Task-Based Language Teaching In

7/31/2019 Task-Based Language Teaching In

1/23

Task-Based Language Teaching in

Online Ab Initio Foreign LanguageClassroomsCHUN LAI325 Hui Oi ChowScience BuildingFaculty of EducationUniversity of Hong KongPokfulam Road, Hong KongEmail: [email protected]

YONG ZHAOEducation 1701215 University of OregonEugene, Oregon, 97403-1215Email: [email protected]

JIAWEN WANGReno Hall 207University of Detroit Mercy4001 W. McNichols RoadDetroit, MI 48221-3038Email: [email protected]

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been attracting the attention of researchers for morethan 2 decades. Research on various aspects of TBLT has been accumulating, including theevaluation studies on the implementation of TBLT in classrooms. The evaluation studies onstudents and teachers reactions to TBLT in the online courses are starting to gain momentum,and this study adds to this line of research by enhancing our understanding of the implemen-tation of TBLT in an online ab initio course. This study investigated the implementation ofa TBLT syllabus in an ab initio online Chinese as foreign language course over a semester.Surveys and interviews with the students and the instructors revealed that students reactedpositively to the online TBLT experience, and analyses of students performance at the end ofthe semester suggested that this pedagogy produced good learning outcomes. This study also

identified some challenges and advantages of the online context for TBLT.

TASKBASED LANGUAGE TEACHING (TBLT)has been attracting the attention of researchersand language educators since Prabhu (1987) firstproposed and experimented with task-based ap-proaches in secondary school classrooms. Theessence of TBLT is that communicative tasks serveas the basic units of the curriculum and are the

sole elements in the pedagogical cycle in whichprimacy is given to meaning. TBLT presents away to realize communicative language teach-ing at the syllabus design and methodology level(Littlewood, 2004; Nunan, 2004; Richards, 2005).

Acknowledging the different approaches to taskdefinition, Samuda and Bygate (2008) define apedagogical task as a holistic activity which en-gages language use in order to achieve somenonlinguistic outcomes while meeting a linguis-

The Modern Language Journal, 95, Supplementary Issue,(2011)DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01271.x0026-7902/11/81103 $1.50/0C2012 The Modern Language Journal

tic challenge, with the overall aim of promotinglanguage learning, through process or productor both (p. 69). There has been a large volumeof research on the nature of different tasks and on

ways to sequence tasks (Bygate, Skehan & Swain,2001; Robinson, 2005; Samuda, 2001; Skehan,2001; Willis & Willis, 2007). Research has also

been carried out to understand the cognitive pro-cessing involved in, and learners perceptions of,task implementation (Ellis, 2005; Gulden, Julide,& Yumru, 2007; Kumaravadivelu, 2007). The rapidaccumulation of literature has greatly enhancedour understanding of pedagogical tasks and TBLTsyllabus design.

At the same time, researchers have stressed theneed for TBLT to be road-tested (Klapper, 2003)and are urging for more classroom-based TBLTresearch in different social contexts and differ-ent classroom settings to shed light on tasks in ac-tion and the various issues surrounding the imple-mentation of TBLT in different contexts (Carless,2007; Ortega, 2007; Seedhouse, 1999; Van denBranden, 2006). Although classroom implemen-tation of TBLT is gaining momentum and has


2/23

82 The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)

been conducted in quite a variety of social andinstructional contexts (Leaver & Willis, 2004;Littlewood, 2007; Van den Branden, Van Gorp &

Verhelst, 2006), TBLT in the online ab initio for-eign language classroom context is still rarelytrodden territory (Duran & Ramaut, 2006). Un-

derstanding this particular instructional contextis of great interest as more and more K12 on-line foreign language programs are being set upto meet the increasing demands for foreign lan-guage learning in this sector. This study intendsto fill the gap in the current TBLT literature bypresenting a semester-long experimentation withTBLT in ab initio online Chinese as foreign lan-guage (CFL) classrooms, examining students andteachers reactions to it and discussing the issuesinvolved in its implementation in this particularcontext.

RESEARCH BACKGROUND

TBLT in Classrooms

Over the past decade, TBLT has become thetopdown curriculum mandate at national or re-gional level in quite a few places, such as HongKong, Malaysia, Mainland China, and Flandersin Belgium (Carless, 2008; Mustafa, 2008; Vanden Branden, 2006; Zhang, 2007). At the same

time, however, scholars and researchers are chal-lenging the applicability of TBLT in K12 foreignlanguage contexts (Bruton, 2005; Klapper, 2003).Thus, how well TBLT works in various K12 con-texts, and what challenges practitioners might en-counter when implementing TBLT in their class-rooms have become pressing research issues.

Studies exploring the potential of TBLT in var-ious classrooms have presented positive studentperceptions and learning outcomes. Ruso (2007)conducted an action research study on the im-

plementation of TBLT in two first-year university-level English classes at an Eastern MediterraneanUniversity and reported positive perceptions andincreased participation from the students as wellas enhanced rapport between the students andteachers. Lee (2005) experimented with TBLTin a vocational high school in Taiwan over onesemester and came to a similar conclusion ofpositive perceptions and enjoyment. Further, shefound that TBLT improved students self-esteem,creativity, social skills, and personal relations.

McDonough and Chaikitmongkol (2007) piloteda TBLT course with learning strategy trainingmodules in a Thai University and found that thelearners not only enjoyed the course, but also werebecoming more independent learners. Demir

(2008) found that the implementation of 10 read-ing tasks in two preparatory reading classes at auniversity in Turkey resulted in learners develop-ing the skills of learning on their own and becom-ing autonomous in the reading process. Leaverand Kaplan (2004) came to the same conclusion

when analyzing the TBLT courses at the DefenseLanguage Institute and the Foreign Service Insti-tute in the United States: They found that TBLTpromoted learning how to learn and encouragedrisk taking among the students. They further ob-served that the TBLT courses had a lower attri-tion rate and higher performance scores thanany ever achieved in their language programs. Aquasi-experimental classroom study in Iran pro-

vided further evidence of the capacity of TBLTto promote positive language learning outcomes(Rahimpour, 2008). This comparative study oftwo groups of intermediate-level English as a for-eign language (EFL) learners over one semesterfound that the group that followed a TBLT syl-labus demonstrated greater fluency and complex-ity in their oral performance in story telling tasksthan the group that followed a structural syllabus.

However, in the meantime studies investigat-ing the implementation of TBLT by classroomteachers have raised a note of caution con-cerning the classroom implementation of TBLTin a few sociocultural contexts (Bruton, 2005;

Burrows, 2008; Littlewood, 2007). Burrows (2008)pointed out that the sociocultural realities of the

Japanese context and the passive learning style ofthe Japanese students as well as their over-relianceon the teacher collectively weakened the imple-mentation of TBLT in this particular context.Carless (2002, 2003) found that teachers teach-ing beliefs, the proficiency levels of the students,and the sociocultural realities of Hong Kong pri-mary schools collectively contributed to teacherstransforming TBLT into task-supported teaching.

Similar factors were identified in the Korea andMalaysia contexts (Li, 1998; Mustafa, 2008).

In particular, the following classroom factorshave been identified to challenge classroom-based TBLT in K12 contexts: (a) crowded andcramped classrooms creating discipline issueseveryone in the class starting to talk at the sametime inevitably brought uncontrollable and un-

welcome noises (Bruton, 2005; Carless, 2004,2007; Li, 1998), and mixed proficiencies in theclassroom made quicker students bored with hav-

ing nothing to do while slower students struggledto complete the tasks (Mustafa, 2008); (b) stu-dents of different proficiency levels demonstrat-ing unbalanced involvement and contributionsstudents with higher language proficiency


3/23

Chun Lai, Yong Zhao, and Jiawen Wang 83

benefited more from doing tasks (Carless, 2002,2003; Tseng, 2006), whereas students with lowerlanguage proficiency and with shy personalitiesbecame frustrated at this taxing approach tolearning (Burrows, 2008; Karavas-Doukas, 1995;Li, 1998); (c) in many cases, students avoiding

the use of the target language in fulfilling thecommunicative tasks (Carless, 2008; Littlewood,2007); and (d) students suffering from anxietyover the freedom they were given in the TBLTapproach (Burrows, 2008; Lopes, 2004). Stu-dents perceived slow learning progress (Leaver &Kaplan, 2004; Lopes, 2004;) and held negativeperception towards too little grammar (Lopes,2004; McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2008).

The above classroom studies have revealed thepotential benefits of TBLT in classrooms and havealso shed light on the challenges language teach-ers might encounter when implementing TBLT intheir face-to-face classrooms. Given the differentnatures of face-to-face and online teaching, wouldthe potential of TBLT hold true in the onlineteaching context, and what issues, similar or dif-ferent, would emerge when implementing TBLTin this instructional context?

TBLT in Online Classrooms

There has been a large volume of research on

learner performance of communicative tasks insynchronous computer-mediated communicationenvironments that attest to the interaction-relatedbenefits of performing tasks in a text-based on-line chatting environment (see Ortega, 2009, fora detailed review). There have also been longi-tudinal studies on TBLT as extracurricular activi-ties or projects for learners of different ages, andthese studies presented evidence that learners in-corporated input from their interlocutors (Smith,2009), and that such incorporation had a lasting

impact on subsequent L2 use (Gonzalez-Lloret,2008). Although these studies were conducted ei-ther as lab sessions or extracurricular activities re-lated to face-to-face classrooms, the positive find-ings did suggest the potential of implementingTBLT in the online learning context. Researchershave just started to investigate the implementa-tion of TBLT in purely online courses, determin-ing students reactions and unraveling how theonline context constrains or mediates its imple-mentation (Hampel, 2006; Sole & Mardomingo,

2004).Hampel and Hauck (2004) reported an ex-ploratory study in an advanced-level onlineGerman course. This course was run in an asyn-chronous fashion with self-study materials and

discussion forums. For the sake of the study,they added two whole-group (15 students) syn-chronous TBLT tutorials in an audiographic con-ferencing system, and their research findings werebased on these two 75-minute tutorials. Althoughthe learners expressed overall satisfaction with

the tasks, the tutors reported that learners werereluctant to speak and participate in the tasksand that in some cases the tasks suffered fromdwindling participation. To achieve better learn-ing outcomes, they suggested that tasks neededto be designed in such a fashion that they canbe finished in a single tutorial and require lesspreparation, and that more support in the learn-ing process needs to be given to weaker students.Hampel (2006) reported another study on anintermediate-level online German course. In thiscourse, in addition to engaging in self-study of thecourse materials and interacting with the instruc-tor and peers asynchronously, the students weregiven options to attend a series of voluntary tasktutorials throughout the semester. The tutors re-ported the tasks to be quite successful, but theyalso observed fluctuating participation and reluc-tant participation on the part of weaker students.Furthermore, they commented on the difficultyof classroom management due to the lack of par-alinguistic cues and the danger of tasks becomingmore tutor centered with small groups.

The above two studies examined learners withan intermediate level of language proficiency andabove, which makes one wonder whether the sameparadigm could be used on beginner learners,ab initio learners in particular. Although Duranand Ramaut (2006) and Rosell-Aguilar (2005) ex-plored the issues related to the design of tasks foronline beginner learners, little data is availableon the actual implementation of TBLT in suchclassrooms.

This study intends to fill the gap in the current

literature by examining online ab initio learnersreactions to TBLT and the issues that emergedfrom the implementation of TBLT in this instruc-tional context.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study examined the implementation ofTBLT in the context of online ab initio foreignlanguage classrooms. Specifically, two questions

were addressed:

1. What are online ab initio learners andteachers reactions to TBLT?

2. What issues emerge from the implementa-tion of TBLT in an online ab initio context?


4/23


CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

Instructional Context

The current study was carried out in the on-line ab initio Chinese courses offered at a pub-lic virtual high school in the United States.

The online courses had both asynchronousand synchronous components. The asynchronouscomponents included student self-study of thee-textbook, additional online learning resources(such as Chinese podcasts, Chinese characterlearning software, and online Chinese dictionary)and weekly language and culture assignments.There were also asynchronous means of com-munication, such as discussion forums and mes-sage centers, which students could use to connect

with their classmates and their instructor. All the

learning materials and asynchronous communi-cation tools were hosted in the course manage-ment system, Blackboard (see Appendix A for asnapshot of the course). The e-textbook used inthis course was Chengo Chinese (a sample unit:http://www.elanguage.cn/episode02cut/), an in-teractive courseware collaboratively developed bythe U.S. Department of Education and ChinaMinistry of Education. This was the only onlineChinese e-textbook for beginners available at thetime of the study. The e-textbook was organized

around the story of an American students sum-mer camp experience in China and followed a se-quence of modelpracticeapplicationgame foreach unit. The weekly language and culture as-signments included one or two individual lan-guage assignments (e.g., recording oral responsesto complete a dialogue; writing a short essay tointroduce their family), discussions on given cul-tural topics, and self-reflections on each weekslearning progress and process. The instructorgave written feedback on students language as-signments in the grade center and monitoredtheir cultural discussions. Students could leavemessages for each other and for their instructor inthe message center and were encouraged to com-ment on one anothers postings in the discussionforums.

In addition to the learning and interactionin the asynchronous course management system,the students were required to attend one 1-hoursmall group (35 students) synchronous session

with their instructor each week. The purpose ofthe synchronous sessions was to give the online

students a chance to meet with their instruc-tor and classmates weekly for online instruction.

At the beginning of the semester, students wereinstructed to make a selection from the given

list of potential timeslots for synchronous ses-sions, and the teacher assigned them into smallgroups (35 members each) based on their se-lection. Once the student had been assigned toa group, he or she was to stay with the teamthroughout the semester. The synchronous ses-

sions were conducted through a conferencing sys-tem, Adobe Connect. This conferencing systemallowed text- and audio-chat,1 and had a docu-ment sharing function that enabled the instruc-tors and students to share documents and makeannotations on the documents on the go (see

Appendix A for a snapshot of the conferencingsystem).

Prior to the study, the online ab initio Chi-nese course had been running in this virtual highschool for two years. The synchronous sessions

were usually run in the fashion of didactic teach-ing and structured practice of linguistic items viathe typical InitiationResponseEvaluation (IRE)classroom discourse pattern. In 2007, in the lightof the encouraging research evidence that TBLTbrings about better learning outcomes in foreignlanguage classrooms than traditional approaches(Lever & Kaplan, 2004; Rahimpour, 2008), theresearchers introduced a TBLT syllabus to imple-ment in this course during the synchronous ses-sions. This TBLT syllabus was implemented in halfof the online ab initio Chinese classes, while the

other half of the ab initio classes followed the syl-labus used in the past.

The Task Syllabus

Since we did not have the capacity to design anddevelop a TBLT e-textbook, we kept Chengo Chi-nese as the e-textbook for the course, but designeda TBLT syllabus to use during the synchronoussessions. The tasks in the TBLT syllabus were con-structed to expand the topic of each unit in thee-textbook. For example, the first unit of the e-textbook was a conversation between a teacherand her students on the first day of a class, in

which they greeted each other and introducedtheir names. Two tasks with associated pre- andpost- activities were designed to expand it throughengaging students in introducing academic infor-mation as well as previous educational experience(see Appendix B for the task design and the align-ment of TBLT syllabus with the e-textbook). Inthis course, students were usually given two weeks

to finish one unit in the e-textbook. Thus, twoTBLT sessions were designed to go with each unit,and altogether, 12 1-hour TBLT sessions were de-signed and implemented.2


5/23


The synchronous sessions followed a pre-task,during-task and post-task cycle (Ellis, 2003; Willis,1996). Following Williss suggestion for conduct-ing TBLT for beginners, the cycle adopted a rel-atively longer pre-task phase and a shorter taskphase with the planning and reporting stages

omitted. Considering the fact that the target pop-ulation comprised absolute beginners of Chinese,the pre-task phase focused on linguistic prepa-ration and consisted of an array of activitiessuggested by Ellis (2003, 2006)in some casesstudents were guided and supported in perform-ing a task similar to the one they would per-form in the task phase (Prabhu, 1987); in somecases, they were provided with a model of thetask with meaning-oriented activities around it(Ellis, 2006); in other cases, there were a se-ries of vocabulary-targeted activities that were de-signed to prepare the learners to perform thetask (Willis, 1996). These pre-tasks were mainlyinput-based tasks or activities aimed at familiar-izing the students with the language needed forthe main task. The task phase consisted of oneor two output-based tasks that were designed toengage learners in working together and usingresources available to achieve some sort of out-come. During this phase, the instructors eithertook a facilitative role or a participatory roledepending on the size of the group. The tasks

were sequenced in the light of Elliss (2003) taskcomplexity grading criteria (e.g., from written tooral, from few elements/relationships to manyelements/relationships, from dialogic to mono-logic). As for the post-task phase,3 repeat perfor-mance was usually designed to increase complex-ity and fluency (Ellis, 2003).

During the implementation, the instructors re-viewed the tasks for the coming week togetherwith the researchers and worked collaborativelyto modify the tasks, when needed, in ways that

were more appropriate for their students (e.g.,changing the destination of an imaginary trip tomake sure that every student knew the place).

METHOD

Participants

Thirty eight students from the ab initio classesthat adopted the TBLT syllabus during their syn-chronous sessions volunteered to participate inthis study. The participants were all monolin-gual Anglo-American high school students. Theyranged from 13 to 18 years old (the average age

was 16). There were 18 males and 20 females.76% of the students had prior foreign languagelearning experience, and 35% had studied two or

more foreign languages before. Exactly 88% ofthe students had never taken any kind of onlinecourses, and 97% had never taken an online for-eign language (FL) course. Students who missedmore than one third of the virtual meetings andthose who had any prior exposure to Chinese in

an instructional context were excluded.The four instructors who were teaching theTBLT classes ranged from 22 to 25 years old.Three were female and one was male. Two of theinstructors had previous classroom foreign lan-guage teaching experience. None of them hadtaught online classes before, and none of themhad experimented with TBLT before. Aware that

working with novice teachers was quite risky andmight distort the way the TBLT syllabus was ac-tually implemented in the classroom, measures

were taken to minimize this potential threat: theteachers were given intensive workshops on TBLTbefore the start of the semester and weekly debriefsessions with the researchers to discuss the designof the task cycle for the coming week and trou-bleshoot the problems they encountered duringteaching.

We initiated the TBLT syllabus during the syn-chronous sessions in the online ab initio Chinesecourse believing that it could help enhance stu-dents communicative abilities. To check whetherthis expectation held, we included the perfor-

mance data of the control group of students fromthe other half of the ab initio Chinese coursethat did not implement the TBLT syllabus. Thiscontrol group consisted of 36 students of similarprofiles4 and the only difference between thesetwo groups was the syllabus adopted during thesynchronous sessions.

Data Collection

The study drew mainly on both learners and

teachers self-report data supplemented by learn-ers performance data to shed light on studentsand teachers reactions to TBLT as well as theissues that emerged from the implementation ofTBLT in this particular context. Six sources of data

were analyzed and triangulated to answer the tworesearch questions.

Background Survey. At the beginning of thesemester, a student background survey was ad-ministered to the students in all the online abinitio Chinese classes. This background survey col-

lected basic demographic information as well asstudents previous foreign language learning andonline learning experience.

Weekly Reflection Blog Entries. During thesemester, the students were required to write


6/23


self-reflection blogs each week as part of theirweekly assignments to reflect on their learning ex-perience during the week. For each weeks reflec-tion blog, they were encouraged to talk about how

well they had done and what they had learned, thechallenges they had encountered, the strategies

they wanted to share with their classmates, and soon.

Class Observations and Recorded SynchronousSessions. The researchers carried out weekly ob-servations of one randomly selected session ofeach TBLT teacher and took field notes. All theteachers in the online ab initio Chinese course

were asked to record their teaching sessions eachweek using the recording function within thevideo conferencing system. The recording cap-tured every movement on the screen as well as

all the aural and written interaction between theteacher and the students and among the stu-dents. Thus, the recording provided minute-by-minute replay of what was going on during thesynchronous sessions.

Course Evaluation. The course evaluation con-sisted of three Likert scale questions (on a scale of1 to 7) on their enjoyment of the course and per-ceived learning and four open-ended questionseliciting the aspects of the synchronous sessionsthat they liked and disliked, their perceptions of

the synchronous sessions, and their intentionsconcerning whether or not they would continueto take the course in the coming semester. Thecourse evaluation items were posted as one oftheir assignments for the last week of the semesterand the learners completed the course evaluationin English.

Recording of Students Oral Production WhenPerforming a Descriptive Task during the FinalExam. The final exam was done in a one-on-onefashion, where each student was given an examslot, and he/she logged into the conferencingsystem alone to meet with the instructor. A mono-logic picture description task5 was used to elicitstudents oral performance, and the students wereasked to describe the picture orally. The sameexam was given to the students in all the online abinitio Chinese classes, and the performance of allthe students during the final exam was recordedusing the recording function in the conferencingsystem.

Weekly Debrief and End-of-Semester Interview Withthe Teachers. The TBLT teachers met with the re-searchers every week to talk about their generalfeelings about the weeks teaching and the chal-lenges and/or the problems they had encoun-

tered, and to preview and comment on the tasks tobe used in the coming week. The TBLT teachers

were also interviewed at the end of the semesterto obtain their reflections on their overall TBLTteaching experience during the semester.

The majority of the data described above came

from the students and teachers in the TBLT class-rooms. The only two sources where the studentsin the control classrooms were included were thebackground survey and students performance inthe oral task in the final exam. The control stu-dents oral performance was included because itenabled us to view the TBLT students learningoutcomes in the light of the students who hadnot experienced TBLT in their synchronous ses-sions. This comparative view helped us to evaluate

whether TBLT in the online ab initio FL class-rooms had done a good job in enhancing stu-dents communicative capacity, the intention thatdrove the implementation of these pilot classes inthe first place. We did not collect other data fromthe control classrooms because the focus of thisstudy was not to test the relative effectiveness ofthese two teaching methods, but rather to evalu-ate and inform the implementation of TBLT inan online ab initio FL instructional context.

Data Analysis

The data for the study was largely qualitativein nature and consisted of students weekly self-reflection blogs, students course evaluation, re-searchers classroom observation notes, the min-utes of the weekly debrief meetings with theteachers, and the teachers end-of-semester in-terview data. An inductive approach was adoptedto discover the issues that emerged from the en-tire corpus. Ad hoc transcribing and analyses ofthe recorded synchronous sessions were also con-ducted when they were called for to shed further

light into the issues identified. The recordings ofstudents performance in the oral descriptive task

were transcribed and coded on their fluency, com-plexity and accuracy. Statistical analysis was con-ducted between the TBLT and control classes.

To answer the research question concerningstudents and teachers reactions to TBLT, qualita-tive analysis of students and teachers perceptionsand class performance throughout the semester

was conducted, supplemented with a quantitativeanalysis of the fluency, complexity, and accuracy

of students oral performance in the descriptivetask. Students course evaluations and teachersinterviews served as the primary data to obtain aglimpse into their overall perceptions of the TBLTexperience. Students weekly reflection entries


7/23


throughout the semester were traced for changesin their perceptions of, or the lack thereof, ofTBLT over time.

Students learning outcomes were analyzed toshed light on the learning outcomes of the ex-perience. The recordings of the oral descrip-

tive task performance of students in both TBLTclassrooms and control classrooms were tran-scribed and double-checked by the researchers.Then the transcribed oral data were coded onthree measures: fluency, accuracy, and complex-ity. Fluency was measured in terms of meaningful

words6/minute (Mochizuki & Ortega, 2008; Yuan& Ellis, 2003). The transcripts were pruned bydeleting the instructors prompts along with thefirst language (L1) conversation with the instruc-tor, and thus the time was the total time length ofthe pruned performance. Accuracy was measuredin terms of error-free clauses (the percentage ofclauses that did not contain any error [Yuan &Ellis, 2003, p. 13]). Syntactic complexity was mea-sured by the mean length of T-units.7 T-tests wereconducted on the three measures of oral produc-tion between students in the TBLT classrooms andthose in the control classrooms.

To answer the second research question con-cerning the issues emerging from implementingTBLT in an online ab initio context, TBLT stu-dents reflection blogs and the minutes of the

weekly debrief meetings with the instructors aswell as the end-of-semester interviews with theteachers were analyzed to induce the generalthemes of the challenges that students and teach-ers had encountered as well as the potential thatthe online context might have to facilitate TBLT.Students and teachers data were triangulated

with the researchers observation notes to providea more comprehensive picture.

RESULTSWhat Were Students and Teachers Reactionsto TBLT?

Both students and teachers overall percep-tions of their TBLT experience and the studentsoral language performance at the end of thesemester suggested that the majority of the stu-dents and teachers in the online ab initio Chineseclasses reacted positively to TBLT. Analysis of thedata revealed the following issues: 1) students and

teachers expressed overall satisfaction with TBLT;2) TBLT brought about progressive changes inapproaches to learning; 3) TBLT had differen-tial effects on learners; 4) students lacked the ap-propriate attitudes and strategies for TBLT; and

5) the features of the technological platform werecrucial to the effects of TBLT.

Overall Satisfaction with TBLT

At the end of the semester, students rated their

enjoyment of the course positively (5.64 on a scaleof 7) and expressed satisfaction with the amountof learning of the class (5.33 on a scale of 7).

As much as 83% of the students retained theirinterest in learning Chinese and expressed wishto continue learning Chinese, either in the nextsemester or in the near future when schedulesallow. When checking student enrollment in thefollowing semester, we found that 56% of the stu-dents actually came back to the next level onlineChinese class.

Some students enjoyed the novelty of the TBLTlearning experience: I like the atmosphere of theexperience, and I like the tasks a lot because it isa little bit different from how I am used to learn-ing. Others liked its student-centered nature: Ilike the tasks in class because they are challeng-ing and allow us to mess up and learn from ourmistakes, which is very helpful.

The majority of the students expressed greatsatisfaction with the amount of learning theyachieved through the TBLT synchronous sessions:Its actually pretty impressive the amount of the

language that we did learn and that I have pickedup on; I have learned more from this onesemester than I think I have learned from allmy years of Spanish; This course as a whole

was probably the best course Ive taken and Ivelearned the most; and My views on the virtualmeetings were that they were fast paced but good.Intense, but you came out feeling like you learneda lot. They also felt that they could apply whatthey had learned in the TBLT classrooms to real-life scenarios: I felt like I learned things suffi-

ciently enough to be able to use it in the realworld. More importantly, students appreciatedthe fact that they were learning via doing andspeaking: I like the fact that we get to practicespeaking and learn by speaking with others in theclass; I learned a lot of grammar and languagefrom the hands on speaking and learning; andIn this class, I enjoyed all of the group activi-ties, that required everyone to work and conversetogether to complete the given assignment. Ofcourse, during the process, we would be learning

and applying new diction and syntax.This perceived learning corresponded withtheir oral performance in the final exam (see

Appendix C for samples of their language pro-duction). At the end of the semester (12 1-hour


8/23


TABLE 1Oral Language Production of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) Classrooms vs. Control Classrooms

Condition Mean SD T Sig. Cohens D

Fluency TBLT 15.93 6.93 2.46 0.006 0.70Control 11.93 4.33

Syntactic Complexity TBLT 5.86 1.62 1.98 0.748 0.07Control 5.76 1.11

Accuracy TBLT 0.41 0.33 2.09 0.67 0.09Control 0.38 0.28

TBLT sessions in total), the students in theTBLT classrooms produced an average of 15.93meaningful words per minute and 5.86 words perT-units, with 41% of the clauses they producederror-free. To make sense of these data, wecompared their performance with the perfor-mance of students in the control classrooms.

We found that students in the TBLT classroomsdemonstrated significantly higher fluency inlanguage production than their counterparts inthe control classrooms8 (T = 2.46, p = 0.006, d= 0.70), as was found in other studies of TBLT(Liu, 2008; Rahimpour, 2008), and there was nosignificant difference in the syntactic complexityand accuracy of the language production betweenthe two groups. Table 1

The data from interviews with the teachers re-vealed that the teachers not only perceived TBLT

positively, but also believed that TBLT helped fos-ter good learning habits and autonomy amongthe students. One instructor commented:

Once they become familiar with this teaching pat-tern, they know that they need to pay attention tothe language input and try to pick out the languagethey dont know, but they need to know to completethe task. Then they have a desire for the new lan-guage. They become active learners to explore lan-guage meaning and forms.

Their observations about the TBLTs potential to

foster autonomy was in line with Demirs (2008)study, which found that TBLT experience helpedEFL learners become autonomous in the readingprocess.

Progressions of Perception

The analysis of students weekly self-reflectionblog entries across the 12 weeks revealed thatsome students went through a shift in mindset. Inthe following example, the student, as reflected in

his self-reflection entries over time, demonstrateda shift from being totally reliant on the instruc-tor for explicit instructions, to taking more andmore initiatives and responsibilities in learning onhis own:

In week 9, the student expressed an explicitrequest for grammar instruction when he realizedthat he had trouble constructing sentences: I amnot having any trouble pronouncing words; how-ever, Im not very good at constructing sentences.Id like it if we got some specific information onhow to make sentences and the specifics of

sentence structure, i.e., some grammar.In week 11, he started to demonstrate a shift in

his thinking, urging himself to take more respon-sibility in actively figuring out the grammaticalrules through self-discovery:

This week I learned numbers and addition in Chi-nese. I also learned how to describe someone in apicture to pick them out of a group. We also wentinto more depth traveling and expenses. I can alsonumber things off like 5 computers (wu ge dian-nao). I am having trouble with when to add and what

unit words like ge. I will try looking at more examplesand findings patterns to use the right unit word.

His self-reflection entry in week 15 showed thathe had come to internalizing the concept of inde-pendent learning: This week, I added some new

words to my vocabulary such as squirrel and mush-room. I also learned how to say something has acertain amount of something. Lastly, I learnedhow to say there isnt something in a room.I still have trouble deducing sentence structure,

but I think Im improving. Chinese is really cool.Encouraging as this potential was, such a pro-gressive change of perceptions did not stand outas a general theme in students self-reflection en-tries over time. It could be that some of them

went through similar changes, but just did notmake a note of it during their reflection blogs. Itcould also be that TBLT had differentiated effectson students, and could only induce such changesamong only a few students.

Differential Effects of TBLT

An in-depth look at TBLT students perfor-mance in the final exam oral task revealed thatthere was a great variation in their fluency inlanguage production (see Figure 1).


9/23


FIGURE 1Variation in Students Oral Performance

MeaningfulWordperMinute

Condition

Control Classes TBLT Classes

From the boxplots we can see that the studentsin the TBLT classes seemed to be more divergentin the fluency of oral production than the stu-dents in the control classes. There were several

extreme cases, even two outlier cases, in the TBLTgroup: Several demonstrated extremely high flu-ency, while two demonstrated extremely low flu-ency. In the field notes of classroom observations,the researchers also noted the increasing differ-ence in students performance when working to-gether on tasks.

To get a better idea of the differentiated im-pact that TBLT had on ab initio students, wetraced the self-reflection blogs of two extremecases (case 56, who demonstrated extremely highfluency and case 60, who demonstrated extremelylow fluency). Both case 56 and 60 were taught bythe same teacher and had similar prior foreignlanguage learning experience (Case 56 had stud-ied French intensively and touched upon Spanishand Hebrew; Case 60 had studied French for 3

years). Both categorized themselves as successfullearners (Case 60: I was fairly successful. I got an

A all three years), but one important differencestood out in their background dataautonomouslearning skills. Case 56 sounded like a very au-tonomous learner: Upon returning home af-

ter the exchange program ended, I taught my-self the curriculum of French 3 and tried mybest to expand and enrich my vocabulary. Whenasked about the successful foreign language learn-ing strategies he had used in the past, he listed

Music, news, radioexpose yourself to for-eign culture . . . Furthermore, just seeking out lan-guage mini-lessons online has worked for metoothat is how I taught myself various verb

tenses during my freshman year. I want to point,though, that when trying to internalize vocab-ulary, write it down clearly and repeat it outloud for multiple days; it can be so easy to for-get vocabulary if not careful! In contrast, case60 sounded less like an autonomous learnerand did not seem to have a good grasp of thelearning strategies Case 56 was talking about.

Although he categorized himself as a success-ful learner based on the fact that he had ob-tained A for three years, he acknowledged butI am not particularly comfortable speaking it.

When asked about successful learning strate-gies, he simply jotted down taking notes, learn-ing about the culture, and listening to peoplespeak it.

This difference gave these two students quitedifferent learning experiences during the TBLT.Case 56 demonstrated great initiative and usefulstrategies to help himself stay abreast of learn-ing. In week 5, he commented: Yes, it is goingto take me a little while to retain the words byheart, but I think I have the initiative to do so. I

have fun searching for new words in the onlinedictionary and attempting to use them correctlyin sentences. In week 10, he encouraged himselfto organize notes for learning: I wish I had moretime, because I would definitely arrange all of my


10/23


notes in a more organized manner, so I can retainthe vocabulary more efficiently. Perhaps I will dothat! In week 16, he summarized his learning ex-perience and once again highlighted a successfulstrategy he used:

I think that I have a good grasp of the material thusfarbut I could always improve with the vocabulary!I do have sheets with vocabulary terms and examplesof sentence structures for each week of class, so thatmakes it a bit easier to review everything that Ivelearned.

His reflection entries over time suggested an opti-mistic person who continuously motivated himselfand took the initiative to search for learning re-sources and opportunities and made active use ofstrategies to help himself learn. However, whenlooking at case 60, we saw a different trajectory.In his week 6 reflection, he expressed excitementover the synchronous session, but sounded morelike a passive student: It is cool, but kind of hard. Ifeel more comfortable with the words now. When

you are forced to say them, you kind of have tolearn them, but it was weird at first. By week 9,he seemed to have lost ground a little bit: I thinkmy pronunciation is okay, but the sentence struc-tures confused me, especially when I couldnt find

what the words meant. In the following weeks, hecontinued to complain about the difficulty of the

vocabulary, but did not think of any particularstrategies to use: I just need to keep studying.By week 14, he had started to question his learn-ing progress: I dont know that I am completelycomfortable with communication though, and in

week 16 he admitted: My biggest frustration wasjust that I retained about ten percent of what Ishould have.

Thus, it seems that TBLT might have a MatthewEffect on online ab initio learners. For those whohad great initiative and knew how to motivate

themselves and how to learn strategically to startwith, TBLT seemed to give them opportunities toachieve much. However, those who did not havesuch resources at their disposal gradually laggedbehind and lost ground.

Students Lack Appropriate Strategies and Skillsfor TBLT

Analysis of the minutes of the weekly debriefsessions with the teachers identified several oft-

cited problems that teachers encountered. Theseproblems included students becoming easily frus-trated over the extensive use of the target lan-guage; students expecting the language neededfor the pedagogical tasks to be pre-taught; somestudents not being active participants during the

group work, and being afraid of making mistakes;some students not actively engaging in guessingand deducing and always wait(ing) teachers totell them everything they need to learn; and stu-dents expecting the instructor-led IRE type of talkrather than they themselves playing the central

role: I ask a question, they answer. I stop, theystop. Dont feel the students are independent.Feel teachers are dominating the flow, and theydont talk to each other if you leave them doingthe work. These comments showed that studentslacked some crucial strategies and attitudes withrespect to TBLT.

Analysis of students weekly reflections also re-vealed similar phenomena. They expressed a pref-erence for explicit instruction: I dont like it

when the instructor talks only in Chinese andyou dont understand her and she wont trans-late it for you; and If I had absolute freedomin the virtual meeting, I would probably want tospend more time breaking down sentences andsentence structures. Some students lacked theskills and attitudes needed for effective collabo-rative group interaction (Hampel, 2006; Hampel& Hauck, 2004): I think that, when we do thetasks, people are shy. So, when we are supposed tohave a conversation, it isnt as talkative as it shouldbe. The only reason for this is that people dontknow each other and they arent entirely confi-

dent in their answers. But once we get passed theinitial barrier, it is very fun; and I think that one

way for the meetings to improve would be if ev-eryone would participate and not be afraid to getan answer wrong. During the debrief sessions,the teachers also lamented that on the occasions

when tasks were dominated by one or two indi-viduals in the group: there might be a leadingstudent in the virtual classroom when doing task.The others may rely on that student.

In addition to being hesitant about participat-

ing, students did not possess the necessary com-municative skills. During class observations, wenoted that for some information gap tasks, somestudents simply chose to read out whatever infor-mation they were given and failed to take the op-portunity to engage in negotiated interaction.

Important Features of the Technological Platformfor TBLT

The conferencing system used for the syn-

chronous sessions, Adobe Connect, had a wholesuite of annotation tools that enabled the teachersto make annotations on the go. These tools turnedout to be critical to TBLT in the online ab ini-tio context, as reflected in a students comment:I really liked that there were learning tools such


11/23


as the text boxes, pointers and free hand pencilto use to aid in lessons so that we could figureout what was being talked about. The highlight-ing tools provided visual cues for comprehensionand the annotation tools assisted formmeaningmapping: Sometimes I was not able to under-

stand what was being asked until it was typed outon the screen.The conferencing system also allowed the in-

structors to switch the students from the defaultat-tendee role to thepresenter role so that they coulduse the presentation tools, uploading pictures andPPTs and using the highlighting tools. This func-tion facilitated the learner-centered TBLT learn-ing experience: I liked the virtual meetings, andhow we could interact with them using pointersand other tools. It made it easier to learn sinceit wasnt just a lecture, but something we couldbe more a part of as students. This functionmade it easy to incorporate student-generated in-structional materials, and, by enabling alternativemeans of participation, enabled the instructorsto conduct emergent instruction that catered tonot only the active students but also the relativelypassive students. For instance, during an input-based task, although students were encouragedto ask for help whenever they encountered un-known phrases while processing the language toachieve the goal, the instructor found that most of

the students did not want to speak up and initiatequestions. She changed the strategy by giving thestudents the presenter role and asking them tohighlight the unknown phrases using the annota-tion tools. As a result of this strategic move, all thestudents participated. This function also helped

with learning: being able to write/draw for someof the activities helped with memorization.

What were the issues that emerged from theimplementation of TBLT?

Analyzing the qualitative data, we identified a

series of issues related to the implementation ofTBLT in this online ab initio context. Some ofthese issues were challenges, and others reflectedthe potential the online context might have forfacilitating TBLT for ab initio learners.

Challenges in Implementing TBLT

The challenges we identified in implementingTBLT in the online ab initio course included thefollowing: 1) the challenge in designing an online

TBLT syllabus and implementing the task cycle; 2)the challenge in carrying out collaborative tasks;3) the challenge posed by the Internet time lag;and 4) the challenge in exclusive use of the targetlanguage.

Challenges in TBLT Syllabus Design and TaskCycle Implementation. We found that balancing therole of the textbook and the TBLT syllabus wasa delicate issue in the online context. Long andCrookes (1985) proposed that a TBLT syllabusshould start with needs analysis. In such a TBLT

syllabus, the textbook serves as all but one sourcefor the TBLT syllabus. This is relatively easy torealize in most face-to-face FL classrooms, wherethe interaction in the classroom is the centerpieceof student learning. However, when designingthe experimental TBLT syllabus, we realized thatthe e-textbook had to dictate the design of theTBLT syllabus since a large portion of thetime ourstudents spent on this course was independentstudying of the e-textbook.9 A great challenge inaligning the TBLT syllabus with the e-textbook washelping students to see the connection betweenthe two. Although we tried to relate the tasks tothe e-textbook, students might not have perceivedthis connection: Most of what we covered didntpertain to what we were learning in the online CDat the time.

The low frequency and short duration of thesynchronous sessions in the online courses posedchallenges to the preduringpost TBLT peda-gogical cycle. It was difficult to complete all thephases of the cycle in one session, and doingso brought about complaints like the following:

what I did not like was that we tried to cover toomuch for the allotted time frame. The instructorsfelt really pushed to get everything done withinthe 1-hour timeframe and noted that some ofthe classes seems [sic] to be in a rushing pace. Asa result, in several sessions the post-task phase ofthe cycle was left untouched. However, we couldnot space out the cycle across two synchronoussessions either since the next time the students

were to meet again was one week later, and theeffects of the TBLT cycle would thus be subject

to students memory and perceived connectionbetween sessions (Hampel & Hauck, 2004).

Challenges in Implementing Collaborative Tasks.We found the inflexibility of classroom arrange-ment made it hard to promote positive groupdynamics. The spatial arrangement of the class-room and the relative positioning of students andbetween students and the instructor affects theperceived power structure and is critical to over-all group dynamics (Dornyei & Malderez, 1997).In a face-to-face classroom, this could be achievedthrough moving the chairs around or moving thestudents around. However, in the virtual class-rooms, all the participants names were listedon the attendee list with the instructor marked


12/23


prominently at the top with a differently coloredidentity icon. This display of the meeting partici-pants and the prominent position of the instruc-tor made it hard for the instructor to fade out ashe or she could relatively easily do during groupactivities in a face-to-face classroom.

Another logistic issue was related to studentgrouping. Since the virtual sessions were con-ducted with small groups of 35 and studentscame to the virtual sessions at their scheduledtime, if one or two members did not show up,the planned collaborative work would have to bechanged into individual work or become difficultto proceed (Hampel, 2006).

Other than these logistic issues, the biggest ob-stacle was the difficulty in building a harmoniousrelationship between the instructor and the stu-dents and fostering rapport among the students,

which is much needed for active participation andgood group dynamics during task performance.The instructors found that in the cases where thesynchronous sessions consisted of students fromthe same school, the task performances were usu-ally much more lively and engaging, with students

joking with each other and helping each otheralong the way. Unfortunately, unlike in a face-to-face classroom teaching context, the majorityof the synchronous sessions in the online learn-ing context consisted of students from different

geographic locations, and students had no priorknowledge of each other to start with. The lackof physical contact and the limited interactionamong students made them virtually strangers toeach other even weeks into the class. As one stu-dent pointed out, The give and take between peo-ple in the class is slightly awkward, but I think thatis an inherent flaw to an online class of strangers.This constraint challenges the fostering of activepeer collaborative work in online TBLT.

Challenges Posed by the Delay of Sound Transmis-sion on the Internet. TBLT requires teachers to playa facilitative role and to trust students to engagein interaction while working on communicativetasks. Thus, the teacher needs to be tolerant ofsilence and give students time to sort out thingsamong themselves. However, the delay of soundtransmission on the Internet gave the teachersa hard time in intervening at the right moment(Hampel, 2006). Teachers tended to be less tol-erant of silence because of the lack of physicalcues: I asked a question, and they kept silent. I

didnt know whether they couldnt comprehendor were thinking of responses. I lost patience and

went ahead giving the English alternatives. Theinstructors were also bothered a lot by the de-

lay of the sound transmission: Because the Inter-net has delay, after I finished talking, 5 secondshad already passed when it reached his side. In aclassroom, if he said nothing, I would know hesthinking, but (in an online context) I dont know.

You would feel the silence is awkward and unbear-

able. The time wasted due to the lack of physicalcues and the delay of sound transmission madethe instructors concerned about the efficiency of

virtual sessions, and they had to restrain them-selves constantly from the urge to jump in andinstruct since its always much easier to tell thestudents how to say something by concluding witha formula or structure.

Challenges to Exclusive Use of Target Language.The instructors found it particularly hard to main-tain extensive use of the target language in this

instructional context. The instructors were underpressure to use as much target language as possi-ble, but extensive use of the target language usu-ally made the students feel frustrated and was notconducive to building up rapport with the stu-dents: Sometimes I get confused and zone out

when you speak in Chinese; and I dont like itwhen the instructors talk only in Chinese. Thedifficulty in providing visual cues in the onlinecontext to facilitate comprehension further exac-erbated the problem of using the target language.

At the same time the difficulty in building up rap-port in the online context also made it hard forstudents to be patient, cooperative and tolerate ofambiguity, which in turn discouraged the instruc-tors from using the target language as well.

Potential Advantages of the Online Contextfor TBLT

Despite all the challenges imposed on TBLT bythe online Ab Initio context, we found that this

learning context had some advantages that thatfacilitated TBLT.

Some Technological Features Facilitate EmergentIndividualized Instruction. We found that the on-line context provided more convenient venues forstudent-centered teaching and emergent individ-ualized instruction. As exemplified in a previoussection, one instructor found that the strategicuse of the attendees presentation privileges

while students were engaging with input-basedtasks, she granted the students presenter roles and

asked them to highlight the points that they werestruggling withenabled her to tap into studentslearning processes and understand the problemsthe students were encountering at any moment.


13/23


Depending on the nature of the problem, she ei-ther responded with a brief explanation for the

whole group or by means of a private text mes-sage to the individual. The other teachers triedthis strategy in their classrooms and found it tobe a very effective strategy. This emergent individ-

ualized instruction may not be so easily and effi-ciently realized in face-to-face classrooms, wherethe solicitation of such moment-by-moment learn-ing data often means chaos.

Online Anonymity Facilitates Group Work. Theanonymity of the online context was found tofacilitate the implementation of group work inthe TBLT classes. On the one hand, the naturalinformation gap induced by the anonymity lentitself to the easy construction and implementa-tion of some information gap tasks. For example,

because the online students did not know oneanother and could not see one another, an infor-mation gap task was naturally createdstudentsdescribed their own personal appearances andthe group members drew portraits of them basedon the descriptionwhich would not be an infor-mation gap task at all in face-to-face classrooms.On the other hand, the anonymity also helpedto stimulate greater student participation duringtask performance. One student commented onhow the anonymity online helped reduce anxiety

during oral production:

In any foreign language, there are always those dia-logues you have to do with your partner in front ofthe class. Sure we do dialogues with each other takingturns etc. but we dont have the pressure like we wouldin a classroom with 30 other pairs of eyes staring backat you.

Such a liberating effect of anonymous onlineinteraction has been widely reported in the inthe computer-mediated communication (CMC)literature (Beauvois & Eledge, 1996; Kitade, 2000;Ortega, 2009).

Co-Availability of Text- and Audio- ChattingMediates Learning. The conference system usedin this study allowed both text chatting and au-dio chatting. This feature made it easier for theinstructors to address individual learning needs

without breaking the flow of the communication,as in the example we illustrated previously. There

were also a lot of cases where students sent privatetext chat messages to their teachers to elicit indi-

vidualized help when they did not want to bothertheir group-mates and did not want to look fool-ish in front of their group-mates. It also provideda more inviting venue for the shy students tointeract with their teacher and peer learners(Kern, 1995).

Students reported that text-chatting helped tolower the cognitive load of the tasks (Ortega,2009) and facilitate both comprehension and pro-duction (Ellis, 2003). In the self-reflection blog,one student noted: the aspect I had the hardesttime with in class today was understanding what

was being said orally. I can understand the ques-tions when they are typed out, but when peopleanswered or asked verbally, I cant quite followthem. The teachers also observed the same phe-nomenon: its a good idea to ask them to worktogether by text chatting. They can communicatebetter by texting in the online classroom. How-ever, at the same time, students who were slowat typing found it annoying, as one student said,what I say is usually behind in the conversationby the time I finish typing it.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

In this study we found the online ab initioChinese students and teachers reacted positivelyto the TBLT syllabus that was tried out in theirclassrooms, as reflected not just in their overallperception of the experience, but also in the stu-dents end-of-semester oral production. Some stu-dents also demonstrated a change in mindset intheir approach to learning over the semester. At

the same time, we found that TBLT demonstrateddifferentiated effects on the students, and the ma-jority of the students lacked the appropriate strate-gies and skills needed for effective TBLT. In addi-tion, the implementation of TBLT in the onlineab initio context encountered challenges in theconstruction of the TBLT syllabus and problemsin implementing the full task cycle. The imple-mentation of collaborative tasks also encounteredobstacles due to the inflexibility of the virtualclassroom arrangement of the particular confer-encing system and the difficulty in building rap-port among online students. The delay of soundtransmission and the deprivation of paralinguisticaids in the online context also posed great diffi-culties in various aspects of TBLT. At the sametime, however, the online context was also foundto have great potential for the implementationof TBLT, such as facilitating emergent individual-ized instruction, lowering the cognitive load forab initio learners, and encouraging student par-ticipation.

DISCUSSION

This study revealed a series of issues emerg-ing from implementing TBLT in online abinitio Chinese classrooms. Some issues identified


14/23


were very much the same as those of TBLT inface-to-face classrooms: (a) the need for strategytraining to familiarize students with the philoso-phy and principles of TBLT and to help studentsdevelop the appropriate strategies and skills thatfacilitate TBLT (McDonough & Chaikitmongkol,

2007); (b) the difficulty with the use of the tar-get language (Carless, 2003; 2007); (c) the po-tential of TBLT to change students approachesto learning and facilitating autonomous languagelearning (Demir, 2008; Leaver & Kaplan, 2004);and (d) the unbalanced involvement of, andcontribution from, the students due to the lackof appropriate attitudes and strategies for TBLT(Carless, 2002, 2003; Tseng, 2006). Some otherfindings differ from the face-to-face TBLT class-room literature due to the particular nature of theonline context. For example, Ruso (2007) foundthat TBLT increased students rapport whereasin this study, we found the lack of, and diffi-culty in building up, rapport in the online con-text created a big obstacle to TBLT. Other find-ings in this study offer suggestions for face-to-faceclassroom TBLT. For example, the face-to-faceclassroom TBLT literature reports that shy stu-dents and students with low language proficiencyfind TBLT a taxing and stressful learning context(Burrows, 2008; Karavas-Doukas, 1995; Li, 1998).However, in this study, we found that the availabil-

ity of text-chatting in the online context helpedto mitigate stress and anxiety levels and lower thecognitive load of the tasks for these types of stu-dents. Furthermore, the finding that the confer-encing system enabled teachers to tap into stu-dents moment-by-moment learning process andto engage in emergent individualized instructionsuggeststhatcurrent face-to-face TBLT might ben-efit from capitalizing on this potential by blendingsome online components into current syllabuses,such as incorporating some text-chat tasks.

Although this study was based on a particularinstructional design in a special conferencing sys-tem, and some of its findings may not be gener-alizable to other online FL teaching contexts, itdoes provide some suggestions that could applyto all online ab initio FL classrooms.

LEARNER AND TEACHER STRATEGYTRAINING FOR ONLINE TBLT CLASSROOMS

In this study, we found an intricate relation-

ship between TBLT and learning autonomy. Onthe one hand, TBLT helped a few studentsto become more independent in learning. Onthe other hand, the varying degree of learningautonomy students demonstrated prior to the

TBLT class brought them differentiated learningexperiences. The seemingly contradictory find-ings collectively pointed towards the importanceof learner strategy training during TBLT: TBLTneeds learner strategy training to enhance its ef-fect, and at the same time TBLT may reinforce

the effectiveness of strategy training by fosteringautonomous learning among the learners.McDonough and Chaikitmongkol (2007) pro-

vided some great ideas on teacher and learnerstrategy training. They recommended familiariz-ing learners with the philosophical, pedagogical,as well as assessment principles of TBLT prior tothe course. We would like to add that in the on-line context, an extra step needs to be added tothis macro-level training: Helping students see theconnection between the TBLT syllabus and thee-textbook or tutorials and understand how to or-chestrate both for their online learning.

Furthermore, this study found that many stu-dents lacked some basic strategies and skills thatare beneficial to TBLT, such as building rapportamong each other and maintaining group dynam-ics. Thus, a successful training program shouldalso include micro-level features whereby stu-dents are guided in developing specific metacog-nitive strategies (e.g., what linguistic features toattend to during the text-based chatting), cogni-tive strategies (e.g., how to negotiate meaning and

form in online chatting), social strategies (e.g.,how to build rapport with each other and main-tain group dynamics in the online context), andaffective strategies (e.g., how to keep themselvesmotivated and actively engaged in the absence ofproximity with the instructor and peers).

In addition to training learners with relevantstrategies and skills, online FL teachers shouldconstantly think about how to create online com-munities to foster rapport among students, and

what sort of warm-up activities or chit-chats can be

included at the beginning of each synchronoussession to initiate students into active participa-tion and live interaction. It is equally crucialto build up and foster connections among thestudents with collaborative assignments, such aspeer interviews or group projects, that force stu-dents to interact more with each other10 and en-hance students understanding of one another.Online FL teachers should also familiarize them-selves with the pedagogical affordances of vari-ous features of the technological platform and or-

chestrate various technological means to supportTBLT. Moreover, online FL teachers should beaware of the potential effect of the delay of soundtransmission on their intolerance of silence, andthink of strategies to overcome this tendency and


15/23


at the same time think of ways to turn this delayinto active learning moments for the students.

IMPLREMENTATION OF THE TASK CYCLEIN SYNCHRONOUS SESSIONS

In this study we encountered a dilemma in im-plementing the full preduringpost task cycle forab initio learners due to the limited duration andfrequency of the synchronous sessions. One solu-tion might be to arrange some, if not all, input-based tasks for the pre-task phase as assignmentsto be done independently or collaboratively priorto the synchronous sessions and start with the syn-chronous sessions with either an integrative pre-task or a review task to lead into the during- andpost-task phase of the cycle. We have implementedthis change in our current online ab initio coursesand found this arrangement works very nicely inaddressing the issue.

ENHANCING THE COMPREHENSIBILITY OFTHE TARGET LANGUAGE IN ONLINE ABINITIO CLASSROOMS

Online ab initio FL classrooms are challengedby the contradiction between the lack of paralin-guistic cues in the audio-based online classroomsand the massive visual scaffolds ab initio students

need. To deal with this challenge, teachers needto prepare abundant visual stimulus ahead of timeto facilitate the smooth flow of TBLT. Teachersmay prepare word galleries with rich visual infor-mation and make them available for students tomanipulate during tasks. Such measures offer thepossibility of maximizing the use of the target lan-guage without leading to incomprehension on thepart of students. It is equally important to build uproutines and use consistent language supported

with pictorial cues when giving task instructions

in order to promote greater understanding onthe students side.

SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGICALPLATFORM FOR ONLINE AB INITIOFOREIGN LANGUAGE COURSES

The conferencing system we used for the syn-chronous sessions has a whole suite of functionsthat carry a variety of pedagogical potentials forTBLT. These features include text-chat with both

public and private message functions, various an-notation tools that allow drawing, highlighting(among others), the function to turn studentsinto presenters, and a multiple document shar-ing function that enables the concurrent display

of the task page and the word gallery. These fea-tures were found to facilitate TBLT in the onlineab initio FL courses in this study. When selectingthe technological platform for the online ab ini-tio TBLT FL courses, teachers need to considercarefully the technological features that provide

various levels of visual and cognitive scaffoldingthat enable emergent individualized instruction,that encourage active involvement withoutheight-ening anxiety levels, and that make the tasks funand appropriately challenging for their ab initiolearners.

CONCLUSION

In this study we explored the implementa-tion of TBLT for ab initio foreign languagelearners in an online context and found that

it was well perceived among the students andteachers and produced good learning outcomeas well. At the same time, we encountereda number of issues when conducting TBLTin the online ab initio CFL classes. Someissues, like the lack of appropriate learningattitudes and strategies and the challenge ofengaging students in active participation, arephenomena that have also been observedin face-to-face TBLT classrooms (Carless,2002; Littlewood, 2007; McDonough &Chaikitmongkol, 2007). Some issues, like

the use of the target language and the tensionbetween teacher control and the need to fa-cilitate student-centered learning, are similarchallenges to those that confront face-to-faceTBLT classrooms, but are exacerbated by thelack of paralinguistic cues, the anonymity andthe enhanced ambiguity in the online context(Rosell-Aguilar, 2005). Other issues, like the timepressure in completing the preduringpostTBLT cycle and the difficulty in building upand fostering rapport with students and amongstudents, are quite unique to the online context(Hampel, 2006). Thus, when implementingTBLT online, we are faced with extra layers ofchallenges and difficulty. To increase the chancesof success for TBLT in this particular instructionalcontext, it is important to make both studentsand instructors aware of the challenges theyare facing. It is even more crucial to help themrealize the advantages of the online context thatthey can capitalize on, to help students developthe attitudes and learning strategies supportive ofTBLT, and to assist teachers to capitalize skillfullyon the affordances in the online context and tocircumvent its constraints when implementing

tasks. Furthermore, we need to be flexible inadapting both task design and task implementa-tion to the particular affordances and constraintsof the specific conferencing system or onlineinstructional environment we are using.


16/23


NOTES

1We deliberately disabled the video function in thisconferencing system to boost the sound quality of theaudio chatting due to the varying connection speedsamong the students.

2Although there were 16 weeks for the online coursein total, the TBLT sessions only covered 12 weeks. Thefirst session was an orientation session and the secondsession was a session on Chinese phonetic system. Thenin the middle, there was a session given to individualmidterm exams, and the last session was used for thefinal exam. Therefore, only 12 weeks could be used toimplement the TBLT syllabus.

3Aware that the post-task phase is not an obligatoryphase in the TBLT cycle, the researchers did not designpost-task phase tasks in some sessions. This was becausein these sessions there were already several tasks in the

pre- and during-task phase, and there wouldnt be anytime left for the post-task phase in the session.

4Participants in the control group had an average ageof 16. There were 16 males and 20 females. 16% of thestudents had never studied a foreign language before,and 28% had studied two or more foreign languages.91% of the students had never taken any kind of onlinecourses, and 97% of them had never taken an online FLcourse. The four teachers in the control group were ofsimilar ages (two females, two males), and only one ofthem had prior classroom FL teaching experience.

5During the monologic picture description task, thestudents were given a picture of a persons bedroom.The students were asked to use as many expressions aspossible to describe the room and the person. They wereasked to start the task right away and no planning time

was given. This was an untimed task, and in the case oflong silence the instructors gave prompts in English likeanything else?, say something about the left side ofthe picture, etc.

6Following Mochizuki and Ortega (2008), meaning-ful words are the number of words after excluding self-repetitions, self-corrections, and any L1 utterances (p.24). Thus, in a sentence like , (I, Ihave one one book), there would be only five meaning-

ful words although there are several words in total.7A T-unit is one main clause with all subordinate

clauses attached to it. In this study, the mean lengthof T-units was the same as the mean length of clausefor this group of Ab Initio learners. The cases wherethe students tried to conjoin two clauses together usingand were counted as two T-units since Chinese gram-mar doesnt have such equivalent conjunctions (e.g., [I have a book and I have adesk]) would be counted as two T-units. Since the stu-dents did not use any subordination, no subordinationindex was used in this study. Thus, although we were

aware of the importance of triangulating measures torepresent the multidimensionality of syntactic complex,we could provide only one measure in this study.

8To rule out the possibility of this difference beingattributed to the time students spent in learning the

other asynchronous components in this course (e.g., e-textbook, online learning materials), students reportedtime spent each week on studying for this course waschecked. It turned out that students had similar timeinvestment (around 5 hours each week).

9Although it is possible to create custom-made inter-active tutorials to serve the TBLT syllabus, most online

FL teachers do not have such capacity available.10Although a variety of asynchronous interaction

means (such as various discussion forums, message cen-ter) were provided to the students, the students werefound not to make active voluntary use of them.

REFERENCES

Beauvois, M. H., & Eledge, J. (1996). Personalitytypes and megabytes: Student attitudes toward

computer mediated communication (CMC) inthe language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2),2745.

Bruton, A. (2005). Task-based language teaching: Forthe state secondary FL classroom? Language Learn-ing Journal, 31, 5568.

Burrows, C. (2008). An evaluation of task-based learning(TBL) in the Japanese classroom. English Today96, 24, 4, 1116.

Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Researchingpedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching,

and testing. Harlow, England: Longman.Carless, D. (2002). Implementing task-based learning

with young learners. ELT Journal, 56, 389396.Carless, D. (2003). Factors in the implementation of

task-based teaching in primary schools. System, 31,485500.

Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers reinterpretation ofa task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOLQuarterly, 38, 639662.

Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based ap-proaches for secondary schools: Perspectives fromHong Kong. System, 35, 595608.

Carless, D. (2008). Student use of the mother tongue inthe task-based classroom. English Language Teach-

ing Journal, 62, 4, 331338.Demir, A. (2008). The influence of task-based reading activ-

ities on EFL learners attitude and learning outcomes

from the students perspective (Unpublished mastersthesis). Adana, Cukurova University.

Dornyei,Z., & Malderez, A. (1997). Group dynamics andforeign language teaching. System, 25, 6581.

Duran, G., & Ramaut, G. (2006). Tasks for absolute be-ginners and beyond: Developing and sequencingtasks at basic proficiency levels.In K. Van denBran-den (Ed.), Task-based language education: From the-ory to practice(pp. 4775). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teach-ing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a secondlanguage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


17/23


Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task-based teach-ing. Foreign Language Education Research, 4,79101.

Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effectiveuse of audio conferencing in distance languagecourses. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1),6682.

Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the dig-ital age: A framework for language teaching andlearning in a synchronous online environment.ReCALL, 18, 105121.

Karavas-Doukas, E. (1995). Teacher identified factors af-fecting the implementation of an EFL innovationin Greek public secondary schools. Language, Cul-ture and Curriculum, 8 (1), 5368.

Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interac-tion with network computers: Effects on quan-tity and characteristics of language production.Modern Language Journal, 79, 457476.

Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners discourse and SLA the-ories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in inter-net chat. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 13,143166.

Klapper, J. (2003). Taking communication task to task?A critical review of recent trends in language teach-ing. Language Learning Journal, 27, 3342.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2007). Learner perception of learn-ing tasks. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp,& M. Verhelst (Eds.). Tasks in action: Task-basedlanguage education from a classroom-based perspective

(pp. 731). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Pub-lishing.

Gonzalez-Lloret, M. (2008). no me llames de usted,tratame de tu: L2 address behavior development

through synchronous computer-mediated communica-

tion (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Depart-ment of Second Language Studies, University ofHawaii at Manoa.

Gulden, L. N., Julide, N., & Yumru, H. (2007). Teachersand learners perceptions of tasks: Objectives andoutcomes. Journal of Theory and Practice in Educa-tion, 3 (1), 6068.

Leaver, B. L., & Willis, J. R. (2004). Task-based instruc-tion in foreign language education. Washington, DC:

Georgetown University Press.Leaver, B. L., & Kaplan, M. A. (2004). Task-based instruc-

tion in U.S. Government Slavic Language Pro-grams. In B. L. Leaver & J. R. Willis (Eds.), Task-based instruction in foreign language education (pp.4766). Washington, DC: Georgetown UniversityPress.

Lee, I. L. (2005). A study of teachers and students per-ceptions of task-based EFL instruction in vocational

high school (Unpublished Masters thesis). Taiwan,National Chung Cheng University

Li, D. (1998). Its always more difficult than youplan and imagine: Teachers perceived difficul-ties in introducing the communicative approachin South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677697.

Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Somequestions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58, 319326.

Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-basedlanguage teaching in East Asian classrooms.Language Teaching, 40, 243249.

Liu, M. G. (2008). The effect of TBLT methodologyon students oral performance in the primarysettings in Guangdong. CELEA Journal, 31 (1),1526.

Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1985). Three approaches totask-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26,2756.

Lopes, J. (2004). Introducing TBI for teaching Englishin Brazil: Learning how to leap the hurdles. InB. L. Leaver & J. R. Willis (Eds.), Task-based in-struction in foreign language education(pp. 8395).

Washington, DC: Georgetown UniversityPress.

McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. P. (2007).Teachers and learners reactions to a task-basedEFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41,107

132.Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing com-munication and grammar in beginner-level for-eign language classrooms: A study of guided plan-ning and relativization. Language Teaching Re-search, 12(1), 1137.

Mustafa, Z. (2008, October) Teachers levels of usein the adoption of task-based language teach-

ing in malaysian classrooms. Paper presentedat the Third International Conference onLanguage Learning, Universiti Sains Malaysia,Malaysia.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ortega, L. (2007, April). Social context in task-based lan-guage learning: (How) Does it matter? Paper pre-sented at the Conference on Social and Cognitive

Aspects of Second Language Learning and Teach-ing, University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to formin L2 text-based computer-mediated communica-tion. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple per-spectives on interaction (pp. 226253). New York:Routledge.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.Rahimpour, M. (2008). Implementation of task-based

approaches to language teaching. Pazhuhesh-eZabanha-ye Khareji, 41, 4561.

Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teachingtoday. Singapore: RELC.

Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task se-quencing: Studies in a componential frameworkfor second language task design. International Re-view of Applied Linguistics, 43, 132.

Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2005). Task design for audiographicconferencing: Promoting beginner oral inter-action in distance language learning. ComputerAssisted Language Learning, 18, 417442.

Ruso, N. (2007). The influence of task based learningon EFL classrooms. EFL Journal, 18, 123.

Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between formand meaning during task performance: The role


18/23


of the teacher. In M. Bygate,P. Skehan, & M. Swain(Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second languagelearning, teaching, and testing (pp. 119134).Harlow, England: Longman.

Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in se- cand language learning. New York: PalgraveMacmillan.

Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction? ELT Jour-nal, 53, 149156.

Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance as-sessment. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain(Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second lan-guage learning, teaching and testing (pp. 167185).Harlow, England: Longman.

Smith, B. (2009). Task-based learning in the computer-mediated communicative ESL/EFL classroom.CALL-EJ Online, 11.

Sole, C., & Mardomingo, R. (2004). Trayectorias: A newmodel for online task-based learning. ReCALL, 16,

145157.Tseng, C. Y. (2006). A study of the effect of task-based in-struction on primary school EFL students (Unpub-lished masters thesis). National Chung ChengUniversity, Taiwan.

Van den Branden, K. (2006). Task-based language educa-tion: From theory to practice. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., & Verhelst, M.(2006). Tasks in action: Task-based language ed-ucation from a classroom-based perspective. In K.

Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language ed-

ucation: From theory to practice (pp. 4775). Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Har-low, UK: Longman.

Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task plan-ning and on-line planning on fluency, complexityand accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Lin-guistics, 24, 127.

Zhang, Y. (2007). TBLT-Innovation in Primary SchoolEnglish Language Teaching in Mainland China.

In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, & M Ver-helst (Eds.), Tasks in Action: Task-based languageeducation from a classroom-based perspective,(pp. 6891). Cambridge: Cambridge ScholarsPublishing.


19/23


APPENDIX A

Screen Shots of Blackboard and Adobe Connect

Course Management SystemBlackboard

Conferencing SystemAdobe Connect


20/23


APPENDIXB

Samp

leAlignmentofTas

kDesignwiththee-Textboo

k

TBLTCycle

Synchronou

s

Session#

E-TextbookContent

Pre-Tas

kPhase

Tas

kPhase

Post-Task

Phase

1

Teac

heran

dstu

dentsgreeting

andintro

ducingnamesatfir

st

meeting

Informationgaptask(Fillinth

epersonalandschool

informationoftwopeoplewhilelisteningtoand

readingadialogue)

Informationgaptask

Informa

tiongaptask

(Introdu

cetwopeoplethrough

comparingtheinformation

obtained

fromlisteningtoa

dialogue)

Informationgaptask

(Compileaninformation

tableofclassmates

personalandschool

informa

tionandtake

turnsto

introduceeach

other)

Informationgaptask

(Fillintheinformationabout

apersonseducational

experiencewhilelisteningtoandreadingapersons

narration)

Informationgaptask(Introduce

apersonseducationalexperience

throughcomparingthe

informationobtainedfrom

listening

toanarration)

Informationgaptask

(Compileaninformation

tableoftheirclassmates

prioreducational

experien

ceandtaketurns

tointroduceeachother)

2

PT1:Pro

blemso

lvingtask(Identifythespeakersina

dialoguebasedontheconversa

tioncontent)

Informationgaptask(Askeach

otherquestionstofindoutthe

None

PT2:informationgaptask(Textchattofindout

informationaboutthepersoneachofthestudentsare

given)

informationabouttheperson

eachofthemhaveandthen

figureou

ttherelationship

betweenthesepeople

None

3

Teac

heran

dstu

dentsidentify

thepeop

lean

dobjects

PT1:Matchingtask

(Matchpictureswithtextuald

escriptions)

Informationgaptask

(Textchattofindoutthe

None

disp

laye

donthewal

l

PT2:trivialgame

(Competetodescribethethinginthephotoappeared

onthescreen)

informationabouttheperson

andthethingsinthephoto)

PT3:Matchingtask

(Matchpictureswithdescriptions)

4

Pro

blemso

lvingtask

(Studentslistentoandreada

modelofaguessing

game,20questions,andfigureoutwhotheperson

hadinmind)

T1:Informationgaptask20

question

s

(Eachstudentthinksofaperson

Task-Based Language Teaching In

Documents

Transcript of Task-Based Language Teaching In