Teacher
development and training in Task-Based Language Teaching
Autumn Demaine, Yoko Kusumoto, Chitchon Pratontep
The presentations on teacher development at TBLT 2007 covered a
wide range of topics, with emphasis on both in-service and pre-service
teachers. The primary themes which emerged in this conference included
teachers' perceptions of TBLT, different understandings of task,
and the training of in-service teachers. Teacher development is
clearly important to TBLT—in order for teachers to implement
a task based curriculum, they should be adequately trained in teaching
with tasks and familiar with all that TBLT entails. Teachers must
also want to use tasks as a unit of learning in their classes; if
teachers do not want to teach in a certain way, they will not, so
they need to understand the benefits as well as the difficulties
of TBLT to make an informed decision. It is also imperative that
educators can explain what TBLT is and why it is a valid way of
teaching, so they can advocate for the use of tasks or task-based
syllabi. Researchers can help in this area by figuring out the best
ways to implement TBLT and the benefits that might accrue accordingly.
They also can look into how teachers and administrators can be convinced
that TBLT is worthwhile and important.
Presentations on pre-service teacher training raised several challenges
to the implementation of TBLT (for example: Ogilvie & Dunn;
Brandl; and Solares). Teachers’ existing beliefs about language
pedagogy posed a major difficulty that many teacher trainers have
to overcome. A common belief among pre-service language teachers,
evident in several presentations, is that a typical language classroom
should focus mostly on linguistic form. For example, Canadian pre-service
teachers (Ogilvie & Dunn) initially commented that TBLT did
not provide adequate emphasis on language form acquisition. Importantly,
though, their attitudes towards learning language via tasks became
more positive by the end of the training. This change was in part
due to their increased familiarity with TBLT and tasks in general,
but also in seeing the effectiveness of tasks in the classroom.
Similar findings were apparent in Solares’ study, with teachers
learning about TBLT by using tasks as units of learning.
In addition, the perception of what constitutes a task may vary
among pre-service teachers, even after they have been exposed to
TBLT through training. Xavier examined how pre-service teachers
of English in Brazil perceive tasks and exercises. Even though pre-service
teachers are aware of distinctions between task and exercise, designing
a task on the basis of task-based principles was still a challenge
for them.
To further underline the importance of teacher development in TBLT,
a study by Brandl offered an example of a language class which relied
mainly on a TBLT textbook. The study investigated novice teachers
in introductory French classes with minimum TBLT training. Although
the textbook assigned for the course had been designed based on
TBLT principles, the ensuing instruction differed widely depending
on pre-existing teaching skills, teachers’ confidence in the
classroom, and external factors such as other textbooks and tests.
In-service teacher training for TBLT can be an even more challenging
task. Solares proposed a practical solution by utilizing online
tasks for teaching TBLT, which has proven to be particularly appropriate
for the training of working teachers. In-service teachers in Mexico
who took an online TBLT course found the course interesting, motivating,
and useful, and they liked learning TBLT through tasks.
Across all the presentations in the area of teacher development,
there emerged a common thread that teachers need to know the history
of language teaching methods, from grammar-translation to current
discussions of TBLT and communicative language teaching. Such a
historical grounding provides them with a context for and better
understanding of why current proposals have emerged. Other common
threads included the idea that small classes are better for TBLT
teacher training (as shown in the study by Solares). Furthermore,
the importance of using tasks in TBLT teacher training was exemplified
in all studies. Indeed, in the opening and closing plenaries of
TBLT 2007, both Samuda and Van Den Branden addressed the need for
teacher training; Samuda discussed how task design occurs and how
teachers can be better trained to design more effective tasks, while
Van Den Branden discussed how tasks and teachers interact in training
and in practice.
TBLT teacher development presents a promising future. Teachers
who learn through tasks seem to gain positive attitudes and a better
understanding of utilizing tasks in their language teaching. However,
one of the common challenges addressed in the presentations is that
teachers often resort to more familiar teaching methods and use
fewer tasks in their teaching even though they recognize the benefits
and importance of TBLT.
One current gap in need of attention is that there are very few
longitudinal studies on the effectiveness and process of teacher
training in TBLT. It would be useful for more to be done in this
vein, to see how teachers’ attitudes about TBLT change as
they develop and also to see how teacher training changes as TBLT
itself further develops. Changes in teachers’ ways of thinking,
attitudes, and behavior toward TBLT, teaching follow-up studies,
and students' learning outcomes in relation to teacher development
can be fruitful areas for future research.
Task-Based
assessment: Valuable insights and a promising future
Larry Davis, Yoonah Seong
Assessment is a key aspect of a task-based language teaching program
(Long & Norris, 2000), and performance tasks have long been
of interest to the language testing community as well. Accordingly,
assessment was a major strand within the TBLT 2007 Conference, where
assessment-related presentations filled three half-day sessions
of contributed papers (N = 11) as well as a colloquium. The presentations
represented a broad variety of assessment issues, contexts, and
approaches, but on the whole several broad themes seemed to emerge.
The first of these themes was expressed in the title of the colloquium:
“Tasks and the integrated assessment of language and content.”
Douglas began the session by pointing out that successful completion
of a task does not necessarily require knowledge of language, and
highlighted the need for both language and context of language use
to be included in the test task and assessment construct. Norris
and O’Sullivan further extended this point by arguing that
the basis for all assessment is (or should be) the intended use(s)
of the assessment. Both content and context are key features of
this approach, where negotiation with assessment users ultimately
leads to a specification of which content and context features are
included in the assessment. An example of the integration of language
and content was presented by Byrnes, who described the use of genre
as a basis for constructing tasks and evaluating performance. Byrnes
provided both a conceptual foundation for the use of genre as an
organizing concept, as well as a brief account of how this approach
was implemented in writing assessment in the German program at Georgetown
University. Finally, Mohan described the use of systemic functional
linguistics (SFL) as a framework for combining language and content
in assessment. Mohan used the example of causal discourse to demonstrate
how SFL might inform an approach that gives attention to both form
and meaning within the context of classroom formative assessment.
Implementation of task-based assessment was another theme in evidence
at the conference. In addition to Byrnes’ account, Gysen et
al. described the use of generalized “type tasks” as
the basis for both designing test tasks and ensuring consistency
across administrations of the Certificate of Dutch as a Foreign
Language (CNaVT) examination. A type task was defined as a particular
set of parameters and parameter values (derived from models of speaking
proficiency) that in turn describe a family of test tasks that should
be expected to elicit similar language performances. Consistency
across test tasks was also of concern to Härmälä,
who used analysis of difficulty parameters as an approach for equating
items in a Finnish assessment of vocational English.
A classroom perspective on implementation was provided by Paredes
and Munné, who described an assessment that, among other
tasks, required students to produce a web page promoting a tourist
destination. One challenge was that some students produced web pages
that were effective in accomplishing the task goal but did not elicit
the language of interest, thereby making evaluation difficult. On
a hopeful note, Roppe et al. reported that ratings for content and
language were similar on the CNaVT examination, suggesting that
domain and language need not be in conflict. Moreover, Roppe et
al. suggested that the task-based CNaVT examination was congruent
with the Common European Framework of Reference, indicating that
content and language and task may be combined in effective assessments
that reflect contemporary language learning values in Europe.
In addition to the practical concerns of assessment implementation,
several other papers examined theoretical constructs, particularly
the notions of task difficulty and performance as conceived by Skehan
(1996). Iwashita compared the relative difficulty of an integrated
task, consisting of orally recounting a brief lecture or written
passage, to a stand-alone task consisting of giving opinions. Although
the integrated task was thought to be more cognitively demanding
and would therefore influence production, few differences in proficiency
were actually observed. In a similar vein, Brindley et al. demonstrated
that, as a practical matter, it can be quite difficult to predict
the difficulty of a given test item; both teachers and test-takers
consistently underestimated the difficulty of items on a reading
test (where item difficulty was measured in terms of score). The
difficulty of tying task parameters to performance was further highlighted
by Vongpumivitch, who found that prompts consisting of very different
types of writing (e.g. narrative, description, comparison) seemed
to have little effect on scores for content and language outcomes
in a written summary task. On a somewhat different track, Sheppard
examined the parameters needed to describe task-based language performance.
In contrast to the three parameters proposed by Skehan (accuracy,
complexity, and fluency), Sheppard suggested that as many as six
parameters might be needed to describe performance on an oral narrative
task.
A final area of interest to presenters included the traditional
testing concerns of validity and reliability. Wijnants et al., also
working with the CNaVT examination, described how differential item
function (e.g., cultural bias) was addressed within the context
of an international standardized examination. Rater bias was examined
by Ross, who used Rasch analysis to determine that rater bias in
‘before’ and ‘after’ speaking tests could
have considerable effects on measures of improvement over time.
The influence of personality was the focus of Ockey’s study,
where structural equation modeling was used to measure the effect
of personality factors on scores within a group speaking test. Of
the many factors examined, higher assertiveness was found to convey
a small but significant advantage, and Ockey suggested that personality
may in fact function as part of the construct of this particular
test.
Overall, presentations provided valuable insights into a wide variety
of issues related to task-based assessment, yet opportunities for
additional research remain abundant. Although several presentations
discussed implementation of task-based assessments, the majority
of these presentations examined large-scale tests; development of
classroom and formative assessments has yet to receive the same
level of attention. Other papers raised the point that task difficulty
is still a challenging concept to operationalize in actual assessments,
which might suggest that further interaction between empirical and
theoretical domains will continue to prove profitable. Finally,
we note that the term ‘task-based assessment’ literally
asserts the primacy of ‘task’ as the basis of assessment;
it was therefore somewhat disappointing that the assessment task
was in some cases presented as little more than a prompt for eliciting
data. In order to take full advantage of the strengths of the task-based
approach, one might hope that future work will recognize the highly
contextual nature of tasks and pause to consider the question “why
this task?”
Curriculum
and TBLT
Nick Chudeau, Leon Potter
Presentations on curriculum development and innovation at the TBLT
2007 conference covered both micro and macro viewpoints as well
as diverse educational settings. The mixture of topics and approaches
suggests that the area of curriculum inquiry continues to play an
important role in TBLT. Indeed, there was a noticeable increase
in the number of curriculum-specific presentations (at least eight
papers and two poster presentations) compared with some three curriculum-specific
presentations given at TBLT 2005 conference (www.tblt.org). In addition,
this year’s TBLT conference featured a full colloquium on
“Developing a Task-based Language Program for Advanced L2
Learners: from Needs Analysis to Program Evaluation”, which
included curriculum-focused presentations. Across the curriculum-related
presentations, the aspects which seemed to be of primary interest
included curriculum design, curriculum implementation, and curriculum
as experienced (by learners and teachers).
Curriculum design was addressed in two presentations which also
focused on computer-mediated instruction. First, Hill and Tschudi
developed curriculum for conversational Chinese, drawing upon TBLT
elements such as fostering student interaction, “chunking,”
and authentic input. Additionally, this project was directed by
extensive needs analysis data as well as the gathering of actual
discourse on which to model their tasks. Along similar lines, Bañados
discussed an extensive curriculum (more than 400 hours of instruction)
designed for ESL/EFL settings in Chile and implemented through CALL
tasks and online multimedia. Elements of task-based curriculum design
included working on tasks individually and in groups, scaffolding
of information, and a focus on interesting topics (e.g., finding
information as a spy, “Lord of the Rings”). Again, these
foundational choices reflect the curriculum developers’ intent
regarding language learning via tasks. Interestingly, both presentations
emphasized approaches which would have learners interact with each
other as a key component of task-based learning, despite the technology-mediated
nature of the curricula.
Curriculum implementation was also addressed, for example, in a
class level pilot-project by Markee, who examined subject-specific
task-based learning in U.S. college ESL classes over a semester.
Hildén, by contrast, explored task-based curriculum at the
national level in Finnish public schools over a three-year implementation
period. Both of these presentations highlighted that it was necessary
for teachers to adapt to the students’ needs in the classroom,
thereby emphasizing that the implementation of task-based curriculum
should always be responsive to the actual learners.
Perhaps one of the most unique presentations addressed the implementation
of a new task-based curriculum for the specific uses of the U.S.
Border Patrol. This presentation was delivered by Burwell, Rodriguez,
González-Lloret, and Wickham and explained the challenges
of ‘taskifying’ Spanish language instruction for Border
Patrol officers. As this project is changing the teaching practices
that have been utilized for a hundred years, the resulting data
from this project will prove insightful regarding the effectiveness
of tasks for language learning. For example, the curriculum will
be applied uniformly across many classes to address the broadly
common needs of this particular law-enforcement organization. Such
uniformity can rarely be achieved in more traditional education
environments, and the findings regarding outcomes of instruction
should serve to illuminate the effectiveness of large-scale TBLT
innovation.
Several presentations addressed the curriculum as experienced,
that is, the (re)interpretation of task-based curriculum from a
teacher’s or student’s perspective. This aspect was
investigated thoroughly by Cobb and Lovick as they examined the
challenges and concerns of implementing a task-based curriculum
in the Defense Language Institute. In a similar vein, Carless presented
on some similar and some unique challenges for implementing task-based
curriculum for secondary education in Hong Kong, especially in terms
of how teachers’ perceptions dictate what is and is not feasible
for implementation. Based on their findings, both of these presentations
stressed that the strongest resistance to TBLT came from teachers,
due to: (a) lack of understanding about what constitutes task; (b)
perceived loss of classroom control; (c) misinterpretation of task-based
instructional processes by instructors; and (d) concern with the
amount of time required to prepare task-based lessons.
From these and other presentations, TBLT curriculum seems to be
growing in importance as a topic of investigation, reflecting perhaps
the core principle that TBLT is programmatic in nature (i.e., not
just the use of tasks in language classes). Clearly, however, there
are still areas in need of attention in the field. One gap is between
the curriculum as it is experienced by students and teachers, and
the curriculum as it is designed by educationalists often in response
to policies. This area is perhaps the most important for future
research, in order for “on the ground” experiences with
tasks to be able to respond to policy and inform materials/pedagogy
development. The diversity of settings for curriculum implementation
reported on at the TBLT conference 2007 is also encouraging and
informative. This trend towards diverse exploration of task-based
curricular innovation and implementation will hopefully continue
for the TBLT conference in 2009.
Attitudes
and perspectives on the implementation of TBLT
Elisa Chan, Jung Min Lee, Masaki Seo, Mi Yung Park
Within the current field of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT),
a growing area of interest is teachers’, students’,
and even administrators’ attitudes toward TBLT. Are they positive
or negative? What affects individuals’ attitudes concerning
the use of TBLT? By comparing the various perspectives represented
in the presentations at the TBLT 2007 conference, several key themes
in this area emerged. As indicated by many of the presenters, it
is important and interesting to study this area, as the level of
acceptance, comfort, and willingness to engage (i.e., attitudes)
by students, teachers, and others can be a major hurdle towards
implementation of TBLT methodological principles and approaches.
A first prominent theme focused on students who have been learning
the language via a variety of traditional approaches but are subsequently
introduced to task-based teaching. Such students initially tend
to have negative attitudes toward TBLT; however, upon using and
experiencing tasks, they may overcome their original judgments and
react more favorably towards TBLT practices. For instance, Hood,
Elwood, and Falout reported that after using TBLT in their university
EFL classes, Japanese students’ showed more preference for
TBLT over the traditional teaching methods (e.g., Grammar Translation
and Audiolingual Method). In a similar vein, Suzuki and Collins
showed that students found TBLT to be difficult, but fun as well
as valuable for their language development. Furthermore, Zannirato
reported that Ph.D. candidates in one Italian Literature department
did not feel a need to improve their Italian and were reluctant
to enroll in the task-based Italian course. However, after engaging
in cognitively demanding tasks, students found such further study
to be enlightening and useful.
A second theme addressed teachers who have not been given adequate
training or support in TBLT and are therefore inclined to hold generally
negative attitudes towards it. As Feryok explained, a group of Malaysian
secondary math and science teachers, who were not trained in TBLT
methods, were required to use a TBLT approach. This requirement
led them to lose their sense of control and to give task materials
to students with no sense of how to use them; not surprisingly,
negative views toward TBLT from teachers and students ensued. By
contrast, instructors who have a supportive TBLT system, as in Moser’s
study, reported that they enjoyed the TBLT approach. Another important
consideration is that new teachers generally have more positive
outlooks on TBLT, while established teachers tend to hold negative
views toward switching to a TBLT approach. As Cobb and Lovick discovered,
established teachers (versus the newer instructors) were not as
enthusiastic in creating tasks or using TBLT, and in some cases
even pressured the newer teachers to be less eager in their implementation
of TBLT. Lastly, attitudes toward TBLT may depend highly on the
type of institutional setting, such as private versus public. For
example, Wistner, Sakai, and Kikuchi interviewed four Japanese high
school teachers who concluded that if teachers must prepare students
for university entrance exams, they might not view TBLT as very
useful.
Though the attitudes of teachers and students were not always the
main focus of a presentation, there were many cases where their
attitudes were mentioned in passing. This prevalence suggests that
attitudes affect various aspects of TBLT, and more research is needed
that specifically investigates attitudes and reactions towards TBLT.
In addition, no studies at TBLT 2007 addressed attitudes at the
administration level or higher, such as the governmental/policy
level, signifying another potential area of exploration. By looking
at these different levels, more interest may be garnered for TBLT
teacher training and in-service support. Additionally, in order
to see more empirically-driven effects of learner attitudes on second
language acquisition and instructional outcomes, future research
should be conducted in terms of the degree to which positive attitudes
toward TBLT and self-perceptions may actually influence language
development. In closing, students commonly have positive attitudes
toward TBLT, once they become familiar with how it works in the
classroom. However, if teachers are constrained, either by exams,
lack of training, or lack of support, their attitudes toward TBLT
have a tendency to be more negative. In addition, if instructors
are already used to one method of teaching and are required to switch,
they are inclined to have unenthusiastic reactions toward TBLT,
especially without receiving sufficient assistance. Therefore, it
would seem that if teachers are provided TBLT training and in-service
help, positive attitudes toward TBLT may spread accordingly.
TBLT
and SLA: A deeper understanding
Dan Brown, John Davis, Jee Hyun Ma, Munehiko Miyata
While the educational framework of TBLT has shown success in preparing
language learners for effective target language use, questions remain
to be answered regarding how learners' interaction with/via tasks
affects second language development. Several presentations at this
year's conference approached TBLT from the perspective of second
language acquisition, illuminating several key issues in a diversity
of contexts (e.g., adult language programs, K-12 schooling, and
higher education in Europe, East-Asia, the US, and South America).
A growing body of research is clearly emerging in terms of the language
acquisition opportunities that TBLT might present for learners and
how tasks can best be used as tools to promote language learning.
Largely sharing a common theoretical grounding in cognitive approaches
to SLA, presenters explored a variety of issues situated primarily
within instructional settings. Focus on form and the role of corrective
feedback in the acquisition of L2 grammar drew considerable attention,
with presentations exploring the nature of feedback students receive
during tasks and the effectiveness of feedback type and source (Adams,
Bowles, Revesz, Toth). Learner variables, such as prior grammatical
and lexical knowledge and L2 proficiency, were shown to interact
with the efficacy of learner feedback while engaging in tasks. Other
variables that were studied included types of interaction (between
NNS-NNS and NS-NNS), and the role of the teacher during tasks. Findings
in this area suggested the importance of focusing on morphosyntactic
elements of students' output that might not otherwise be confronted
in communication of meaning with other students during task completion.
Pedagogical implications from these studies were diverse and reflected
quite distinct educational perspectives. Adams and Toth emphasized
that the teacher role in scaffolding and giving feedback on linguistic
form during the task is crucial for effective learning to take place.
Bowles emphasized considering learners’ perceptions of feedback
and other learner variables as key factors that may moderate effectiveness.
Several presentations also shed light on task-based learning and
the acquisition of vocabulary. Studies investigated the kinds of
lexical production and learning that result across different task
types, levels of task complexity, and learner proficiency levels.
Different task types were found to elicit particular kinds of vocabulary
production. For example, the degree to which new vocabulary is recalled
is related to the amount of ‘generative language use’
a task elicits, with some tasks more likely than others to induce
learners to engage in detailed analysis and discussion of a given
lexical item (Newton). Studies suggested that different kinds of
tasks will produce different rates of lexical production and ‘richness’,
an important indicator for lexical learning (Schmitt), and that
learners at different proficiency levels will vary in lexical output
based on the kind of task undertaken (Huang). Finally, task complexity
affects vocabulary learning in important ways. Narrative task complexity,
for example, affects learner interaction and ‘learning opportunities’;
that is, task complexity will determine the degree to which learners
use recasts, clarification requests or metalinguistic talk during
task discourse (Kim). Overall, papers contributed to an increased
understanding of lexical learning within a TBLT framework, particularly
the extent to which various dimensions of a given task help or hinder
vocabulary acquisition.
Robinson's Cognition Hypothesis was put to the test in quite a
few papers, with particular emphasis on the effects of task type
(task complexity and task conditions) on learners’ oral language
output. Choong and Han explored the relationship between task complexity
and output complexity, and they claimed the need for differentiating
between content complexity and form complexity, thus problematizing
Robinson’s conceptualization of task complexity. Michel et
al. showed that increased task complexity led to positive effects
on accuracy and lexical complexity, while interactivity resulted
in higher accuracy and fluency but lower linguistic complexity.
Van Daele et al. showed the effects of planning time on language
output from long- as well as short-term perspectives.
The cognitive paradigm of conceptualizing language learning within
TBLT did not go unchallenged. Some presenters argued that the current
TBLT cognitive theorizations do not explain certain socio-cultural/language-use
aspects of language learning during task interactions. Jaespert's
paper, for example, argued for this position, showing how varying
frequency/learning of certain Dutch grammatical morphemes could
not be accounted for by any cognitive model. In addition, though,
it may be that more work needs to be done in order to more fully
understand how cognitive variables (and theories) interact with
task-based learning. Peter Robinson and Peter Skehan’s cognitive
paradigms are informative places to start, though much remains unknown.
Work from other cognitive theories such as connectionism, emergentism,
and constructivism might help shed light on other relevant cognitive
aspects of task-based language learning. It will also be informative
to explore how TBLT stimulates acquisition in other areas of language
use, such as genre-specific skills in discourse management or pragmatics.
Overall, it is encouraging to see that presentations on SLA-TBLT
focused on a diversity of contexts, including several languages
(Dutch, French, Spanish, etc.) other than English. While the majority
of studies directly related to SLA focused on oral communication
tasks, there was some attention given to diverse modalities (Koestner,
Loucky, D. Schmitt, Vatz, Vongpumivtch). Finally, though there were
few longitudinal studies on SLA within the TBLT framework this year
(one exception was Van Daele, et al.), we are looking forward to
seeing more longitudinal studies examining learners’ language
developmental processes from diverse perspectives (e.g., including
potentially socio-cultural approaches) in TBLT education by the
2009 conference.
Incorporating
technology into TBLT
Samtha Ng, Jason Sung
Presentations on TBLT and technology at the 2007 conference were
informative and insightful, particularly because both TBLT and technology
on their own (and of course as a package) are relatively new (and
rapidly developing) fields in language education. These presentations
leverage on state-of-the-art research, cutting-edge practice and
delivery, and the information distilled to date to give us a much
clearer idea as to how TBLT can be used through, and with the help
of, technology. What has also emerged is how popular the use of
technology is, not only in relation to TBLT, but also how it has
caught the eye of both learners and scholars in the field. There
are challenges to be sure, but also plenty of advantages in utilizing
technology to deliver language courses, whether in part or in whole,
and whether synchronously or otherwise. Such advantages include
a reduction in spatial and time limitations, as well as the possibility
of on-demand access suiting the needs of many adult learners. Presentations
also successfully showed how the use of technology might help tasks
and TBLT become more real and interesting to language learners.
The incorporation of technology into TBLT can be a difficult process
due to the nature of tasks. In TBLT, language skills are acquired
by “doing” an activity or “task”; therefore,
how the interaction and the ‘reality’ of task-doing
can be created online is a crucial aspect of technology-mediated
TBLT courses. Along these lines, Bañados provided an excellent
example of how technology could be incorporated into TBLT. One of
the salient advantages of technology is that it can provide a variety
of visual inputs and create a virtual ‘real-world’ environment.
The software that Bañados presented took full advantage of
technology in this aspect; each task, regardless of its type, was
designed with numerous multimedia files to create a simulated real-world
environment that is impossible to replicate in traditional chalkboard
classroom settings.
Another exemplary approach to technology-mediated TBLT was created
by Zhang-Hill and Tschudi. Unlike the software that Bañados
presented, their course was created with just $3,000, by incorporating
free software (such as Google Earth) to provide the multimedia settings.
In contrast to the notion that the adoption of technology or the
development of software always necessitates plush funds, their work
evidences an alternative way of providing a task-based course online.
Rich multimedia inputs and multiple tasks are, of course, useless
unless learners are able to access them, or at the very least, know
how to. Tuzi elaborated on the issues related to offering technology-based
TBLT courses, proposing the fundamental need to investigate the
technological limitations learners face such as internet accessibility,
computer skills, and even funding. For example, some of the students
in his class did not know what are generally considered basic terms
on the keyboard, such as “tab” or “enter”,
something that many students and teachers might take for granted.
Fancy technology can, however, alter the course so that it deviates
from TBLT principles. To prevent such deviations, TBLT instructors
should be faithful to the process of TBLT and base the course on
the theoretical constructs and principled approaches of TBLT. Loucky’s
presentation, like Hill and Tschudi’s, provided a clear guide
on how to offer an online task-based course. In both presentations,
TBLT principles prevailed, such as incorporating a needs analysis
and following pre-task, during-task, and post-task procedures, and
use of task-based assessments, all key aspects that were not as
salient in other presentations. These presenters clearly showed
how to implement TBLT principles within technology-mediated environments.
Aloesnita and Adams reported on an offline technology-related experiment
where English was taught to engineering students in Malaysia in
order to raise their communication skills in text chat format. The
medium of text chat was chosen because those particular students
had to help their clients resolve technological problems through
text chat or e-mail. The hypothesis of the experiment was that the
group that was exposed to language support such as modeling and
grammar explanation on certain areas would produce fewer errors
during the text-chat communication, but the result was at least
partially controversial. The group that received language support
made more errors overall, although they did make fewer errors in
the areas where they received the language support. Finding out
the reasons why will be the next step of their study.
Based on these and similar presentations, areas for further attention
in technology-mediated TBLT might include what types of tasks are
better (in which situations and under what conditions) and why,
insofar as the use of technology is concerned. The field is definitely
still under development, with considerable interest still paid to
demonstrating the potential of programs and software, and less to
the process of applying theory to practice, or investigating and
understanding how certain instructional (including technological)
conclusions may be drawn. Perhaps the seeming predilection to create
sophisticated (expensive and time-consuming) software has resulted
in less attention as yet to core TBLT principles. Meanwhile, people
popping up on the screen, showing actual pictures of buildings,
and mapping out real streets using Google Earth, for example, are
all good ideas, though potentially very taxing (especially time-
and cost-wise) to actually create or implement.