31.259, Review: Applied Linguistics; Language Acquisition: Samuda, Van den Branden, Bygate (2018)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-31-259. Mon Jan 20 2020. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 31.259, Review: Applied Linguistics; Language Acquisition: Samuda, Van den Branden, Bygate (2018)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Peace Han, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Julian Dietrich
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 22:05:21
From: Ekaterina Sudina [es2258 at nau.edu]
Subject: TBLT as a Researched Pedagogy

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36507697


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/30/30-670.html

EDITOR: Virginia  Samuda
EDITOR: Kris  Van den Branden
EDITOR: Martin  Bygate
TITLE: TBLT as a Researched Pedagogy
SERIES TITLE: Task-Based Language Teaching 12
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2018

REVIEWER: Ekaterina Sudina, Northern Arizona University

SUMMARY

“TBLT as a Researched Pedagogy” (2018) is the 12th volume of John Benjamins’s
series on “Task-Based Language Teaching [TBLT]: Issues, Research and Practice”
by Martin Bygate, John Norris, and Kris van den Branden. The present volume
was edited by Virginia Samuda, Kris Van den Branden, and Martin Bygate. John
Norris, on behalf of series editors, emphasizes in the preface that the main
purpose of the volume is “to illuminate exactly what is going on as teachers
and learners encounter, make their own sense of, and act upon an array of
TBLT-inspired pedagogic practices” (p. vii). In other words, the focus is on
the pedagogical applications of the TBLT approach in authentic second and
foreign language learning classrooms as opposed to theoretically-oriented TBLT
research conducted predominantly in language labs. The preface is followed by
the editors’ introduction that restates and elucidates the primary goal of the
volume and prepares the reader for the ten chapters that comprise the book. 

The introduction “Towards a researched pedagogy for TBLT” begins with a quote
by Alexander (2013) on the essence of pedagogy, which is a key concept of the
current volume. The authors then comment on how TBLT research has evolved over
time covering not only psycholinguistic frameworks but also sociolinguistic
and even interdisciplinary frameworks – such as Dynamic Systems Theory that
elucidates the relationship “between the social and the psychological aspects
of the individual and language through the interconnectedness of systems” (De
Bot, Verspoor, & Lowie, 2005, pp. 116-117). Despite the growing attractiveness
of TBLT to both researchers and educators, the imbalances between TBLT
research and pedagogy are alarming. According to the editors, it is with the
goal to reflect upon and address those imbalances that the present volume has
been compiled. In the sub-section on the relationship between TBLT pedagogy
and research, the authors elaborate on what makes a language teaching approach
research-based and propose such characteristics as openness, flexibility, and
successful implementation “in authentic classroom conditions” rather than
“tightly controlled” laboratory settings (p. 3). When addressing the
prevailing misconceptions related to TBLT (e.g., exclusive focus on meaning
with a minimum focus on form; the broad definition of a task as any form of
classroom activity, etc.), the authors accentuate the importance of
understanding the concepts of “directionality, relevance, and transparency in
TBLT research” (p. 5). Directionality refers to the relationship between
research and pedagogy, which can be either top-down (i.e., prescriptive) or
bottom-up (i.e., descriptive). Whereas the top-down approach is one-sided and
is often frowned upon by the teachers, the bottom-up approach allows for a
constructive dialogue between TBLT research and pedagogical practice. A
“healthy” two-way relationship between the two – in which pedagogy is no
longer looked down upon – is, therefore, of paramount importance. With regard
to the concept of relevance, the primary consumers of TBLT research are
currently other TBLT researchers rather than practitioners, which can be
accounted for by the mismatch between theoretical and pedagogical interests.
Ideally – authors claim – pedagogical implications should motivate TBLT
studies instead of bringing “research reports to a close” (p. 8). Regarding
transparency, there is a mounting need to pay close attention to the
definitions of “task,” “task-based,” and “task-supported” that are not used
interchangeably by researchers and educators. The IRIS database that contains
thousands of materials (including tasks) used in second language research
studies (Marsden, Mackey, & Plonsky, 2016) is one such resource that promotes
transparency. The last sub-section of the introduction briefly outlines the
chapters included in the volume and highlights the features that they have in
common, such as the diversity of the TBLT approach, local practices, and
teacher roles. 

Chapter 1 by East reports on a qualitative study conducted in New Zealand that
investigated pre-service secondary school teachers’ attitudes, interpretation,
and reflection on the tasks that they developed and implemented in their
classrooms. The study motivation was as follows: Although TBLT is considered
to be a powerful approach that helps promote second and foreign language
learning and enhance students’ speaking abilities, its novelty and crucial
differences from communicative language teaching (CLT) result in teachers
having serious reservations about it. The sample comprised beginning teachers
(n = 20) of “foreign languages (FLs) other than English” (p. 24). The goal of
the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the teacher training program
aimed at instigating positive change in teachers’ beliefs regarding TBLT. The
research provided examples of seven tasks designed by the novice teachers of
seven foreign languages and listed them from the least to the most task-like.
The findings demonstrated that teachers’ understanding of what constitutes a
task did not always align with the theoretical definitions of an effective
task. Nonetheless, participants were able to enhance the awareness of their
own teaching practices despite the varying degrees of success in evaluating
the tasks that they had designed. 

Nguyen, Newton and Crabbe’s “Teacher transformation of textbook tasks in
Vietnamese EFL high school classrooms” (Chapter 2) focused on the foreign
language teachers’ (n = 9) implementation of oral language tasks “provided in
officially mandated textbooks” (p. 54). Similar to the situation in New
Zealand described in Chapter 1, the researchers emphasized the reluctance of
teachers in Vietnam to adhere to the recently adopted task-based English
curriculum in high schools. To get a better insight into the use of oral tasks
by the teachers and the reasons for diverging from the tasks in the textbooks,
the researchers employed “a multiple case study approach” (p. 55) and used a
triangulation technique to cross-validate the findings. Specifically, the
following data collection methods were used: (a) classroom observations by the
primary researcher who happened to teach at the same school, (b) stimulated
recall interviews with the teachers (shortly after the observations took
place), (c) follow-up in-depth interviews, and (d) the analyses of textbook
tasks and teacher-developed tasks. Of note, unlike other studies reported in
the volume, the qualitative findings of this study were “presented in
quantitative form” (p. 58). The results revealed that teachers strongly
preferred to modify ready-made textbook tasks or create their own tasks (86%
of the tasks diverged from those provided in textbooks). This was explained by
teachers’ striving for authenticity and open-endedness in the task design. 

Oliver and Bogachenko’s “Teacher perceptions and use of tasks in school ESL
classrooms” (Chapter 3) is another qualitative investigation of teachers’
implementation of TBLT in real classrooms. In contrast to the previous two
studies, the research was conducted in a second language context in Australia
and involved not only high school but also primary school language learners.
However, the goal of the study was similar to the one in Chapter 1, namely, to
examine the tasks designed by the teachers (n = 18) and compare them to the
definitions of tasks from the theoretical perspective. The results of the
survey, which was the only data collection method used in the study, revealed
inconsistencies in the teachers’ understanding of the task construct. Some
teachers could not differentiate between the notions of “task” and “exercise,”
while others preferred a more traditional teacher-centered instruction as
opposed to a student-centered approach that lies at the core of TBLT. Teachers
were found to possess insufficient knowledge of task structure. Finally, in
terms of assessing students’ performance of the tasks, approximately one third
of the teachers reported evaluating not only task outcomes but also students’
linguistic knowledge, which does not coincide with the position of
researchers. 

“The challenges of integrating focus on form within tasks: Findings from a
classroom research project in secondary EFL classrooms” (Chapter 4) by
Müller-Hartmann and Schocker is an example of a longitudinal case study
conducted in Germany. Researchers worked in tandem with secondary school
teachers (n = 20) for three years, helping them develop the tasks with
particular attention to a focus on form (FonF) and exploring “learning-related
issues” that are more relevant to practitioners than commonly researched
“language-related issues” (p. 100). Similar to Vietnamese teachers in Nguyen,
Newton and Crabbe’s report, German teachers in this study had to use
prescribed EFL textbooks and either adapt or design their own tasks. Another
issue that echoed the situation described in Chapter 3 was teachers’ overload.
To gain a comprehensive understanding of teachers’ perspectives on TBLT, the
researchers analyzed teachers’ case studies and the transcripts of
video-recorded workshops with the participants. The data interpretation was
based on “‘between method’ and ‘investigator triangulation’” (p. 113). One of
the research findings revealed that some learners looked disfavorably on the
TBLT methods, which was explained by the fact that those students associated
“high quality teaching with the traditional approach to grammar teaching” (p.
122). 

Andon’s “Optimal conditions for TBLT?: A case study of teachers’ orientation
to TBLT in the commercial EFL for adults sector in the UK” (Chapter 5)
presents a non-interventionist exploratory study of educational settings that
are arguably more suited for the TBLT implementation than others.
Particularly, the researcher conducted three case studies that involved
instructors (n = 3) teaching ESL to adults in private language schools in the
UK. Drawing on the existing literature, the author first contrasts
“better-resourced BANA contexts” (i.e., developed English-speaking countries)
with more traditional “TESEP contexts” (i.e., developing countries),
emphasizing that BANA teachers have more autonomy and higher levels of L2
proficiency than teachers in EFL countries. Secondly, building on Long (2015),
the author enumerates the following conditions that are especially favorable
for TBLT: (a) small class sizes, (b) homogeneous proficiency levels of
students in the group, (c) adult or adolescent learners, (d) different first
language (L1) background of students, (e) “naturalistic exposure to the target
language outside the class” (p. 137), (f) no need to prepare students for
high-stakes examinations, and (g) extended hours of language instruction. The
data collection methods included “semi-structured interviews and lesson
observations” (p. 140). The findings demonstrated that tasks were “used in a
hybrid fashion as part of each teachers’ approach, alongside other approaches,
techniques, and activities” despite the fact that those teachers were working
“in conditions considered conducive to the adoption of TBLT” (p. 159). 

“Task-based language teaching: How task-based is it really?” (Chapter 6) by
Vandommele, Van den Branden, and Van Gorp was concerned with the observation
of L2 Dutch teachers (n = 4) working with high-beginner level adolescents
enrolled in a two-week summer school. The task-based syllabus comprising 18
tasks was developed by the first author. The teachers who had various degrees
of TBLT experience and taught two different groups of students were allowed to
adapt the syllabus to better suit the needs of the learners. The
implementation of five TBLT principles was rated on a 5-point Likert scale by
22 trained graduate students pursuing a master’s degree in Applied
Linguistics. The results indicated that two inexperienced teachers
consistently applied three core principles out of five, whereas two
experienced teachers lacked systematicity when putting the principles into
practice. 

Shintani’s “Researching TBLT for young, beginner learners in Japan” (Chapter
7) is a personal narrative describing the author’s journey from an EFL teacher
who became gradually disappointed in the traditional
presentation-practice-production (PPP) method to a self-taught TBLT researcher
striving to find a more effective approach to teaching elementary school
beginner language learners. The discovery and successful implementation of
input-based tasks that required “only a non-verbal response from students” (p.
207), prompted the author to conduct a local study comparing the effectiveness
of TBLT and PPP approaches in a sample of 6-year-olds, all true beginners of
English. The results of the 14-week experiment demonstrated that “the nature
of learner output in the two instructional conditions was clearly different”
(p. 210). Critically, children in the TBLT condition no longer considered
English “as an object to be ‘learnt’” but used it “as a tool for purposeful
communication” (p. 211). 

Chapters 8 and 9 shifted the focus from language teachers to language learners
and their perceptions of different types of feedback. Lynch’s “Promoting
learning from second language speaking tasks: Exploring learner attitudes to
the use of comparators and oral feedback” (Chapter 8) written in the form of a
personal narrative investigated international postgraduate students’ attitudes
to two post-task feedback techniques and “comparators” that serve to
supplement feedback. The first technique is “proof-listening”, which is
analogous to proof-reading, while the second one is “self-transcribing”, which
proved its effectiveness as a “noticing tool” (p. 216). “Comparators” that
include “recordings and/or transcripts of sample performances by competent
(non-native and native) speakers of the target language” (p. 217) help
students either prepare for the task or reflect on the task after it has been
performed. In order to examine “language learners’ preferences among different
types of feedback” (p. 218), the questionnaire was administered to two groups
of students studying at the University of Edinburgh: (a) in-session learners
(n = 66) who expressed their opinions while imagining a hypothetical situation
of receiving feedback and (b) pre-sessional learners (n = 10) who knew that
their decisions would influence the way the TBLT-based lesson would be
organized. The findings revealed that respondents unanimously agreed on
receiving feedback from the teacher but expressed different opinions with
regard to “listening to non-native speakers” (p. 228). The chapter concluded
with the description of a new framework that takes into consideration
learners’ preferences towards feedback and comparators. 

“Tasks in the pedagogic space: Using online discussion forum tasks and
formative feedback to develop academic discourse skills at Master’s level”
(Chapter 9) by Andon, Dewey, and Leung explored graduate students’ perceptions
of online tasks and instructors’ feedback. The first study involved master’s
students (n = 35) enrolled in the Applied Linguistics program at a university
in the UK. Students’ posts to the academic discussion forum (k = 150) and the
tutor’s responses were analyzed by two researchers and a doctoral student. The
results suggested that students’ critical writing skills were enhanced, which
was attributed to the effectiveness of the discussion forum. The follow-up
study was conducted several months later. Four domestic and four international
students expressed their attitudes to tutors’ feedback in a semi-structured
interview. The findings indicated that students had different opinions on the
relevance of the feedback received. 

The concluding article by Baralt entitled “Becoming a task-based teacher
educator: A case study” (Chapter 10) depicted a personal narrative of a novice
second language acquisition (SLA) researcher who, after a careful analysis and
brainstorming, managed to improve her own approach to teacher education and
became a successful teacher-trainer at a large U.S. university. 

EVALUATION

The current volume on “TBLT as a researched pedagogy” would be accessible not
only to applied linguists but also to teacher-trainers and any practitioners
interested in implementing the TBLT approach in their classrooms by drawing on
the experiences of colleagues from different educational settings. Critically,
the studies reported in the book are inherently qualitative and do not require
any knowledge of inferential statistics on the part of the reader, which makes
the volume suitable for a broad audience, including undergraduate students and
pre-service language teachers. A plethora of task samples along with
researchers’ comments and detailed explanations regarding whether these tasks
meet the requirements of the TBLT approach from a theoretical perspective are
invaluable to teachers who would like to design their own tasks or analyze the
tasks provided in the coursebooks against the criteria of task-likeness.
Additionally, teachers who are interested in conducting classroom-based
research projects involving their own students will find useful tips on how to
design a qualitative study depending on the primary data collection tools
available to them (including a variety of triangulation techniques) and – most
importantly – what pitfalls to avoid. With regard to SLA specialists, the book
will be of more relevance to qualitatively- rather than
quantitatively-oriented researchers due to the nature of the studies presented
in the book. Nonetheless, quantitative researchers with an interest in
mixed-methods research would also benefit from reading the book. Lastly, this
volume can be a source of inspiration for graduate students’ research. 

The primary strength of this volume lies in a multitude of perspectives on the
application of TBLT both in second language (6 studies) and foreign language
(4 studies) settings. The research was conducted with a variety of
participants – from elementary schoolchildren in Japan with no prior knowledge
of English to postgraduate international students in the UK with high levels
of English language proficiency. Although the predominant target language was
English (8 studies out of 10) – which appears to be a common problem with SLA
research (i.e., not only qualitative but also quantitative – see, e.g.,
Gurzynski-Weiss & Plonsky, 2017) – other languages such as Dutch (Chapter 6),
Chinese, French, Spanish, and Japanese (Chapter 1) were also investigated. As
mentioned in the introduction, the scope of the volume included 9 countries:
two Asian countries (Japan and Vietnam), four Western European countries
(England, Germany, Belgium [Flanders], and Scotland), one North American
country (the United States), Australia, and New Zealand, which increases the
generalizability of the findings across a wide range of populations. 

As far as the structure of the book is concerned, the ten studies that
constitute the volume are united by the overarching problem, namely, the
pedagogical-research gulf. Although the introduction is the main unifying
conceptual piece giving impetus to the reports that followed, each chapter
(except the personal narrative in Chapter 10) has its own literature review
section. Since the studies are addressing the same topic, it is not surprising
that most works referenced in the literature reviews overlap. Specifically,
authors repeatedly drew on the TBLT frameworks by Ellis (2003, 2009), Long
(2015), Samuda and Bygate (2008), Willis (1996), and Willis and Willis (2007).
Given that language teachers are the primary audience of volume, it is not
surprising that the key focus is on their attitudes and perceptions of TBLT
(eight chapters out of ten). Chapters 8 and 9, however, stand out from the
rest by having a primary focus on language learners’ attitudes to feedback.
Even though these studies are valuable in themselves as they provide insight
into learners’ perceptions of feedback and, therefore, have important
implications for teachers, these two chapters do not cohere well with the
others in the volume and appear to be out of place. In terms of sequencing,
the overall order of the chapters in the book does not seem to be
well-thought-out either. The chapters could have been organized by (a) study
design: e.g., personal narratives, studies relying on a single data source,
and more elaborate studies that used triangulation, (b) language environment:
ESL versus EFL, or (c) the type of institution: primary and secondary schools,
universities, and private language schools. 

The individual chapters comprising the volume differed both in terms of
methodological design and accessibility to the target audience (i.e., language
teachers). As mentioned earlier, most studies were purely qualitative and did
not employ statistical analyses. The study presented in Chapter 6 was one of
the few exceptions, in that it reported the inter-rater reliability and the
mean ratings of the scores (however, no standard deviations were provided).
The most methodologically sound study was presented by Nguyen, Newton, and
Crabbe (Chapter 2) who used a variety of triangulation techniques to validate
the findings and quantified their qualitative data. Other studies that also
used triangulation methods were described, among others, in Chapters 4 and 5.
In the case when only one method was employed (e.g., teachers’ self-reports in
Chapters 1 and 3), the limitations were acknowledged. Three personal
narratives presented in Chapters 7, 8, and 10 were written in a less formal
style and would be readily accessible even to beginning language teachers. 

With regard to shortcomings, a closer look at the references revealed
inconsistencies: Chapters 5 and 10 referenced Ellis’s (2003) “Task-based
language learning and teaching” as “Task-based language teaching and
learning”, which could be attributed either to a typographical error or to a
lack of proofreading on the part of the authors and editors. Further, it was
noticed that the terms “ESL” and “EFL” were not used in a uniform way. For
instance, the context of the study conducted in the UK, a country in which
English is the official language, was described as an EFL rather than an ESL
(Chapter 5). Some studies would have benefited from presenting their findings
more precisely and comprehensively (e.g., Chapters 7 and 9). Finally, not all
conclusions derived from the studies should be taken at face value (e.g.,
sample sizes in Chapter 8 were not comparable; teacher participants in
Chapters 2 and 4 were not representative of the population). 

The aforementioned limitations notwithstanding, the first step in bridging the
gap between TBLT theory and practice has been successfully accomplished. By
providing a thorough account of how tasks are being designed, implemented, and
evaluated by teachers in real classrooms across different countries and
learner demographics, the present volume pointed to the necessity of opening
up a constructive dialogue between TBLT teachers and researchers and creating
a safe space for productive teacher-researcher collaboration. 

REFERENCES

De Bot, K., Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2005). Dynamic Systems Theory and
applied linguistics: The ultimate “so what”? International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 15, 116–118. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.0083b.x

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 

Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the
misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x 

Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Plonsky, L. (2017). Look who’s interacting: A scoping
review of research involving non-teacher/non-peer interlocutors. In L.
Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the
interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other
interlocutors (pp. 305-324). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language
teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Marsden, E., Mackey A., & Plonsky, L. (2016). The IRIS Repository: Advancing
research practice and methodology. In A. Mackey & E. Marsden (Eds.), Advancing
methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into
second languages (pp. 1–21). New York, NY: Routledge. 

Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning.
Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

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

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


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Ekaterina Sudina, a former interpreter and EFL teacher, is a doctoral student
and research assistant in the Applied Linguistics program at Northern Arizona
University. Her primary research interests include individual differences in
SLA, second language assessment, and L2 reading and writing.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2019 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
               https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list-2019

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-31-259	
----------------------------------------------------------