Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:28:37.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of mobile-supported task-based language teaching on EFL students’ linguistic achievement and conversational interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2020

Wei-Chieh Fang Open the ORCID record for Wei-Chieh Fang [Opens in a new window] ,
Hui-Chin Yeh Open the ORCID record for Hui-Chin Yeh [Opens in a new window] ,
Bo-Ru Luo Open the ORCID record for Bo-Ru Luo [Opens in a new window]  and
Nian-Shing Chen Open the ORCID record for Nian-Shing Chen [Opens in a new window]
Wei-Chieh Fang
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis, USA (wfjohnny@gmail.com)
Hui-Chin Yeh
Affiliation:
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan (hyeh@gemail.yuntech.edu.tw)
Bo-Ru Luo
Affiliation:
National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan (bobo0909880@gmail.com)
Nian-Shing Chen
Affiliation:
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan (nianshing@gmail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To address the challenges of limited language proficiency and provide necessary feedback in the implementation of task-based language teaching (TBLT), a mobile-supported TBLT application was developed to provide linguistic and task scaffolding. Sixty-six English as a foreign language (EFL) university learners participated in a three-week experiment as part of a general English course. They were assigned to either an experimental group (mobile-supported TBLT), which received TBLT with scaffolds built into the application, or a control group (traditional TBLT), which received traditional paper-based TBLT without the scaffolds. At the end of the experiment, an English achievement test of vocabulary, grammar, and conversation comprehension was administered to determine if the technological scaffolds enhanced the learning outcomes for the course. Students’ self-perceived use of oral communication strategies was also measured to explore how these scaffolds affected the conversational interaction essential for task performance. Results showed that the mobile-supported TBLT group outperformed the traditional TBLT group on the vocabulary and conversation comprehension tests but not so much on the grammar test. Also, the mobile-supported TBLT group reported greater awareness of fluency- and accuracy-oriented strategies for speaking than the traditional TBLT group. Implications for designing mobile learning to enhance TBLT in an EFL setting are drawn.

Keywords

task-based language teachingmobile-assisted language learningscaffoldingzone of proximal developmentlinguistic achievementconversational interaction
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 71 - 87
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdous, M., Camarena, M. M. & Facer, B. R. (2009) MALL technology: Use of academic podcasting in the foreign language classroom. ReCALL, 21(1): 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009000020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, N. (2015) Motivational value of mobile-based communicative tasks as coursebook supplements. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 18(2): 11–36. https://doi.org/10.15702/mall.2015.18.2.11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruton, A. (2005) Task-based language teaching: For the state secondary FL classroom? The Language Learning Journal, 31(1): 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730585200091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burston, J. (2014) The reality of MALL: Still on the fringes. CALICO Journal, 31(1): 103–125. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.31.1.103-125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.). (2013) Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carless, D. (2007) The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35(4): 595–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutschmann, M., Panichi, L. & Molka-Danielsen, J. (2009) Designing oral participation in Second Life: A comparative study of two language proficiency courses. ReCALL, 21(2): 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009000196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3): 50–80.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Pica, T. (1986) “Information gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(2): 305–325. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586546 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, W.-C., Cassim, F. A. K., Hsu, C.-N. & Chen, N.-S. (2018) Effects of reciprocal peer feedback on EFL learners’ communication strategy use and oral communication performance. Smart Learning Environments, 5(1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-018-0061-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005) At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2): 305–352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. & Ellis, R. (2018) Task-based language teaching for beginner-level learners of L2 French: An exploratory study. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 74(1): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.3831 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C. (2008) The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher education. Computers & Education, 50(2): 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1984) Two ways of defining communication strategies. Language Learning, 34(1): 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00995.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fotos, S. S. (1994) Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2): 323–351. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fotos, S. & Ellis, R. (1991) Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4): 605–628. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (2018) Collaborative activity in the digital world. In Lantolf, J. P. & Poehner, M. E. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of sociocultural theory and second language development. New York: Routledge, 391–408.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2003) Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction: En busca de esmeraldas. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1): 86–104.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2014) The need for needs analysis in technology-mediated TBLT. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 23–50. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (2014) Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, W.-Y., Shadiev, R., Hsu, J.-L., Huang, Y.-M., Hsu, G.-L. & Lin, Y.-C. (2016) Effects of storytelling to facilitate EFL speaking using web-based multimedia systems. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2): 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.927367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2003) Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1): 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jauregi, K. & Bañados, E. (2008) Virtual interaction through video-web communication: A step towards enriching and internationalizing learning programs. ReCALL, 20(2): 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N. & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006) Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 91–132. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.08kec CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiernan, P. J. & Aizawa, K. (2004) Cell phones in task based learning: Are cell phones useful language learning tools? ReCALL, 16(1): 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344004000618 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozulin, A. & Garb, E. (2002) Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23(1): 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0143034302023001733 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C. & Li, G. (2011) Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28(2): 498–521. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.498-521 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lan, Y.-J. & Lin, Y.-T. (2016) Mobile seamless technology enhanced CSL oral communication. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3): 335–350.Google Scholar
Lan, Y.-J., Sung, Y.-T. & Chang, K.-E. (2007) A mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning system for collaborative early EFL reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3): 130–151.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. L. (2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Liu, T.-Y. & Chu, Y.-L. (2010) Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking course: Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2): 630–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, C. P. & Churchill, D. (2016) Mobile learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(2): 273–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1113705 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Luo, B.-R., Lin, Y.-L., Chen, N.-S. & Fang, W.-C. (2015) Using smartphone to facilitate English communication and willingness to communicate in a communicative language teaching classroom. In Sampson, D. G. (ed.), Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 15th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society, 320–322. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2015.22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lys, F. (2013) The development of advanced learner oral proficiency using iPads. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3): 94–116.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006) Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3): 405–430. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 407–453.Google Scholar
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A. & van Lier, L. (2001) Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3): 377–405. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588028 Google Scholar
Nakatani, Y. (2006) Developing an oral communication strategy inventory. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2): 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00390.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakatani, Y. (2010) Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners’ oral communication: A classroom study using multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1): 116–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00987.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2009) Task-based teaching and testing. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (eds.), The handbook of language teaching. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 578–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3): 417–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (ed.). (2013) Understanding second language acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203777282 Google Scholar
Rachels, J. R. & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2018) The effects of a mobile gamification app on elementary students’ Spanish achievement and self-efficacy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1–2): 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1382536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2014) Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ripollés, P., Marco-Pallarés, J., Hielscher, U., Mestres-Missé, A., Tempelmann, C., Heinze, H.-J., Rodríguez-Fornells, A. & Noesselt, T. (2014) The role of reward in word learning and its implications for language acquisition. Current Biology, 24(21): 2606–2611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.09.044 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rossiter, M. J., Derwing, T. M., Manimtim, L. G. & Thomson, R. I. (2010) Oral fluency: The neglected component in the communicative language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(4): 583–606. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.4.583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauro, S. (2011) SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28(2): 369–391. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.369-391 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, P. & Hannafin, M. J. (2007) Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1): 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820600996972 Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (1999) Non-native speakers’ production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49(4): 627–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00104 Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T. & Dekeyser, R. (2019) Optimizing second language practice in the classroom: Perspectives from cognitive psychology. The Modern Language Journal, 103(3): 551–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12582 Google Scholar
Van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G. & Bimmel, P. (2015) Learning new grammatical structures in task-based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2): 246–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006) Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2004) Input processing in SLA. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978) Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3): 34–41.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Fang, W.-C., Han, J. & Chen, N.-S. (2016) Exploring the affordances of WeChat for facilitating teaching, social and cognitive presence in semi-synchronous language exchange. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4): 18–37. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2640 Google Scholar
Willis, J. (1996) A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Wilson, K. & Boyle, M. (2012) Smart choice level 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. & Ross, G. (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2): 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x Google ScholarPubMed
Zurita, G. & Nussbaum, M. (2004) Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected handheld computers. Computers & Education, 42(3): 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar