Department of Education at the University of Oxford. Her research focuses on the use of new technologies in language learning. She recently completed a comprehensive systematic review of empirical research on the use of new technologies in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in primary and secondary classrooms. Her previous research has focused on the use of speech and language technologies in language learning, in particular pronunciation training. Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue Page Updated: 01-Jun-2011       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.