Tasks and Technology in Language Learning: Elective Affinities and (Dis)encounters



Download 46.45 Kb.
Date19.06.2017
Size46.45 Kb.

Tasks and Technology in Language Learning: Elective Affinities and (Dis)encounters

  • Lourdes Ortega
  • University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
  • 3rd International Task-Based Language Teaching Conference. Lancaster, September 13-16, 2009
  • Thanks to the organizers:
  • Martin Bygate
  • Judit Kormos
  • Andrea Révész
  • Virginia Samuda
  • Powerpoint can be downloaded from my website.
  • I am not a techy…
  • more like a technophobe…

In fact…

  • (Ortega, 1997, 2009; Ortega & Zyzik, 2008)
  • Temperance & empirical qualification needed…
  • Euphoric discourse
  • Idyllic images
  • But we do live in a digital society…
  • Gadgets, e.g., iphones:
  • -ing:
  • Emailing
  • Internet surfing
  • Web page viewing, maintaining, creating
  • Skyping
  • Chatting
  • Blogging
  • Instant messaging
  • Texting
  • Gaming
  • sites:
  • Facebook
  • Newsgroups
  • Wikis
  • with Internet, email, MultimediaMessageService, ShortMessageService, recording, voice control, photo making, video making, and many applicationservers
  • “Coming of age with the Internet” McMillan & Morrison (2006)
  • I use it all the time, and I believe that my life would be very different without it. I would not be able to look up the things that I wanted to without calling to get a brochure, going to the library, or ordering a book or catalog. My phone bills would be extremely high, and I would not talk to my mom as much. I really do not see what people did before the internet was invented .

… Information & Communication Technologies have changed:

  • the nature of everyday communication
  • the educational contexts afforded to our students
  • opportunities for L2 learning

Tasks and Technology

  • Skehan (2003)
  • Doughty & Long (2003)

Technology and Tasks

  • Chapelle (2003)
  • Reinders & White (in press)

My interest and focus for today?

… affordances harnessed for L2 learners to support:

  • Language (Chapelle, 2003)
  • “Culture” (Belz & Thorne, 2006)
  • Digital literacies (Warschauer, 2006)
  • Identities (Lam, 2000)
  • The social and humanistic (but not technocratic) value of educational technologies
  • (Friesen & Feenberg, 2007)
  • The social, educational, and pragmatic (but not vulgar utilitarian) value of tasks in L2 learning
  • (Norris, 2009; Samuda & Bygate, 2008; Van den Branden, 2006)

Tasks and New Technologies

  • Tasks and New Technologies
  • present many (realized and potential)
  • elective affinities

certain chemicals

  • certain chemicals
  • attract each other and
  • bond into a novel
  • compound
  • ~~ ~~ “human chemistry” ~~ ~~
  • Eduard & Charlotte
  • The Captain & Ottilie
  • Die Wahlverwandtschaften (1809)
  • Paolo Taviani
  • (1996) Le affinità elettive
  • (Isabelle Huppert as Carlotta)
  • René Magritte‘s
  • Elective Affinities (1933)
  • Two affinities
  • Affinity 1: Affordances

LLT and TBLT most unique affordances:

  • Motivation
  • Authenticity
  • Choice
  • Feedback
  • Community
  • Some examples
  • J. & K. Collentine (K. Collentine, 2009)
  • http://london-underground.modlang.nau.edu/collenti/actividades/juego1.html
  • M. González-Lloret (2003, 2007)
  • http://marta.lll.hawaii.edu/enbusca/
  • http://marta.lll.hawaii.edu/tbt/

Tight theorization of these five affordances would benefit LLT and TBLT in the future

  • Affinity 2: Theoretical base

… to do things with words…

  • … to do things with words…
  • … in order to learn an additional language
  • designing environments…
  • … to do things with words supported by communication technologies…
  • LLT
  • TBLT

doing things with words

  • LLT
  • TBLT
  • Emphasis on DOING language…
  • Emphasis on learning BY DOING…
  • Emphasis on DOING language
  • Obvious theoretical links of TBLTwith use-oriented theories of SLA

Peter Skehan

  • Peter Robinson
  • Peter Skehan
  • Processing Trade-off Hypothesis
  • Cognition Hypothesis
  • TBLT-specific:
  • Language used
  • Cognition
  • Doing
  • Language learned
  • TBLT-complementary: Interaction in SLA
  • Attention
  • Language used
  • Interactional
  • Doing
  • Language learned
  • LLT work at TBLT 2009:
  • Interaction
  • Monday
  • Maria-Elena Solares-Altamirano
  • Yu-Chuan Joni Chao
  • Ann Keller-Lally
  • Shannon Sauro
  • Tuesday
  • Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd Alwi & Rebecca Adams
  • Yuksei & Yu
  • Task complexity
  • L2 learning
  • Cross-fertilization in a certain direction
  • LLT
  • TBLT
  • SLA
  • But we also have TBLT–expanding theories, or broader use-oriented SLA theories…
  • Systemic-Functional Linguistic theory
  • Mohan (1986, 1992)
  • Byrnes (2006)
  • CA-for-SLA and other discourse-based theories of L2 learning
  • John Hellermann (2008)
  • Simona Pekarek-Doehler
  • (& Ziegler 2007)
  • Are they “incommensurable or complementary” …?
  • (Tuesday, 2:00pm)
  • Sociocultural theoretical influences on LLT are particularly rich
  • Open University group:
  • Robin Goodfellow, Marie-Nöelle Lamy, Regine Hampel
  • also in Europe:
  • Andreas Müller-Hartmann, James Simpson,
  • Gabriela Adela Gánem Gutiérrez
  • In the US:
  • Carla Meskill Mark Warschauer Steven Thorne
  • Sociocultural LLT
  • TBLT
  • Reversed engineered influence?
  • Emphasis on learning by DOING

John Dewey

  • John Dewey
  • (1938) Experience and Education
  • Explicit acknowledgement: Norris (2009), Samuda & Bygate (2008), Van den Branden et al., 2009)
  • In TBLT, educational philosophies of experiential learning
  • Obvious and sustained theoretical links of LLTwith experiential learning theories from ICT and Ed Tech
  • David & Alice Kolb’s
  • Experiential Learning Theory
  • ELT
  • experiential learning theories
  • LLT
  • TBLT
  • ICT
  • Ed Tech
  • Another reversed engineered influence?
  • Two Affinities
  • 1: Affordances
  • 2: Theoretical base
  • (Dis)Encounters
  • between tasks & technology
  • A happy encounter
  • An inexplicable disencounter
  • Tasks-in-Technology
  • Technology-in-Tasks
  • A happy encounter:
  • CMC & TB interaction research
  • Negotiation for Meaning in TB LLT
  • Jill Pellettieri
  • (2000-CUP)
  • Bob Blake
  • (2000-LL&T)
  • Bryan Smith
  • (2003-MLJ)
  • M. González-Lloret (2003)
  • (Ortega, 2009)
  • Fundamental similarities NfM does happen in CMC as in F-t-F
  • Fundamental differences
  • disrupted turn adjacency  split negotiation routines (Smith, 2003), non-contingent recasts (Lai & Zhao, 2006), delayed uptake (Smith, 2005)
  • lean medium  more explicit marking of communicative trouble (Fernández-García & Martínez Arbelaiz, 2003)
  • Negative impact on noticing?
  • Positive impact on noticing?

  • How much NfM?
  • 1 or 2 episodes .................................. +30% of all turns
  • per session/dyad
  • Task as a source of such huge variability?
  • (Ortega, 2009)
  • Attention to form in TB LLT:
  • Dyadic CMC
  • Chun Lai
  • (Lai & Zhao, 2006; Lai et al., 2008)
  • Bryan Smith
  • (2005-TQ)
  • Shannon Sauro (2009)
  • Iwasaki & Oliver (2003)
  • Attention to form in TB LLT:
  • Teacher/tutor-mediated CMC
  • Shawn Loewen, Rosemary Erlam, et al.
  • (Loewen & Erlam, 2006; Loewen & Reissner, 2009)
  • Fundamental similarities re. negative feedback
  • Recasts overwhelmingly preferred to more explicit corrections
  • Uptake results inconclusive
  • Some (tentative) differences
  • Amounts of negative feedback are more often than not reported lower on CMC than F-t-F (although there is high variability across studies)
  • CMC factors may damp noticing: non-contingent, incorporated recasts (Lai et al., 2008)
  • (Ortega, 2009)
  • Insufficient accumulated evidence, so many more questions than answers

Neglected role of tasks

  • Strangely, many pending questions may involve task explanations,
  • but no seeming effort at studying tasks per se
  • An inexplicable disencounter:
  • Where is CAF in TB CMC?
  • e.g., Zsuzsanna I. Abrams, Olaf Böhlke, David Coniam, Michael Fitze, Mark Freiermuth, Ann Keller-Lally, Lina Lee, Susana Sotillo, Rafael Salaberry, Ilona Vandergriff
  • Research on “complexity/richness” of L2 practice in CMC (Ortega, 1997)
  • Educational benefits  CMC may be an equalizer of participation
  • SLA benefits  egalitarian participation may bring about higher productivity and more complex discourse
  • SLA fears  accuracy may suffer
  • But no precise application of either CAF research measures (Housen & Kuiken, 2009)
  • or TB cognitive frameworks
  • (Skehan vs. Robinson)
  • However, a definite concern with accuracy & CMC for L2 learning
  • Might task design matter after all?
  • (2003)
  • (2007)
  • n=27
  • 8 weeks
  • 120 sessions
  • 10,644 turns
  • 232 NfM (10%)
  • 1.9 NfM/session
  • n=9
  • 2 semesters
  • 49 sessions
  • 3,687 turns
  • 61 NfM (9%)
  • 1.2 NfM/session
  • Enza Tudini, University of South Australia
  • Tudini (2003)
  • Tudini (2007)
  • “Students were simply asked to chat with NS with a view to evaluating the live chat as a possible teaching and learning tool” (p. 148).
  • required to submit their best 6 sessions for evaluation
  • assignment = 10% of course grade
  • encouraged explicitly to seek assistance from the L1 chatters
  • given a list of cross-cultural topics to use during the chat conversations
  • Task design...

CMC task design does matter

  • Negotiate-over-lexis-first principle countered with post-task stakes?
  • (Skehan & Foster, 1997)
  • Just instructions may help “foreground a focus on language form”…
  • Paige Ware & Rob O’Dowd (2008)
  • asynchronous feedback on form LREs for “partnering” vs. “tutoring” e-conditions
  • Maybe things will begin to change?
  • Ann Keller-Lally
  • jig-saw vs. decision-making vs. opinion exchange
  • Nik Aloesnita Nik
  • Mohd Alwi & Rebecca Adams
  • CAF
  • Shannon Sauro
  • Syntactic complexity
  • lexical richness
  • Karina Collentine (2009, LL&T)
  • interrupted & uninterrupted reasoning & interaction cycles
  • Encounter or disencounter?
  • Tasks-in-technology

Tasks-in-technology, neglected dimension

  • “… the large majority of studies of CMC […] deal with task design only tangentially and teachers frequently transfer tasks used in face-to-face
  • settings to online environments without adapting them to the new setting”
  • (Regine Hampel, 2006, p. 106)

Bryan Smith

  • Jig-saw task
  • Decision-making task
  • Jointly decide on 4 gifts for 4 members of home stay family in the US
  • (a) Each student has specific parameters and 4 gift suggestions, all of which must be negotiated into consensus;
  • (b) End with discussion of gift-giving customs in your countries
  • Each student has 3 different pictures –
  • (a) Describe all 6 to sequence them into a “bus trip” story;
  • (b) End with discussion of public transportation in the US and your countries.

Smith (2003, 2005): Seeded target words

  • Smith (2003, 2005): Seeded target words
  • “jig-saw
  • tasks”:
  • info-gap with
  • closed
  • solution
  • Smith (2003):
  • Each student has 3 different pictures Describe all 6 and sequence them into a “bus trip” story; discuss public transportation in the US and your countries.
  • Blake (2000)
  • Share the activities from two different personal calendars: Antonio Banderas and Madonna. Identify the events done in common by the two people. Then develop a story written in the past about those common activities.
  • Blake (2000):
  • Find an apartment in Madrid by sharing Web ads and personal preferences (see URL). Summarize the results using TEXTPAD.
  • “discussion
  • tasks”:
  • info-gap with
  • open-ended
  • Freiermuth (2001)
  • Discuss which of 4 cities in the US would be ideal for opening a new business (with parameters)
  • Sauro (2009):
  • Write each other on one of two themes (Swedish culture or global warming) and use bank of related words, including 10 abstract nouns
  • Freiermuth & Jarrell (2006):
  • Plan out three ways to spend a 500,000 yen gift certificate and decide which way is better and why.
  • Fitze (2006):
  • Discussion of essay topics prior to writing (e.g., professional sporting)
  • Vandergriff (2006):
  • The moral dilemma of the Alligator River Story (used originally by Gee, 1989)
  • Dekhinet (2008):
  • Browse through a website with many links about
  • Scottish culture and discuss them with your chat pal.
  • Sachs & Suh (2007):
  • Read L1 story, retell in L2 with sequenced pictures & lexical help (to NS chat pal)
  • Blake (2000):
  • Find an apartment in Madrid by sharing Web ads and personal preferences (see URL). Summarize the results using TEXTPAD.
  • from tasks to projects…?

Task-based e-mail tandem exchange

  • Appel & Gilabert (2002)
  • e.g, (4-week task):
  • A night out in Barcelona/Dublin
  • GOAL: route and budget for a night out on a trip to Barcelona or Dublin
  • Discussed places where young people go out in their own towns
  • e-mailed tandem partners with options and description of their usual routine on a weekend night
  • Decided on what places they would like to go to on the hypothetical night out in Barcelona or Dublin, drew a budget for the night
  • scanned entrance tickets, leaflets, etc for the venues and shared them on webpage
  • OUTCOME: presentation of their final planned night out

Task-based email exchanges probably afford more language productivity and affective engagement than conversational email exchanges

  • Appel & Gilabert (2006)

Task-based email-mediated role-play

  • Leahy (2004)
  • BA European business students (L2 German), 3 to 4 weeks:
  • GOAL: develop a marketing strategy for how to introduce a product to a new market
  • 5 f-t-f dyads communicating through email
  • each dyad took on different roles in charge of different elements of the whole task/goal
  • Internet used as a source for task data
  • OUTCOME: presentation of results by dyads orally, per individual in written summary

  • Develop marketing strategy
  • Dyad 1:
  • UK company
  • “Christmas pudding”
  • Dyads 3, 4, 5:
  • Research assistants to
  • Dyads 1 & 2
  • 3-Similar products on WWW
  • 4-Market conditions
  • 5-Cultural & economic problem shooting
  • Dyad 2:
  • German marketing company
  • Consultant to Dyad 1

new questions:

  • Pedagogy: What are the consequences of changing from tasks to projects?
  • Research: How do we investigate projects from TBLT perspectives?

Reinders & White (in press)

  • What’s needed to understand and inform the design of sociocollaborative tasks in multimodal environments?
  • Theoretical pluralism
  • Interactionist as well as sociocultural theories + ICT & CMC theories of medium
  • So, maybe
  • tasks-in-technology…
  • an improvised encounter thus far… but one with a future
  • An imminent encounter:
  • Technology-in-tasks

Cognitivist preference for control & structure, but…

  • less structured, more inquiry-based task space encourages learners to exercise agency and enact identities, to do learning from sociocultural and social semiotic perspectives that address the “whole” learner
  • (Marie-Nöelle Lamy, 2007)

Lamy & Goodfellow’s Simuligne project (group competition)

  • Lamy & Goodfellow’s Simuligne project (group competition)
  • Imagine, design, and create a French city with the necessary attributes to host a residential course
  • Create self-character for the city and describe community role
  • Invent history and anthem of city
  • Visit all cities and vote to choose recipient of city award
  • Imagination

Task-based NetMeeting-mediated web creation project

  • Levy & Kennedy (2004)
  • Levy & Kennedy (2004)
  • 4 Australian students (L2 Italian):
  • GOAL (chosen by participants): produce web pages for the Italian Studies site of these students’ university
  • Useful to students (in Australia) visiting Bologna and Perugia for a certain period of time
  • With “live” material (audio & video) collected from informants in cities

conferencing software

  • e.g., NetMeeting, with text/audio chat, graphics, & desktop sharing
  • jointly browsing of the same on-screen material (e.g., websites) while talking
  • jointly creating documents & alternating the control of the application

Task-based mobile phone interactions

  • Kiernan & Aizawa (2004)
  • Kiernan & Aizawa (2004)
  • Narrative & invitation tasks done via:
  • F-t-f, (b) PC email, (c) mobile phone email
  • Less language produced via mobile phone email (using thumb pad), but
  • Similar approach to task
  • And most motivating: Most students wanted to experience the mobile phone email condition

Importance of social context for technologies

  • Only 4 of 54 Japanese college participants did not own a mobile phone with email
  • Almost all 50 owners used mobile phone daily and primarily for texting and emailing
  • Many Japanese college students know how to use the mobile thumb pad to text but not a PC keyboard
  • In Japan & Europe, speaking on mobile phones is expensive, texting is cheap (the opposite is true in the US)

“Part of the difficulty in drawing conclusions within CMC research is that results are often based on tasks or laboratory experiments that do not easily generalize to the real world”

  • “Part of the difficulty in drawing conclusions within CMC research is that results are often based on tasks or laboratory experiments that do not easily generalize to the real world”
  • (Luppicini, 2007, p. 174)
  • Alternative, more “real-world”:
  • Open social spaces, gaming, immersive environments
  • The look to the future:
  • Open social spaces, gaming, immersive environments
  • James Gee
  • Marc Prensky
  • Sage
  • Routledge
  • Sage
  • In LLT too
  • D. Zheng (Zheng et al. 2009)
  • Douglas Coleman (2002)
  • NfM…
  • Negotiation
  • for Action
  • from tasks to projects…
  • to virtual worlds…?
  • “From Always-On to Always-There”
  • (de Lange, 2009)
  • How tractable for existing TBLT frameworks?
  • here-and-now vs. there-and-then
  • time-less & space-less “Always On” (Baron, 2008)

Gaming, simulations, & other immersive new technologies

  • tasks & technology
  • Affinities
  • (Dis)encounters
  • What does the future hold?

“unfulfilled potentials… trapped within superficial barriers” (blescarmona, 2009)

  • René Magritte‘s
  • Elective Affinities (1933)
  • “unfulfilled potentials… trapped within superficial barriers” (blescarmona, 2009)
  • Will the TBLT and LLT research communities break away from superficial barriers?…
  • Will future research fulfill the potential between tasks and technology?
  • Thank You
  • lortega@hawaii.edu

References:

  • Appel, C. & Gilabert, R. (2002). Motivation and task performance in a task-based web-based tandem project. ReCALL, 14(1), 16–31.
  • Appel, C. & Gilabert, R. (2006). Finding common ground in LSP: a computer-mediated communication project. In Elisabet Arno Macia, Antonia Soler Cervera, & Carmen Rueda Ramos (Eds.), Information Technology in Languages for Specific Purposes: Issues and Prospects (pp. 75-90). New York: Springer.
  • Belz, J. A., & Thorne, S. L. (Eds.). (2006). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education . Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
  • Black, R.W. (2008). Adolescents and Online Fan Fiction. New York: Peter Lang.
  • Blescarmona .(2009). How to appreciate the paintings of Rene Magritte. Retrieved August 22 from: http://www.ehow.com/how_2117796_appreciate-paintings-rene-magritte.html
  • Byrnes, H. (Ed.). (2006). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum.
  • Chapelle, C. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
  • Coleman, D.W. (2002). Guest editorial: Simulation and computer-assisted language learning. Simulation & Gaming, 33(2), 179–180.
  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
  • Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology. 7(3), 50-80.
  • Friesen, N., & Feenberg, A. (2007). 'Ed Tech in Reverse': Information technologies and the cognitive revolution. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39, 720-736.
  • Gánem Gutiérrez, G. A. (2008). Microgenesis, method and object: A study of collaborative activity in a Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 29, 120-148.
  • González-Lloret, M. (2003). Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction: En busca de Esmeraldas. Language Learning &Technology, 7(1), 86-104. Available at: http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num1/gonzalez/default.html
  • González-Lloret, M. (2007). Implementing tasks through technology. In  K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, & M. Verhelst (Eds.), Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective (pp. 265-284). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1), 105–121.
  • Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (Eds.). (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Special Issue of Applied Linguistics, 30(4).
  • Keller-Lally, A. (2006). Effects of Group Size and Task on L2 Learners’ Output in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas, Austin.
  • Kiernan, P. J., & Aizawa, K. (2004). Cell phones in task based learning: Are cell phones useful language learning tools? ReCALL, 16, 71–84.
  • Kolb, A., & Kold, D. A. (2005). Making Spaces for Learning: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Opening Keynote Address delivered at the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning Conference, November 10-12.
  • Kolb, A. Y., Kolb, D. A. (2009). Learning to play, playing to learn: A case study of a ludic learning space. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(6).
  • Kolb, A. Y., Kolb, D. A. (2009). The learning way: Meta-cognitive aspects of experiential learning. Simulation and Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 40, 297-327.
  • Lai, C., Fei, F., & Roots, R. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26, 70-90.
  • Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102–120.
  • Lamy, M.-N. (2007). Interactive task design: Metachat and the whole language learner. In > del P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 242-264). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Leahy, C. (2004). Observations in the computer room: L2 output and learner behavior. ReCALL, 16, 24–144.
  • Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 1-14.
  • Loewen, S., & Reissner, S. (2009). A comparison of incidental focus on form in the second language classroom and chatroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 101–114.
  • Luppicini, R. (2007). Review of computer mediated communication research for education. Instructional Science, 35, 141–185.
  • Fernández-García, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2003). Learners' interactions and the negotiation of meaning: A comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversations. ReCALL, 15, 113-136.
  • McMillan, S. J., & Morrison, M. (2006). Coming of age with the internet: A qualitative exploration of how the Internet has become an integral part of young people’s lives. New Media & Society, 8, 73-95.
  • Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and content. Pearson Education.
  • Mohan, B. A. (1992). Models of the role of the computer in second language development. In M. Pennington & V. Stevens (Eds.), Computers in applied linguistics (pp. 110-126). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Mohan, B. A., & and Luo, L. (2005). A Systemic Functional Linguistics Perspective on CALL. In J. L. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL Research Perspectives (pp. 87-96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Müller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 129-147.
  • Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd Alwi, & Adams, R. (2009). Task implementation features and language production in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Paper presented at the 3rd International Task-Based Language Teaching Conference, September 15, Lancaster, UK.
  • Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In Michael H. Long & Catherine J. Doughty (Ed.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 578-594). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 Computer-assisted Classroom Discussion. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 82-93.
  • Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA: Research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 226-253). New York: Routledge.
  • Ortega, L. & Zyzik, E. (2008). Online interactions and L2 learning: Some ethical challenges for L2 researchers. In S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating Discourse Online (pp. 331-355). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Pekarek-Doehler, S. & Ziegler, G. (2007). Doing language, doing science and the sequential organization of the immersion classroom. In Z. Hua, P. Seedhouse & V. Cook (Eds.), Language learning and teaching as social interaction (pp. 72-87). Basingstike, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Peterson, M. (2009). Learner interaction in synchronous CMC: A sociocultural perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 303-321.
  • Ranalli, J. (2008). Learning English with The Sims: Exploiting authentic computer simulation games for L2 learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 441–455.
  • Reinders, H. & C. White 2009 ‘The theory and practice of technology in materials development and task design’. In: Harwood, N. Materials in ELT: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).
  • Samuda, G., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York: Palgrave Macmilan.
  • Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120.
  • Selfe, C. L., & Hawisher, G. E. (Eds.). (2007). Gaming lives in the twenty-first century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211. Simpson, J. (2005). Conversational floors in synchronous text-based CMC discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 337-361.
  • Skehan, P. (2003). Focus on form, tasks, and technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 391–411.
  • Thorne, S.L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. (forthcoming). Second language use,socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online games. Modern Language Journal.
  • Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Introducing the reader. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 1-13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Zheng, D., Young, M., Brewer, R.A., & Wagner, M. M. (2009). Negotiation for action: English language learning in game-based virtual worlds. The Modern Language Journal, 93(4).
  • Photo credits:
  • Magritte’s photo from: http://www.hss.adelaide.edu.au/philosophy/inconsistent-images/magritte/
  • Goethe’s photo from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Wolfgang_von_Goethe

Please cite as:

  • Ortega, L. (2009). Tasks and Technology in Language Learning: Elective Affinities and (Dis)encounters. Plenary delivered at the 3rd International Task-Based Language Teaching Conference. Lancaster, September 13-16.
  • Copyright © Lourdes Ortega, 2009


Download 46.45 Kb.

Share with your friends:




The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2020
send message

    Main page