Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T20:47:18.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodological characteristics in technology-mediated task-based language teaching research: Current practices and future directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2024

YouJin Kim  and
Yoon Namkung
YouJin Kim*
Affiliation:
Georgia State University, USA
Yoon Namkung
Affiliation:
Georgia State University, USA
*
Corresponding author: YouJin Kim; Email: ykim39@gsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the past two decades, the synergistic relationship among task-based language teaching (TBLT), instructed second language acquisition, and computer-assisted language learning has gained increasing interest.Technology-mediated TBLT combines these three research domains by integrating the use of technology with task-based approaches for second language (L2) learning purposes. Since the emergence of this framework, empirical studies have increasingly explored the incorporation of tasks with technology-mediated settings for L2 learning and teaching purposes. To understand the methodological characteristics of technology-mediated TBLT research to date, we conducted a systematic search and reviewed 254 technology-mediated TBLT studies published between 2000 and 2022 in peer-reviewed journals and book chapters. These studies were coded for methodological features, research foci, and types of technology. We further examined the role of technologies in task performance to identify their effectiveness in creating authentic tasks. The findings revealed that technology-mediated TBLT research investigated a rather limited scope of contexts, learner groups, and linguistic features, with little attention paid to evaluating the quality of task outcomes. The types of technology used were skewed toward computer-mediated communication. The results also showed that studies examined various interactional features, and the majority reported both quantitative and qualitative data. Furthermore, technologies were integrated into task design to create meaningful language use contexts. Based on these findings, we share suggestions for future technology-mediated TBLT research.

Keywords

task-based language teachinginstructed second language acquisitiontechnology-mediated tasksresearch synthesiscomputer-assisted language learning
Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , First View , pp. 1 - 23
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Access options

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

References

Note: * indicates the studies that were included in the current review.Google Scholar
*Abe, M., & Roever, C. (2019). Interactional competence in L2 text-chat interactions: First-idea proffering in task openings. Journal of Pragmatics, 144, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Abe, M., & Roever, C. (2020). Task closings in L2 text-chat interactions: A study of L2 interactional competence. CALICO Journal, 37(1), 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Abrams, Z. (2019). Collaborative writing and text quality in Google Docs. Language Learning & Technology, 23(2), 22–42.Google Scholar
Akiyama, Y., & Cunningham, D. J. (2018). Synthesizing the practice of SCMC-based telecollaboration: A scoping review. CALICO Journal, 35, 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andringa, S., & Godfroid, A. (2020). Sampling bias and the problem of generalizability in Applied Linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 134–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Aubrey, S. (2022). Dynamic engagement in second language computer-mediated collaborative writing tasks: Does communication mode matter? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(1), 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). Engagement with the language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 209–240). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Batardière, M.-T. (2013). The use of a task-based online forum in language teaching: Learning practices and outcomes. In Fowley, C., English, C. & Thouësny, S. (Eds.), Internet research, theory, and practice: Perspectives from Ireland (pp. 305–323). Research-publishing.net.Google Scholar
*Black, E., & Barron, A. (2018). Learner pragmatics at the discourse level: Staying “on topic” in a telecollaborative eTandem task. System, 75, 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. H. (2019). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 603–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Canals, L. (2020). The effects of virtual exchanges on oral skills and motivation. Language Learning & Technology, 24(3), 103–119.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 19–43.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2005). Computer-assisted language learning. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 743–755). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. Modern Language Journal, 93, 741–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Chen, J., & Kent, S. (2020). Task engagement, learner motivation and avatar identities of struggling English language learners in the 3D virtual world. System, 88, .Google Scholar
Chong, S. W., & Reinders, H. (2020). Technology-mediated task-based language teaching: A qualitative research synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 24(3), 70–86.Google Scholar
*Cornillie, F., Buendgens-Kosten, J., Sauro, S., & Van der Veken, J. (2021). “There’s always an option”: Collaborative writing of multilingual interactive fanfiction in a foreign language class. CALICO Journal, 38(1), 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J., & Clark, V. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.Google Scholar
*Dao, P., Nguyen, M., Duong, P. T., & Tran-Thanh, A. V. (2021). Learners’ engagement in L2 computer-mediated interaction: Chat mode, interlocutor familiarity, and text quality. The Modern Language Journal, 105(4), 767–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehghanzadeh, H., Fardanesh, H., Hatami, J., Talaee, E., & Noroozi, O. (2021). Using gamification to support learning English as a second language: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(7), 934–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2020). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D. & Wulff, S. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 83–104). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, D. H., Dixon, T., & Jordan, E. (2022). Second language (L2) gains through digital game-based language learning (DGBLL): A meta-analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 26(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Di Zou, Y. H., & Xie, H. (2021). Digital game-based vocabulary learning: Where are we and where are we going? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(5–6), 751–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2017). Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching, 50(4), 507–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
*Fuente, M. J. (2014). Learners’ attention to input during focus on form listening tasks: The role of mobile technology in the second language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(3), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2020). Input, interaction, and output in L2 acquisition. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D. & Wulff, S. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 192–222). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, J. (2020). CALL research: Where are we now? ReCALL, 32(2), 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godwin-Jones, R. (2023). Emerging spaces for language learning: AI bots, ambient intelligence, and the metaverse. Language Learning & Technology, 27(2), 6–27.Google Scholar
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2022). Technology-mediated tasks for the development of L2 pragmatics. Language Teaching Research, 26(2), 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2023). The road System travelled: Five decades of technology in language education. System, 118, .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L., Eds. (2014a). Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (2014b). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 1–21). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M., & Rock, K. (2022). Tasks in technology-mediated contexts. In Ziegler, N. & González-Lloret, M. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and technology (pp. 36–49). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1393–1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Kao, C. (2020). The effect of a digital game-based learning task on the acquisition of the English Article System. System, 95, .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., Jung, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2017). Implementation of a localized task-based course in an EFL context: A study of students’ evolving perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 632–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Kim, Y., Kang, S., Nam, Y., & Skalicky, S. (2022). Peer interaction, writing proficiency, and the quality of collaborative digital multimodal composing task: Comparing guided and unguided planning. System, 106, .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 498–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., Poehner, M. E., & Throne, S. L. (2020). Sociocultural theory and L2 development. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D. & Wulff, S. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 223–247). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S.-M., Yang, Z., & Wu, J. G. (2023). Live, play, and learn: Language learner engagement in the immersive VR environment. Education and Information Technologies. doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12215-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Hiver, P., & Papi, M. (2022). Individual differences in second language acquisition: Theory, research, and practice. In S., L., Hiver, P. & Papi, M. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences (pp. 3–34). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2020). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2021). Exploring the relationship between TBLT and ISLA. Task, 1(1), 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction of second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In Hyltenstam, K. & Peinemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our research? The ethical as transformative lens in instructed SLA. Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L., & González-Lloret, M. (2015). Staking out the territory of technology-mediated TBLT. In Bygate, M. (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 59–86). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Payant, C., & Zuniga, M. (2022). Learners’ flow experience during peer revision in a virtual writing course during the global pandemic. System, 105, .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2023). Sampling and generalizability in Lx research: A second-order synthesis. Languages, 8(1), .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL-SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 17–37.Google Scholar
Ramanarayanan, V., Suendermann-Oeft, D., Lange, P., Mundkowsky, R., Ivanov, A. V., Yu, Z., … Evanini, K. (2017). Assembling the Jigsaw: How multiple open standards are synergistically combined in the HALEF multimodal dialog system. In Dahl, D. A. (Ed.), Multimodal interaction with W3C standards: Towards natural user interfaces to everything (pp. 295–310). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Rassaei, E. (2017). Video chat vs. face-to-face recasts, learners’ interpretations and L2 development: A case of Persian EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1–2), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language pedagogy. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Taguchi, N., Dixon, D. H., Qin, Y., & Chen, Y. (2022). Pedagogic tasks in digital games: Effects of feedback conditions and individual characteristics on learning request-making. Language Teaching Research, 1–27.Google Scholar
*Tai, T.-Y. (2022). Impact of mobile virtual reality on EFL learners’ listening comprehension. Language Learning & Technology, 26(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
*Thomas, M., & Reinders, H. (Eds.) (2010). Task-based language learning and teaching with technology. Continuum.Google Scholar
*Timpe-Laughlin, V., & Dombi, J. (2020). Exploring L2 learners’ request behavior in a multi-turn conversation with a fully automated agent. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(2), 221–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, R., & Zou, D. (2022). Types, purposes, and effectiveness of state-of-the-art technologies for second and foreign language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 696–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Ziegler, N., & Phung, H. (2019). Technology-mediated task-based interaction: The role of modality. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar