Task-Based Language Teaching in

Task-Based Language Teaching in
Online Ab Initio Foreign Language

Classrooms
CHUN LAI
325 Hui Oi Chow
Science Building
Faculty of Education
University of Hong Kong
Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
Email: laichun@hku.hk
YONG ZHAO
Education 170
1215 University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon, 97403-1215
Email: yongzhao@uoregon.edu
JIAWEN WANG
Reno Hall 207
University of Detroit Mercy
4001 W. McNichols Road
Detroit, MI 48221-3038
Email: wangji7@udmercy.edu
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been attracting the attention of researchers for more
than 2 decades. Research on various aspects of TBLT has been accumulating, including the
evaluation studies on the implementation of TBLT in classrooms. The evaluation studies on
students and teachers reactions to TBLTin 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 of
a 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 reacted
positively to the online TBLT experience, and analyses of students performance at the end of
the semester suggested that this pedagogy produced good learning outcomes. This study also
identied some challenges and advantages of the online context for TBLT.
TASKBASED LANGUAGE TEACHING (TBLT)
has been attracting the attention of researchers
and language educators since Prabhu (1987) rst
proposed and experimented with task-based ap-
proaches in secondary school classrooms. The
essence of TBLT is that communicative tasks serve
as the basic units of the curriculum and are the
sole elements in the pedagogical cycle in which
primacy is given to meaning. TBLT presents a
way to realize communicative language teach-
ing at the syllabus design and methodology level
(Littlewood, 2004; Nunan, 2004; Richards, 2005).
Acknowledging the different approaches to task
denition, Samuda and Bygate (2008) dene a
pedagogical task as a holistic activity which en-
gages language use in order to achieve some
nonlinguistic outcomes while meeting a linguis-
The Modern Language Journal, 95, Supplementary Issue,
(2011)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01271.x
0026-7902/11/81103 $1.50/0
C 2012 The Modern Language Journal
tic challenge, with the overall aim of promoting
language learning, through process or product
or both (p. 69). There has been a large volume
of 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 rapid
accumulation of literature has greatly enhanced
our understanding of pedagogical tasks and TBLT
syllabus design.
At the same time, researchers have stressed the
need for TBLT to be road-tested (Klapper, 2003)
and are urging for more classroom-based TBLT
research 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 den
Branden, 2006). Although classroom implemen-
tation of TBLT is gaining momentum and has
82 The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)
been conducted in quite a variety of social and
instructional 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 rarely
trodden territory (Duran & Ramaut, 2006). Un-
derstanding this particular instructional context
is of great interest as more and more K12 on-
line foreign language programs are being set up
to meet the increasing demands for foreign lan-
guage learning in this sector. This study intends
to ll the gap in the current TBLT literature by
presenting a semester-long experimentation with
TBLT in ab initio online Chinese as foreign lan-
guage (CFL) classrooms, examining students and
teachers reactions to it and discussing the issues
involved in its implementation in this particular
context.
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
TBLT in Classrooms
Over the past decade, TBLT has become the
topdown curriculum mandate at national or re-
gional level in quite a few places, such as Hong
Kong, Malaysia, Mainland China, and Flanders
in Belgium (Carless, 2008; Mustafa, 2008; Van
den Branden, 2006; Zhang, 2007). At the same
time, however, scholars and researchers are chal-
lenging the applicability of TBLT in K12 foreign
language 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 student
perceptions and learning outcomes. Ruso (2007)
conducted an action research study on the im-
plementation of TBLT in two rst-year university-
level English classes at an Eastern Mediterranean
University and reported positive perceptions and
increased participation from the students as well
as enhanced rapport between the students and
teachers. Lee (2005) experimented with TBLT
in a vocational high school in Taiwan over one
semester and came to a similar conclusion of
positive perceptions and enjoyment. Further, she
found that TBLT improved students self-esteem,
creativity, social skills, and personal relations.
McDonough and Chaikitmongkol (2007) piloted
a TBLT course with learning strategy training
modules in a Thai University and found that the
learners not only enjoyedthe course, but alsowere
becoming more independent learners. Demir
(2008) found that the implementation of 10 read-
ing tasks in two preparatory reading classes at a
university in Turkey resulted in learners develop-
ing the skills of learning on their own and becom-
ing autonomous in the reading process. Leaver
and Kaplan (2004) came to the same conclusion
when analyzing the TBLT courses at the Defense
Language Institute and the Foreign Service Insti-
tute in the United States: They found that TBLT
promoted learning how to learn and encouraged
risk taking among the students. They further ob-
served that the TBLT courses had a lower attri-
tion rate and higher performance scores than
any ever achieved in their language programs. A
quasi-experimental classroom study in Iran pro-
vided further evidence of the capacity of TBLT
to promote positive language learning outcomes
(Rahimpour, 2008). This comparative study of
two groups of intermediate-level English as a for-
eign language (EFL) learners over one semester
found that the group that followed a TBLT syl-
labus demonstrated greater uency and complex-
ity in their oral performance in story telling tasks
than the group that followed a structural syllabus.
However, in the meantime studies investigat-
ing the implementation of TBLT by classroom
teachers have raised a note of caution con-
cerning the classroom implementation of TBLT
in 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 of
the Japanese students as well as their over-reliance
on the teacher collectively weakened the imple-
mentation of TBLT in this particular context.
Carless (2002, 2003) found that teachers teach-
ing beliefs, the prociency levels of the students,
and the sociocultural realities of Hong Kong pri-
mary schools collectively contributed to teachers
transforming TBLT into task-supported teaching.
Similar factors were identied in the Korea and
Malaysia contexts (Li, 1998; Mustafa, 2008).
In particular, the following classroom factors
have been identied to challenge classroom-
based TBLT in K12 contexts: (a) crowded and
cramped classrooms creating discipline issues
everyone in the class starting to talk at the same
time inevitably brought uncontrollable and un-
welcome noises (Bruton, 2005; Carless, 2004,
2007; Li, 1998), and mixed prociencies in the
classroom made quicker students bored with hav-
ing nothing to do while slower students struggled
to complete the tasks (Mustafa, 2008); (b) stu-
dents of different prociency levels demonstrat-
ing unbalanced involvement and contributions
students with higher language prociency
Chun Lai, Yong Zhao, and Jiawen Wang 83
beneted more from doing tasks (Carless, 2002,
2003; Tseng, 2006), whereas students with lower
language prociency and with shy personalities
became frustrated at this taxing approach to
learning (Burrows, 2008; Karavas-Doukas, 1995;
Li, 1998); (c) in many cases, students avoiding
the use of the target language in fullling the
communicative tasks (Carless, 2008; Littlewood,
2007); and (d) students suffering from anxiety
over the freedom they were given in the TBLT
approach (Burrows, 2008; Lopes, 2004). Stu-
dents perceived slow learning progress (Leaver &
Kaplan, 2004; Lopes, 2004;) and held negative
perception towards too little grammar (Lopes,
2004; McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2008).
The above classroom studies have revealed the
potential benets of TBLTin classrooms and have
also shed light on the challenges language teach-
ers might encounter whenimplementing TBLTin
their face-to-face classrooms. Given the different
natures of face-to-face and online teaching, would
the potential of TBLT hold true in the online
teaching context, and what issues, similar or dif-
ferent, would emerge when implementing TBLT
in this instructional context?
TBLT in Online Classrooms
There has been a large volume of research on
learner performance of communicative tasks in
synchronous computer-mediated communication
environments that attest to the interaction-related
benets of performing tasks in a text-based on-
line chatting environment (see Ortega, 2009, for
a detailed review). There have also been longi-
tudinal studies on TBLT as extracurricular activi-
ties or projects for learners of different ages, and
these studies presented evidence that learners in-
corporated input fromtheir 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 nd-
ings did suggest the potential of implementing
TBLT in the online learning context. Researchers
have just started to investigate the implementa-
tion of TBLT in purely online courses, determin-
ing students reactions and unraveling how the
online 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 online
German 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, andtheir researchndings were
based on these two 75-minute tutorials. Although
the learners expressed overall satisfaction with
the tasks, the tutors reported that learners were
reluctant to speak and participate in the tasks
and that in some cases the tasks suffered from
dwindling participation. To achieve better learn-
ing outcomes, they suggested that tasks needed
to be designed in such a fashion that they can
be nished in a single tutorial and require less
preparation, and that more support in the learn-
ing process needs to be given to weaker students.
Hampel (2006) reported another study on an
intermediate-level online German course. In this
course, in addition to engaging in self-study of the
course materials and interacting with the instruc-
tor and peers asynchronously, the students were
given options to attend a series of voluntary task
tutorials throughout the semester. The tutors re-
ported the tasks to be quite successful, but they
also observed uctuating participation and reluc-
tant participation on the part of weaker students.
Furthermore, they commented on the difculty
of classroom management due to the lack of par-
alinguistic cues and the danger of tasks becoming
more tutor centered with small groups.
The above two studies examined learners with
an intermediate level of language prociency and
above, whichmakes one wonder whether the same
paradigm could be used on beginner learners,
ab initio learners in particular. Although Duran
and Ramaut (2006) and Rosell-Aguilar (2005) ex-
plored the issues related to the design of tasks for
online beginner learners, little data is available
on the actual implementation of TBLT in such
classrooms.
This study intends to ll the gap in the current
literature by examining online ab initio learners
reactions to TBLT and the issues that emerged
from the implementation of TBLT in this instruc-
tional context.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study examined the implementation of
TBLT in the context of online ab initio foreign
language classrooms. Specically, two questions
were addressed:
1. What are online ab initio learners and
teachers reactions to TBLT?
2. What issues emerge from the implementa-
tion of TBLT in an online ab initio context?
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 asynchronous
and synchronous components. The asynchronous
components included student self-study of the
e-textbook, additional online learning resources
(such as Chinese podcasts, Chinese character
learning 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 a
snapshot of the course). The e-textbook used in
this course was Chengo Chinese (a sample unit:
http://www.elanguage.cn/episode02cut/), an in-
teractive courseware collaboratively developed by
the U.S. Department of Education and China
Ministry of Education. This was the only online
Chinese e-textbook for beginners available at the
time 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 for
each unit. The weekly language and culture as-
signments included one or two individual lan-
guage assignments (e.g., recording oral responses
to complete a dialogue; writing a short essay to
introduce their family), discussions on given cul-
tural topics, and self-reections on each weeks
learning progress and process. The instructor
gave written feedback on students language as-
signments in the grade center and monitored
their cultural discussions. Students could leave
messages for each other and for their instructor in
the message center and were encouraged to com-
ment on one anothers postings in the discussion
forums.
In addition to the learning and interaction
in the asynchronous course management system,
the students were required to attend one 1-hour
small group (35 students) synchronous session
with their instructor each week. The purpose of
the 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 were
instructed to make a selection from the given
list of potential timeslots for synchronous ses-
sions, and the teacher assigned them into small
groups (35 members each) based on their se-
lection. Once the student had been assigned to
a group, he or she was to stay with the team
throughout the semester. The synchronous ses-
sions were conducted through a conferencing sys-
tem, Adobe Connect. This conferencing system
allowed text- and audio-chat,
1
and had a docu-
ment sharing function that enabled the instruc-
tors and students to share documents and make
annotations on the documents on the go (see
Appendix A for a snapshot of the conferencing
system).
Prior to the study, the online ab initio Chi-
nese course had been running in this virtual high
school for two years. The synchronous sessions
were usually run in the fashion of didactic teach-
ing and structured practice of linguistic items via
the typical InitiationResponseEvaluation (IRE)
classroom discourse pattern. In 2007, in the light
of the encouraging research evidence that TBLT
brings about better learning outcomes in foreign
language classrooms than traditional approaches
(Lever & Kaplan, 2004; Rahimpour, 2008), the
researchers introduced a TBLT syllabus to imple-
ment in this course during the synchronous ses-
sions. This TBLTsyllabus was implemented in half
of 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 designand
develop a TBLT e-textbook, we kept Chengo Chi-
nese as the e-textbook for the course, but designed
a TBLT syllabus to use during the synchronous
sessions. The tasks in the TBLT syllabus were con-
structed to expand the topic of each unit in the
e-textbook. For example, the rst unit of the e-
textbook was a conversation between a teacher
and her students on the rst day of a class, in
which they greeted each other and introduced
their names. Two tasks with associated pre- and
post- activities were designed to expand it through
engaging 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). In
this course, students were usually given two weeks
to nish one unit in the e-textbook. Thus, two
TBLT sessions were designed to go with each unit,
and altogether, 12 1-hour TBLT sessions were de-
signed and implemented.
2
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 task
phase 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 activities
suggested by Ellis (2003, 2006)in some cases
students were guided and supported in perform-
ing a task similar to the one they would per-
form in the task phase (Prabhu, 1987); in some
cases, they were provided with a model of the
task 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 the
task (Willis, 1996). These pre-tasks were mainly
input-based tasks or activities aimed at familiar-
izing the students with the language needed for
the main task. The task phase consisted of one
or two output-based tasks that were designed to
engage learners in working together and using
resources available to achieve some sort of out-
come. During this phase, the instructors either
took a facilitative role or a participatory role
depending on the size of the group. The tasks
were sequenced in the light of Elliss (2003) task
complexity grading criteria (e.g., from written to
oral, from few elements/relationships to many
elements/relationships, from dialogic to mono-
logic). As for the post-task phase,
3
repeat perfor-
mance was usually designed to increase complex-
ity and uency (Ellis, 2003).
During the implementation, the instructors re-
viewed the tasks for the coming week together
with the researchers and worked collaboratively
to modify the tasks, when needed, in ways that
were more appropriate for their students (e.g.,
changing the destination of an imaginary trip to
make sure that every student knew the place).
METHOD
Participants
Thirty eight students from the ab initio classes
that adopted the TBLT syllabus during their syn-
chronous sessions volunteered to participate in
this study. The participants were all monolin-
gual Anglo-American high school students. They
ranged 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 language
learning experience, and 35% had studied two or
more foreign languages before. Exactly 88% of
the students had never taken any kind of online
courses, and 97% had never taken an online for-
eign language (FL) course. Students who missed
more than one third of the virtual meetings and
those who had any prior exposure to Chinese in
an instructional context were excluded.
The four instructors who were teaching the
TBLT classes ranged from 22 to 25 years old.
Three were female and one was male. Two of the
instructors had previous classroom foreign lan-
guage teaching experience. None of them had
taught online classes before, and none of them
had experimented with TBLT before. Aware that
working with novice teachers was quite risky and
might distort the way the TBLT syllabus was ac-
tually implemented in the classroom, measures
were taken to minimize this potential threat: the
teachers were given intensive workshops on TBLT
before the start of the semester and weekly debrief
sessions with the researchers to discuss the design
of the task cycle for the coming week and trou-
bleshoot the problems they encountered during
teaching.
We initiated the TBLT syllabus during the syn-
chronous sessions in the online ab initio Chinese
course believing that it could help enhance stu-
dents communicative abilities. To check whether
this expectation held, we included the perfor-
mance data of the control group of students from
the other half of the ab initio Chinese course
that did not implement the TBLT syllabus. This
control group consisted of 36 students of similar
proles
4
and the only difference between these
two groups was the syllabus adopted during the
synchronous 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 students
and teachers reactions to TBLT as well as the
issues that emerged from the implementation of
TBLTinthis particular context. Six sources of data
were analyzed and triangulated to answer the two
research questions.
Background Survey. At the beginning of the
semester, a student background survey was ad-
ministered to the students in all the online ab
initio Chinese classes. This backgroundsurvey col-
lected basic demographic information as well as
students previous foreign language learning and
online learning experience.
Weekly Reection Blog Entries. During the
semester, the students were required to write
self-reection blogs each week as part of their
weekly assignments to reect on their learning ex-
perience during the week. For each weeks reec-
tion blog, they were encouraged to talk about how
well they had done and what they had learned, the
challenges they had encountered, the strategies
they wanted to share with their classmates, and so
on.
Class Observations and Recorded Synchronous
Sessions. The researchers carried out weekly ob-
servations of one randomly selected session of
each TBLT teacher and took eld notes. All the
teachers in the online ab initio Chinese course
were asked to record their teaching sessions each
week using the recording function within the
video conferencing system. The recording cap-
tured every movement on the screen as well as
all the aural and written interaction between the
teacher and the students and among the stu-
dents. Thus, the recording provided minute-by-
minute replay of what was going on during the
synchronous sessions.
Course Evaluation. The course evaluation con-
sisted of three Likert scale questions (on a scale of
1 to 7) on their enjoyment of the course and per-
ceived learning and four open-ended questions
eliciting the aspects of the synchronous sessions
that they liked and disliked, their perceptions of
the synchronous sessions, and their intentions
concerning whether or not they would continue
to take the course in the coming semester. The
course evaluation items were posted as one of
their assignments for the last week of the semester
and the learners completed the course evaluation
in English.
Recording of Students Oral Production When
Performing a Descriptive Task during the Final
Exam. The nal exam was done in a one-on-one
fashion, where each student was given an exam
slot, and he/she logged into the conferencing
system alone to meet with the instructor. A mono-
logic picture description task
5
was used to elicit
students oral performance, andthe students were
asked to describe the picture orally. The same
examwas given to the students in all the online ab
initio Chinese classes, and the performance of all
the students during the nal exam was recorded
using the recording function in the conferencing
system.
Weekly Debrief and End-of-Semester Interview With
the Teachers. The TBLT teachers met with the re-
searchers every week to talk about their general
feelings about the weeks teaching and the chal-
lenges and/or the problems they had encoun-
tered, and to previewand comment onthe tasks to
be used in the coming week. The TBLT teachers
were also interviewed at the end of the semester
to obtain their reections on their overall TBLT
teaching 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 students
in the control classrooms were included were the
background survey and students performance in
the oral task in the nal exam. The control stu-
dents oral performance was included because it
enabled us to view the TBLT students learning
outcomes in the light of the students who had
not 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 that
drove the implementation of these pilot classes in
the rst place. We did not collect other data from
the control classrooms because the focus of this
study was not to test the relative effectiveness of
these two teaching methods, but rather to evalu-
ate and inform the implementation of TBLT in
an online ab initio FL instructional context.
Data Analysis
The data for the study was largely qualitative
in nature and consisted of students weekly self-
reection blogs, students course evaluation, re-
searchers classroom observation notes, the min-
utes of the weekly debrief meetings with the
teachers, and the teachers end-of-semester in-
terview data. An inductive approach was adopted
to discover the issues that emerged from the en-
tire corpus. Ad hoc transcribing and analyses of
the recorded synchronous sessions were also con-
ducted when they were called for to shed further
light into the issues identied. The recordings of
students performance in the oral descriptive task
were transcribed and coded on their uency, com-
plexity and accuracy. Statistical analysis was con-
ducted between the TBLT and control classes.
To answer the research question concerning
students and teachers reactions to TBLT, qualita-
tive analysis of students andteachers perceptions
and class performance throughout the semester
was conducted, supplemented with a quantitative
analysis of the uency, complexity, and accuracy
of students oral performance in the descriptive
task. Students course evaluations and teachers
interviews served as the primary data to obtain a
glimpse into their overall perceptions of the TBLT
experience. Students weekly reection entries
throughout the semester were traced for changes
in their perceptions of, or the lack thereof, of
TBLT over time.
Students learning outcomes were analyzed to
shed light on the learning outcomes of the ex-
perience. The recordings of the oral descrip-
tive task performance of students in both TBLT
classrooms and control classrooms were tran-
scribed and double-checked by the researchers.
Then the transcribed oral data were coded on
three measures: uency, accuracy, and complex-
ity. Fluency was measured in terms of meaningful
words
6
/minute (Mochizuki & Ortega, 2008; Yuan
& Ellis, 2003). The transcripts were pruned by
deleting the instructors prompts along with the
rst language (L1) conversation with the instruc-
tor, and thus the time was the total time length of
the pruned performance. Accuracy was measured
in terms of error-free clauses (the percentage of
clauses 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 were
conducted on the three measures of oral produc-
tionbetweenstudents inthe TBLTclassrooms and
those in the control classrooms.
To answer the second research question con-
cerning the issues emerging from implementing
TBLT in an online ab initio context, TBLT stu-
dents reection blogs and the minutes of the
weekly debrief meetings with the instructors as
well as the end-of-semester interviews with the
teachers were analyzed to induce the general
themes of the challenges that students and teach-
ers had encountered as well as the potential that
the online context might have to facilitate TBLT.
Students and teachers data were triangulated
with the researchers observation notes to provide
a more comprehensive picture.
RESULTS
What Were Students and Teachers Reactions
to TBLT?
Both students and teachers overall percep-
tions of their TBLT experience and the students
oral language performance at the end of the
semester suggested that the majority of the stu-
dents and teachers in the online ab initio Chinese
classes reacted positively to TBLT. Analysis of the
data revealed the following issues: 1) students and
teachers expressed overall satisfaction with TBLT;
2) TBLT brought about progressive changes in
approaches 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 platformwere
crucial 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 scale
of 7) and expressed satisfaction with the amount
of learning of the class (5.33 on a scale of 7).
As much as 83% of the students retained their
interest in learning Chinese and expressed wish
to continue learning Chinese, either in the next
semester or in the near future when schedules
allow. When checking student enrollment in the
following semester, we found that 56% of the stu-
dents actually came back to the next level online
Chinese class.
Some students enjoyed the novelty of the TBLT
learning experience: I like the atmosphere of the
experience, and I like the tasks a lot because it is
a little bit different from how I am used to learn-
ing. Others liked its student-centered nature: I
like the tasks in class because they are challeng-
ing and allow us to mess up and learn from our
mistakes, which is very helpful.
The majority of the students expressed great
satisfaction with the amount of learning they
achieved throughthe TBLTsynchronous sessions:
Its actually pretty impressive the amount of the
language that we did learn and that I have picked
up on; I have learned more from this one
semester than I think I have learned from all
my years of Spanish; This course as a whole
was probably the best course Ive taken and Ive
learned the most; and My views on the virtual
meetings were that they were fast paced but good.
Intense, but you came out feeling like you learned
a lot. They also felt that they could apply what
they had learned in the TBLT classrooms to real-
life scenarios: I felt like I learned things suf-
ciently enough to be able to use it in the real
world. More importantly, students appreciated
the fact that they were learning via doing and
speaking: I like the fact that we get to practice
speaking and learn by speaking with others in the
class; I learned a lot of grammar and language
from the hands on speaking and learning; and
In this class, I enjoyed all of the group activi-
ties, that required everyone to work and converse
together to complete the given assignment. Of
course, during the process, we would be learning
and applying new diction and syntax.
This perceived learning corresponded with
their oral performance in the nal exam (see
Appendix C for samples of their language pro-
duction). At the end of the semester (12 1-hour
TABLE 1
Oral 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
0.70
Control 11.93 4.33
Syntactic Complexity TBLT 5.86 1.62 1.98 0.748 0.07
Control 5.76 1.11
Accuracy TBLT 0.41 0.33 2.09 0.67 0.09
Control 0.38 0.28
TBLT sessions in total), the students in the
TBLT classrooms produced an average of 15.93
meaningful words per minute and 5.86 words per
T-units, with 41% of the clauses they produced
error-free. To make sense of these data, we
compared their performance with the perfor-
mance of students in the control classrooms.
We found that students in the TBLT classrooms
demonstrated signicantly higher uency in
language production than their counterparts in
the control classrooms
8
(T = 2.46, p = 0.006
, d
= 0.70), as was found in other studies of TBLT
(Liu, 2008; Rahimpour, 2008), and there was no
signicant difference in the syntactic complexity
and accuracy of the language production between
the 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 among
the students. One instructor commented:
Once they become familiar with this teaching pat-
tern, they know that they need to pay attention to
the language input and try to pick out the language
they dont know, but they need to know to complete
the 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 helped
EFL learners become autonomous in the reading
process.
Progressions of Perception
The analysis of students weekly self-reection
blog entries across the 12 weeks revealed that
some students went through a shift in mindset. In
the following example, the student, as reected in
his self-reection entries over time, demonstrated
a shift from being totally reliant on the instruc-
tor for explicit instructions, to taking more and
more initiatives andresponsibilities inlearning on
his own:
In week 9, the student expressed an explicit
request for grammar instruction when he realized
that he had trouble constructing sentences: I am
not having any trouble pronouncing words; how-
ever, Im not very good at constructing sentences.
Id like it if we got some specic information on
how to make sentences and the specics 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 guring out the grammatical
rules through self-discovery:
This week I learned numbers and addition in Chi-
nese. I also learned how to describe someone in a
picture to pick them out of a group. We also went
into more depth traveling and expenses. I can also
number 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 examples
and ndings patterns to use the right unit word.
His self-reection entry in week 15 showed that
he 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 a
certain amount of something. Lastly, I learned
how 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 out
as a general theme in students self-reection en-
tries over time. It could be that some of them
went through similar changes, but just did not
make a note of it during their reection blogs. It
could also be that TBLT had differentiated effects
on students, and could only induce such changes
among only a few students.
Differential Effects of TBLT
An in-depth look at TBLT students perfor-
mance in the nal exam oral task revealed that
there was a great variation in their uency in
language production (see Figure 1).
FIGURE 1
Variation in Students Oral Performance
M
e
a
n
i
n
g
f
u
l

W
o
r
d

p
e
r

M
i
n
u
t
e
Condition
Control Classes TBLT Classes
From the boxplots we can see that the students
in the TBLT classes seemed to be more divergent
in the uency of oral production than the stu-
dents in the control classes. There were several
extreme cases, even two outlier cases, in the TBLT
group: Several demonstrated extremely high u-
ency, while two demonstrated extremely low u-
ency. In the eld 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, we
traced the self-reection blogs of two extreme
cases (case 56, who demonstrated extremely high
uency and case 60, who demonstrated extremely
low uency). Both case 56 and 60 were taught by
the same teacher and had similar prior foreign
language learning experience (Case 56 had stud-
ied French intensively and touched upon Spanish
and Hebrew; Case 60 had studied French for 3
years). Both categorized themselves as successful
learners (Case 60: I was fairly successful. I got an
A all three years), but one important difference
stood out in their background dataautonomous
learning 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 my
best to expand and enrich my vocabulary. When
asked about the successful foreignlanguage 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 me
toothat 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 out
loud for multiple days; it can be so easy to for-
get vocabulary if not careful! In contrast, case
60 sounded less like an autonomous learner
and did not seem to have a good grasp of the
learning 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 but
I 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 people
speak it.
This difference gave these two students quite
different learning experiences during the TBLT.
Case 56 demonstrated great initiative and useful
strategies to help himself stay abreast of learn-
ing. In week 5, he commented: Yes, it is going
to take me a little while to retain the words by
heart, but I think I have the initiative to do so. I
have fun searching for new words in the online
dictionary and attempting to use them correctly
in sentences. In week 10, he encouraged himself
to organize notes for learning: I wish I had more
time, because I would denitely arrange all of my
notes in a more organized manner, so I can retain
the vocabulary more efciently. Perhaps I will do
that! In week 16, he summarized his learning ex-
perience and once again highlighted a successful
strategy he used:
I think that I have a good grasp of the material thus
farbut I could always improve with the vocabulary!
I do have sheets with vocabulary terms and examples
of sentence structures for each week of class, so that
makes it a bit easier to review everything that Ive
learned.
His reection entries over time suggested an opti-
mistic personwho continuously motivatedhimself
and took the initiative to search for learning re-
sources and opportunities and made active use of
strategies to help himself learn. However, when
looking at case 60, we saw a different trajectory.
In his week 6 reection, he expressed excitement
over the synchronous session, but sounded more
like a passive student: It is cool, but kind of hard. I
feel more comfortable with the words now. When
you are forced to say them, you kind of have to
learn them, but it was weird at rst. By week 9,
he seemed to have lost ground a little bit: I think
my pronunciation is okay, but the sentence struc-
tures confused me, especially when I couldnt nd
what the words meant. In the following weeks, he
continued to complain about the difculty of the
vocabulary, but did not think of any particular
strategies 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 completely
comfortable with communication though, and in
week 16 he admitted: My biggest frustration was
just that I retained about ten percent of what I
should have.
Thus, it seems that TBLT might have a Matthew
Effect on online ab initio learners. For those who
had great initiative and knew how to motivate
themselves and how to learn strategically to start
with, TBLT seemed to give them opportunities to
achieve much. However, those who did not have
such resources at their disposal gradually lagged
behind and lost ground.
Students Lack Appropriate Strategies and Skills
for TBLT
Analysis of the minutes of the weekly debrief
sessions with the teachers identied several oft-
cited problems that teachers encountered. These
problems included students becoming easily frus-
trated over the extensive use of the target lan-
guage; students expecting the language needed
for the pedagogical tasks to be pre-taught; some
students not being active participants during the
group work, and being afraid of making mistakes;
some students not actively engaging in guessing
and deducing and always wait(ing) teachers to
tell them everything they need to learn; and stu-
dents expecting the instructor-led IRE type of talk
rather than they themselves playing the central
role: I ask a question, they answer. I stop, they
stop. Dont feel the students are independent.
Feel teachers are dominating the ow, and they
dont talk to each other if you leave them doing
the work. These comments showed that students
lacked some crucial strategies and attitudes with
respect to TBLT.
Analysis of students weekly reections also re-
vealed similar phenomena. They expressed a pref-
erence for explicit instruction: I dont like it
when the instructor talks only in Chinese and
you dont understand her and she wont trans-
late it for you; and If I had absolute freedom
in the virtual meeting, I would probably want to
spend more time breaking down sentences and
sentence structures. Some students lacked the
skills and attitudes needed for effective collabo-
rative group interaction (Hampel, 2006; Hampel
& Hauck, 2004): I think that, when we do the
tasks, people are shy. So, when we are supposed to
have a conversation, it isnt as talkative as it should
be. The only reason for this is that people dont
know each other and they arent entirely con-
dent in their answers. But once we get passed the
initial 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 get
an 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 leading
student 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, we
noted that for some information gap tasks, some
students 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 Platform
for TBLT
The conferencing system used for the syn-
chronous sessions, Adobe Connect, had a whole
suite of annotation tools that enabled the teachers
tomake annotations onthe go. These tools turned
out to be critical to TBLT in the online ab ini-
tio context, as reected in a students comment:
I really liked that there were learning tools such
as the text boxes, pointers and free hand pencil
to use to aid in lessons so that we could gure
out what was being talked about. The highlight-
ing tools provided visual cues for comprehension
and the annotation tools assisted formmeaning
mapping: Sometimes I was not able to under-
stand what was being asked until it was typed out
on the screen.
The conferencing system also allowed the in-
structors toswitchthe students fromthe default at-
tendee role tothe presenter role sothat they could
use the presentationtools, uploading pictures and
PPTs and using the highlighting tools. This func-
tion facilitated the learner-centered TBLT learn-
ing experience: I liked the virtual meetings, and
how we could interact with them using pointers
and other tools. It made it easier to learn since
it wasnt just a lecture, but something we could
be more a part of as students. This function
made it easy to incorporate student-generated in-
structional materials, and, by enabling alternative
means of participation, enabled the instructors
to conduct emergent instruction that catered to
not only the active students but also the relatively
passive students. For instance, during an input-
based task, although students were encouraged
to ask for help whenever they encountered un-
known phrases while processing the language to
achieve the goal, the instructor found that most of
the students did not want to speak up and initiate
questions. She changed the strategy by giving the
students the presenter role and asking them to
highlight the unknown phrases using the annota-
tion tools. As a result of this strategic move, all the
students participated. This function also helped
with learning: being able to write/draw for some
of the activities helped with memorization.
What were the issues that emerged from the
implementation of TBLT?
Analyzing the qualitative data, we identied a
series of issues related to the implementation of
TBLT in this online ab initio context. Some of
these issues were challenges, and others reected
the potential the online context might have for
facilitating TBLT for ab initio learners.
Challenges in Implementing TBLT
The challenges we identied in implementing
TBLT in the online ab initio course included the
following: 1) the challenge in designing an online
TBLTsyllabus 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 target
language.
Challenges in TBLT Syllabus Design and Task
Cycle Implementation. We foundthat balancing the
role of the textbook and the TBLT syllabus was
a delicate issue in the online context. Long and
Crookes (1985) proposed that a TBLT syllabus
should start with needs analysis. In such a TBLT
syllabus, the textbook serves as all but one source
for the TBLT syllabus. This is relatively easy to
realize in most face-to-face FL classrooms, where
the interaction in the classroomis the centerpiece
of student learning. However, when designing
the experimental TBLT syllabus, we realized that
the e-textbook had to dictate the design of the
TBLTsyllabus since a large portionof the time our
students spent on this course was independent
studying of the e-textbook.
9
A great challenge in
aligning the TBLTsyllabus withthe e-textbook was
helping students to see the connection between
the two. Although we tried to relate the tasks to
the e-textbook, students might not have perceived
this connection: Most of what we covered didnt
pertain to what we were learning in the online CD
at the time.
The low frequency and short duration of the
synchronous sessions in the online courses posed
challenges to the preduringpost TBLT peda-
gogical cycle. It was difcult to complete all the
phases of the cycle in one session, and doing
so brought about complaints like the following:
what I did not like was that we tried to cover too
muchfor the allotted time frame. The instructors
felt really pushed to get everything done within
the 1-hour timeframe and noted that some of
the classes seems [sic] to be in a rushing pace. As
a result, in several sessions the post-task phase of
the cycle was left untouched. However, we could
not space out the cycle across two synchronous
sessions either since the next time the students
were to meet again was one week later, and the
effects of the TBLT cycle would thus be subject
to students memory and perceived connection
between sessions (Hampel & Hauck, 2004).
Challenges in Implementing Collaborative Tasks.
We found the inexibility of classroom arrange-
ment made it hard to promote positive group
dynamics. The spatial arrangement of the class-
room and the relative positioning of students and
between students and the instructor affects the
perceived power structure and is critical to over-
all group dynamics (D ornyei & Malderez, 1997).
In a face-to-face classroom, this could be achieved
through moving the chairs around or moving the
students around. However, in the virtual class-
rooms, all the participants names were listed
on the attendee list with the instructor marked
prominently at the top with a differently colored
identity 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 as
he or she could relatively easily do during group
activities in a face-to-face classroom.
Another logistic issue was related to student
grouping. Since the virtual sessions were con-
ducted with small groups of 35 and students
came to the virtual sessions at their scheduled
time, if one or two members did not show up,
the planned collaborative work would have to be
changed into individual work or become difcult
to proceed (Hampel, 2006).
Other than these logistic issues, the biggest ob-
stacle was the difculty in building a harmonious
relationship between the instructor and the stu-
dents and fostering rapport among the students,
which is much needed for active participation and
good group dynamics during task performance.
The instructors found that in the cases where the
synchronous sessions consisted of students from
the same school, the task performances were usu-
ally much more lively and engaging, with students
joking with each other and helping each other
along the way. Unfortunately, unlike in a face-
to-face classroom teaching context, the majority
of the synchronous sessions in the online learn-
ing context consisted of students from different
geographic locations, and students had no prior
knowledge of each other to start with. The lack
of physical contact and the limited interaction
among students made them virtually strangers to
each other even weeks into the class. As one stu-
dent pointedout, The give andtake betweenpeo-
ple in the class is slightly awkward, but I think that
is an inherent aw to an online class of strangers.
This constraint challenges the fostering of active
peer collaborative work in online TBLT.
Challenges Posed by the Delay of Sound Transmis-
sion on the Internet. TBLTrequires teachers to play
a facilitative role and to trust students to engage
in interaction while working on communicative
tasks. Thus, the teacher needs to be tolerant of
silence and give students time to sort out things
among themselves. However, the delay of sound
transmission on the Internet gave the teachers
a hard time in intervening at the right moment
(Hampel, 2006). Teachers tended to be less tol-
erant of silence because of the lack of physical
cues: I asked a question, and they kept silent. I
didnt know whether they couldnt comprehend
or were thinking of responses. I lost patience and
went ahead giving the English alternatives. The
instructors were also bothered a lot by the de-
lay of the sound transmission: Because the Inter-
net has delay, after I nished talking, 5 seconds
had already passed when it reached his side. In a
classroom, if he said nothing, I would know hes
thinking, 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 physical
cues and the delay of sound transmission made
the instructors concerned about the efciency of
virtual sessions, and they had to restrain them-
selves constantly from the urge to jump in and
instruct since its always much easier to tell the
students how to say something by concluding with
a 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 under
pressure 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 not
conducive to building up rapport with the stu-
dents: Sometimes I get confused and zone out
when you speak in Chinese; and I dont like it
when the instructors talk only in Chinese. The
difculty in providing visual cues in the online
context to facilitate comprehension further exac-
erbated the problemof using the target language.
At the same time the difculty in building up rap-
port in the online context also made it hard for
students to be patient, cooperative and tolerate of
ambiguity, which in turn discouraged the instruc-
tors from using the target language as well.
Potential Advantages of the Online Context
for TBLT
Despite all the challenges imposed on TBLT by
the online Ab Initio context, we found that this
learning context had some advantages that that
facilitated TBLT.
Some Technological Features Facilitate Emergent
Individualized Instruction. We found that the on-
line context provided more convenient venues for
student-centered teaching and emergent individ-
ualized instruction. As exemplied in a previous
section, one instructor found that the strategic
use of the attendees presentation privileges
while students were engaging with input-based
tasks, she grantedthe students presenter roles and
asked them to highlight the points that they were
struggling withenabled her to tap into students
learning processes and understand the problems
the students were encountering at any moment.
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 tried
this strategy in their classrooms and found it to
be a very effective strategy. This emergent individ-
ualized instruction may not be so easily and ef-
ciently realized in face-to-face classrooms, where
the solicitationof suchmoment-by-moment learn-
ing data often means chaos.
Online Anonymity Facilitates Group Work. The
anonymity of the online context was found to
facilitate the implementation of group work in
the TBLT classes. On the one hand, the natural
information gap induced by the anonymity lent
itself to the easy construction and implementa-
tion of some information gap tasks. For example,
because the online students did not know one
another and could not see one another, an infor-
mation gap task was naturally createdstudents
described their own personal appearances and
the group members drew portraits of them based
on the descriptionwhich would not be an infor-
mation gap task at all in face-to-face classrooms.
On the other hand, the anonymity also helped
to stimulate greater student participation during
task performance. One student commented on
how 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 of
the class. Sure we do dialogues with each other taking
turns etc. but we dont have the pressure like we would
in a classroom with 30 other pairs of eyes staring back
at you.
Such a liberating effect of anonymous online
interaction has been widely reported in the in
the computer-mediated communication (CMC)
literature (Beauvois & Eledge, 1996; Kitade, 2000;
Ortega, 2009).
Co-Availability of Text- and Audio- Chatting
Mediates Learning. The conference system used
in this study allowed both text chatting and au-
dio chatting. This feature made it easier for the
instructors to address individual learning needs
without breaking the ow of the communication,
as in the example we illustrated previously. There
were also a lot of cases where students sent private
text chat messages to their teachers to elicit indi-
vidualized help when they did not want to bother
their group-mates and did not want to look fool-
ish in front of their group-mates. It also provided
a more inviting venue for the shy students to
interact with their teacher and peer learners
(Kern, 1995).
Students reported that text-chatting helped to
lower the cognitive load of the tasks (Ortega,
2009) and facilitate both comprehension and pro-
duction (Ellis, 2003). In the self-reection blog,
one student noted: the aspect I had the hardest
time with in class today was understanding what
was being said orally. I can understand the ques-
tions when they are typed out, but when people
answered or asked verbally, I cant quite follow
them. The teachers also observed the same phe-
nomenon: its a good idea to ask them to work
together by text chatting. They can communicate
better by texting in the online classroom. How-
ever, at the same time, students who were slow
at typing found it annoying, as one student said,
what I say is usually behind in the conversation
by the time I nish typing it.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In this study we found the online ab initio
Chinese students and teachers reacted positively
to the TBLT syllabus that was tried out in their
classrooms, as reected not just in their overall
perception of the experience, but also in the stu-
dents end-of-semester oral production. Some stu-
dents also demonstrated a change in mindset in
their approach to learning over the semester. At
the same time, we found that TBLT demonstrated
differentiated effects on the students, and the ma-
jority of the students lackedthe appropriate strate-
gies and skills needed for effective TBLT. In addi-
tion, the implementation of TBLT in the online
ab initio context encountered challenges in the
construction of the TBLT syllabus and problems
in implementing the full task cycle. The imple-
mentation of collaborative tasks also encountered
obstacles due to the inexibility of the virtual
classroom arrangement of the particular confer-
encing system and the difculty in building rap-
port among online students. The delay of sound
transmission and the deprivation of paralinguistic
aids in the online context also posed great dif-
culties in various aspects of TBLT. At the same
time, however, the online context was also found
to have great potential for the implementation
of TBLT, such as facilitating emergent individual-
ized instruction, lowering the cognitive load for
ab initio learners, and encouraging student par-
ticipation.
DISCUSSION
This study revealed a series of issues emerg-
ing from implementing TBLT in online ab
initio Chinese classrooms. Some issues identied
were very much the same as those of TBLT in
face-to-face classrooms: (a) the need for strategy
training to familiarize students with the philoso-
phy and principles of TBLT and to help students
develop the appropriate strategies and skills that
facilitate TBLT (McDonough & Chaikitmongkol,
2007); (b) the difculty with the use of the tar-
get language (Carless, 2003; 2007); (c) the po-
tential of TBLT to change students approaches
to learning and facilitating autonomous language
learning (Demir, 2008; Leaver & Kaplan, 2004);
and (d) the unbalanced involvement of, and
contribution from, the students due to the lack
of appropriate attitudes and strategies for TBLT
(Carless, 2002, 2003; Tseng, 2006). Some other
ndings differ from the face-to-face TBLT class-
roomliterature due to the particular nature of the
online context. For example, Ruso (2007) found
that TBLT increased students rapport whereas
in this study, we found the lack of, and dif-
culty in building up, rapport in the online con-
text created a big obstacle to TBLT. Other nd-
ings in this study offer suggestions for face-to-face
classroom TBLT. For example, the face-to-face
classroom TBLT literature reports that shy stu-
dents and students with low language prociency
nd 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 helped
to mitigate stress and anxiety levels and lower the
cognitive load of the tasks for these types of stu-
dents. Furthermore, the nding that the confer-
encing system enabled teachers to tap into stu-
dents moment-by-moment learning process and
to engage in emergent individualized instruction
suggests that current face-to-face TBLTmight ben-
et fromcapitalizing onthis potential by blending
some online components into current syllabuses,
such as incorporating some text-chat tasks.
Although this study was based on a particular
instructional design in a special conferencing sys-
tem, and some of its ndings may not be gener-
alizable to other online FL teaching contexts, it
does provide some suggestions that could apply
to all online ab initio FL classrooms.
LEARNER AND TEACHER STRATEGY
TRAINING FOR ONLINE TBLT CLASSROOMS
In this study, we found an intricate relation-
ship between TBLT and learning autonomy. On
the one hand, TBLT helped a few students
to become more independent in learning. On
the other hand, the varying degree of learning
autonomy students demonstrated prior to the
TBLT class brought them differentiated learning
experiences. The seemingly contradictory nd-
ings collectively pointed towards the importance
of learner strategy training during TBLT: TBLT
needs learner strategy training to enhance its ef-
fect, and at the same time TBLT may reinforce
the effectiveness of strategy training by fostering
autonomous learning among the learners.
McDonough and Chaikitmongkol (2007) pro-
vided some great ideas on teacher and learner
strategy training. They recommended familiariz-
ing learners with the philosophical, pedagogical,
as well as assessment principles of TBLT prior to
the course. We would like to add that in the on-
line context, an extra step needs to be added to
this macro-level training: Helping students see the
connection between the TBLT syllabus and the
e-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 that
are benecial to TBLT, such as building rapport
among each other and maintaining group dynam-
ics. Thus, a successful training program should
also include micro-level features whereby stu-
dents are guided in developing specic metacog-
nitive strategies (e.g., what linguistic features to
attend to during the text-based chatting), cogni-
tive strategies (e.g., howto 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), and
affective strategies (e.g., how to keep themselves
motivated and actively engaged in the absence of
proximity with the instructor and peers).
In addition to training learners with relevant
strategies and skills, online FL teachers should
constantly 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 synchronous
session to initiate students into active participa-
tion and live interaction. It is equally crucial
to build up and foster connections among the
students with collaborative assignments, such as
peer interviews or group projects, that force stu-
dents to interact more with each other
10
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 support
TBLT. Moreover, online FL teachers should be
aware of the potential effect of the delay of sound
transmission on their intolerance of silence, and
think of strategies to overcome this tendency and
at the same time think of ways to turn this delay
into active learning moments for the students.
IMPLREMENTATION OF THE TASK CYCLE
IN SYNCHRONOUS SESSIONS
In this study we encountered a dilemma in im-
plementing the full preduringpost task cycle for
ab initio learners due to the limited duration and
frequency of the synchronous sessions. One solu-
tion might be to arrange some, if not all, input-
based tasks for the pre-task phase as assignments
to be done independently or collaboratively prior
to 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- and
post-task phase of the cycle. We have implemented
this change in our current online ab initio courses
and found this arrangement works very nicely in
addressing the issue.
ENHANCING THE COMPREHENSIBILITY OF
THE TARGET LANGUAGE IN ONLINE AB
INITIO CLASSROOMS
Online ab initio FL classrooms are challenged
by the contradiction between the lack of paralin-
guistic cues in the audio-based online classrooms
and the massive visual scaffolds ab initio students
need. To deal with this challenge, teachers need
to prepare abundant visual stimulus ahead of time
to facilitate the smooth ow of TBLT. Teachers
may prepare word galleries with rich visual infor-
mation and make them available for students to
manipulate during tasks. Such measures offer the
possibility of maximizing the use of the target lan-
guage without leading toincomprehensiononthe
part of students. It is equally important to build up
routines and use consistent language supported
with pictorial cues when giving task instructions
in order to promote greater understanding on
the students side.
SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL
PLATFORM FOR ONLINE AB INITIO
FOREIGN LANGUAGE COURSES
The conferencing system we used for the syn-
chronous sessions has a whole suite of functions
that carry a variety of pedagogical potentials for
TBLT. 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 students
into 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 online
ab initio FL courses in this study. When selecting
the technological platform for the online ab ini-
tio TBLT FL courses, teachers need to consider
carefully the technological features that provide
various levels of visual and cognitive scaffolding
that enable emergent individualized instruction,
that encourage active involvement without height-
ening anxiety levels, and that make the tasks fun
and appropriately challenging for their ab initio
learners.
CONCLUSION
In this study we explored the implementa-
tion of TBLT for ab initio foreign language
learners in an online context and found that
it was well perceived among the students and
teachers and produced good learning outcome
as well. At the same time, we encountered
a number of issues when conducting TBLT
in the online ab initio CFL classes. Some
issues, like the lack of appropriate learning
attitudes and strategies and the challenge of
engaging students in active participation, are
phenomena that have also been observed
in face-to-face TBLT classrooms (Carless,
2002; Littlewood, 2007; McDonough &
Chaikitmongkol, 2007). Some issues, like
the use of the target language and the tension
between teacher control and the need to fa-
cilitate student-centered learning, are similar
challenges to those that confront face-to-face
TBLT classrooms, but are exacerbated by the
lack of paralinguistic cues, the anonymity and
the enhanced ambiguity in the online context
(Rosell-Aguilar, 2005). Other issues, like the time
pressure in completing the preduringpost
TBLT cycle and the difculty in building up
and fostering rapport with students and among
students, are quite unique to the online context
(Hampel, 2006). Thus, when implementing
TBLT online, we are faced with extra layers of
challenges and difculty. To increase the chances
of success for TBLTin this particular instructional
context, it is important to make both students
and instructors aware of the challenges they
are facing. It is even more crucial to help them
realize the advantages of the online context that
they can capitalize on, to help students develop
the attitudes and learning strategies supportive of
TBLT, and to assist teachers to capitalize skillfully
on the affordances in the online context and to
circumvent its constraints when implementing
tasks. Furthermore, we need to be exible in
adapting both task design and task implementa-
tion to the particular affordances and constraints
of the specic conferencing system or online
instructional environment we are using.
NOTES
1
We deliberately disabled the video function in this
conferencing system to boost the sound quality of the
audio chatting due to the varying connection speeds
among the students.
2
Although there were 16 weeks for the online course
in total, the TBLT sessions only covered 12 weeks. The
rst session was an orientation session and the second
session was a session on Chinese phonetic system. Then
in the middle, there was a session given to individual
midterm exams, and the last session was used for the
nal exam. Therefore, only 12 weeks could be used to
implement the TBLT syllabus.
3
Aware that the post-task phase is not an obligatory
phase in the TBLT cycle, the researchers did not design
post-task phase tasks in some sessions. This was because
in these sessions there were already several tasks in the
pre- and during-task phase, and there wouldnt be any
time left for the post-task phase in the session.
4
Participants in the control group had an average age
of 16. There were 16 males and 20 females. 16% of the
students 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 online
courses, and 97% of them had never taken an online FL
course. The four teachers in the control group were of
similar ages (two females, two males), and only one of
them had prior classroom FL teaching experience.
5
During the monologic picture description task, the
students were given a picture of a persons bedroom.
The students were asked to use as many expressions as
possible to describe the roomand the person. They were
asked to start the task right away and no planning time
was given. This was an untimed task, and in the case of
long silence the instructors gave prompts in English like
anything else?, say something about the left side of
the picture, etc.
6
Following 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, I
have one one book), there would be only ve meaning-
ful words although there are several words in total.
7
A T-unit is one main clause with all subordinate
clauses attached to it. In this study, the mean length
of T-units was the same as the mean length of clause
for this group of Ab Initio learners. The cases where
the students tried to conjoin two clauses together using
and were counted as two T-units since Chinese gram-
mar doesnt have such equivalent conjunctions (e.g.,
=[I have a book and I have a
desk]) would be counted as two T-units. Since the stu-
dents did not use any subordination, no subordination
index was used in this study. Thus, although we were
aware of the importance of triangulating measures to
represent the multidimensionality of syntactic complex,
we could provide only one measure in this study.
8
To rule out the possibility of this difference being
attributed to the time students spent in learning the
other asynchronous components in this course (e.g., e-
textbook, online learning materials), students reported
time spent each week on studying for this course was
checked. It turned out that students had similar time
investment (around 5 hours each week).
9
Although 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.
10
Although a variety of asynchronous interaction
means (such as various discussion forums, message cen-
ter) were provided to the students, the students were
found not to make active voluntary use of them.
REFERENCES
Beauvois, M. H., & Eledge, J. (1996). Personality
types and megabytes: Student attitudes toward
computer mediated communication (CMC) in
the language classroom. CALICO Journal , 13(2),
2745.
Bruton, A. (2005). Task-based language teaching: For
the state secondary FLclassroom? Language Learn-
ing Journal , 31, 5568.
Burrows, C. (2008). An evaluation of task-based learning
(TBL) in the Japanese classroom. English Today
96, 24, 4, 1116.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Researching
pedagogic 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 inteachers reinterpretationof
a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL
Quarterly, 38, 639662.
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based ap-
proaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from
Hong Kong. System, 35, 595608.
Carless, D. (2008). Student use of the mother tongue in
the task-based classroom. English Language Teach-
ing Journal , 62, 4, 331338.
Demir, A. (2008). The inuence of task-based reading activ-
ities on EFL learners attitude and learning outcomes
from the students perspective (Unpublished masters
thesis). Adana, C ukurova University.
D ornyei, Z., &Malderez, A. (1997). Groupdynamics and
foreign language teaching. System, 25, 6581.
Duran, G., & Ramaut, G. (2006). Tasks for absolute be-
ginners and beyond: Developing and sequencing
tasks at basic prociency levels. InK. VandenBran-
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 second
language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task-based teach-
ing. Foreign Language Education Research, 4,
79101.
Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effective
use of audio conferencing in distance language
courses. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1),
6682.
Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the dig-
ital age: A framework for language teaching and
learning in a synchronous online environment.
ReCALL, 18, 105121.
Karavas-Doukas, E. (1995). Teacher identied factors af-
fecting the implementation of an EFL innovation
in 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?
Acritical reviewof recent trends inlanguage teach-
ing. Language Learning Journal , 27, 3342.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2007). Learner perceptionof learn-
ing tasks. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp,
& M. Verhelst (Eds.). Tasks in action: Task-based
language 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 of
Hawaii at Manoa.
Gulden, L. N., Julide, N., &Yumru, H. (2007). Teachers
and learners perceptions of tasks: Objectives and
outcomes. 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-basedinstruc-
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 University
Press.
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 difcult than you
plan and imagine: Teachers perceived difcul-
ties in introducing the communicative approach
in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677697.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some
questions and suggestions. ELT Journal , 58, 319
326.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based
language teaching in East Asian classrooms.
Language Teaching, 40, 243249.
Liu, M. G. (2008). The effect of TBLT methodology
on students oral performance in the primary
settings in Guangdong. CELEA Journal , 31 (1),
1526.
Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1985). Three approaches to
task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26,
2756.
Lopes, J. (2004). Introducing TBI for teaching English
in Brazil: Learning how to leap the hurdles. In
B. L. Leaver & J. R. Willis (Eds.), Task-based in-
struction in foreign language education (pp. 8395).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. P. (2007).
Teachers and learners reactions to a task-based
EFLcourse inThailand. 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 use
in the adoption of task-based language teach-
ing in malaysian classrooms. Paper presented
at the Third International Conference on
Language 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 form
in 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-e
Zabanha-ye Khareji, 41, 4561.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teaching
today. Singapore: RELC.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task se-
quencing: Studies in a componential framework
for second language task design. International Re-
view of Applied Linguistics, 43, 132.
Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2005). Task design for audiographic
conferencing: Promoting beginner oral inter-
action in distance language learning. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 18, 417442.
Ruso, N. (2007). The inuence of task based learning
on EFL classrooms. EFL Journal , 18, 123.
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form
and meaning during task performance: The role
of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, &M. Swain
(Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language
learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 119134).
Harlow, England: Longman.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in se-
cand language learning. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
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 new
model 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 Cheng
University, Taiwan.
Van den Branden, K. (2006). Task-based language educa-
tion: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University 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 uency, complexity
and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Lin-
guistics, 24, 127.
Zhang, Y. (2007). TBLT-Innovation in Primary School
English Language Teaching in Mainland China.
In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, & M Ver-
helst (Eds.), Tasks in Action: Task-based language
education from a classroom-based perspective,
(pp. 6891). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
APPENDIX A
Screen Shots of Blackboard and Adobe Connect
Course Management SystemBlackboard
Conferencing SystemAdobe Connect
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
S
a
m
p
l
e
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
T
a
s
k
D
e
s
i
g
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
e
-
T
e
x
t
b
o
o
k
T
B
L
T
C
y
c
l
e
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
n
o
u
s
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
#
E
-
T
e
x
t
b
o
o
k
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
P
r
e
-
T
a
s
k
P
h
a
s
e
T
a
s
k
P
h
a
s
e
P
o
s
t
-
T
a
s
k
P
h
a
s
e
1
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
a
n
d
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
g
r
e
e
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
i
n
g
n
a
m
e
s
a
t
r
s
t
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
F
i
l
l
i
n
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
s
c
h
o
o
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
w
o
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
h
i
l
e
l
i
s
t
e
n
i
n
g
t
o
a
n
d
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
a
d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
t
w
o
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
l
i
s
t
e
n
i
n
g
t
o
a
d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
a
n
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
a
b
l
e
o
f
c
l
a
s
s
m
a
t
e
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
s
c
h
o
o
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
a
k
e
t
u
r
n
s
t
o
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
F
i
l
l
i
n
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
b
o
u
t
a
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
w
h
i
l
e
l
i
s
t
e
n
i
n
g
t
o
a
n
d
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
a
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
n
a
r
r
a
t
i
o
n
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
a
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
l
i
s
t
e
n
i
n
g
t
o
a
n
a
r
r
a
t
i
o
n
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
C
o
m
p
i
l
e
a
n
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
a
b
l
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
c
l
a
s
s
m
a
t
e
s
p
r
i
o
r
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
t
a
k
e
t
u
r
n
s
t
o
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
)
2
P
T
1
:
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
o
l
v
i
n
g
t
a
s
k
(
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
s
p
e
a
k
e
r
s
i
n
a
d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
A
s
k
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
n
d
o
u
t
t
h
e
N
o
n
e
P
T
2
:
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
T
e
x
t
c
h
a
t
t
o
n
d
o
u
t
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
g
i
v
e
n
)
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
m
h
a
v
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
g
u
r
e
o
u
t
t
h
e
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
N
o
n
e
3
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
a
n
d
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
o
b
j
e
c
t
s
P
T
1
:
M
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
t
a
s
k
(
M
a
t
c
h
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
i
t
h
t
e
x
t
u
a
l
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
T
e
x
t
c
h
a
t
t
o
n
d
o
u
t
t
h
e
N
o
n
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
y
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
w
a
l
l
P
T
2
:
t
r
i
v
i
a
l
g
a
m
e
(
C
o
m
p
e
t
e
t
o
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
t
h
e
t
h
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
p
h
o
t
o
a
p
p
e
a
r
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
s
c
r
e
e
n
)
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
h
i
n
g
s
i
n
t
h
e
p
h
o
t
o
)
P
T
3
:
M
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
t
a
s
k
(
M
a
t
c
h
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
i
t
h
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
)
4
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
o
l
v
i
n
g
t
a
s
k
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
n
t
o
a
n
d
r
e
a
d
a
m
o
d
e
l
o
f
a
g
u
e
s
s
i
n
g
g
a
m
e
,
2
0
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
g
u
r
e
o
u
t
w
h
o
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
h
a
d
i
n
m
i
n
d
)
T
1
:
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
2
0
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
(
E
a
c
h
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
t
h
i
n
k
s
o
f
a
p
e
r
s
o
n
o
r
a
t
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
a
s
k
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
n
d
o
u
t
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
F
i
n
d
o
u
t
t
h
e
t
h
i
n
g
o
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
e
r
e
g
i
v
e
n
b
y
t
h
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
v
i
a
a
s
k
i
n
g
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
)
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
T
B
L
T
C
y
c
l
e
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
n
o
u
s
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
#
E
-
T
e
x
t
b
o
o
k
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
P
r
e
-
T
a
s
k
P
h
a
s
e
T
a
s
k
P
h
a
s
e
P
o
s
t
-
T
a
s
k
P
h
a
s
e
5
I
n
q
u
i
r
e
a
n
d
t
a
l
k
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
h
o
t
o
a
n
d
o
b
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
o
f
c
e
M
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
t
a
s
k
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
n
t
o
a
n
d
r
e
a
d
a
s
e
t
o
f
c
h
o
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
m
a
k
e
t
h
e
s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
m
a
t
c
h
t
h
e
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
h
a
v
e
i
n
h
a
n
d
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
g
i
v
e
n
6
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
s
o
f
c
e
l
e
b
r
i
t
i
e
s
a
s
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
H
a
l
l
o
w
e
e
n
m
a
k
e
u
p
a
n
d
e
a
c
h
s
e
l
e
c
t
s
o
n
e
i
n
m
i
n
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
p
w
o
r
k
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
n
d
o
u
t
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
H
a
l
l
o
w
e
e
n
c
o
s
t
u
m
e
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
t
a
k
e
t
u
r
n
s
t
o
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
t
h
e
m
s
e
l
v
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
w
o
r
k
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
d
r
a
w
t
h
e
i
r
c
l
a
s
s
m
a
t
e
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
)
6
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
n
t
o
a
n
d
r
e
a
d
a
m
o
d
e
l
o
f
o
n
e
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
f
a
m
i
l
y
p
h
o
t
o
a
n
d
l
l
i
n
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
a
b
l
e
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
u
p
l
o
a
d
t
h
e
i
r
f
a
m
i
l
y
p
h
o
t
o
a
n
d
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
t
h
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
i
n
t
h
e
p
h
o
t
o
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
p
l
i
s
t
e
n
a
n
d
c
i
r
c
l
e
t
h
e
i
r
c
l
a
s
s
m
a
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
p
h
o
t
o
)
N
o
n
e
7
F
r
i
e
n
d
s
t
a
l
k
a
b
o
u
t
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
f
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
P
T
1
:
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
o
l
v
i
n
g
m
a
g
i
c
s
q
u
a
r
e
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
o
r
k
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
o
n
a
m
a
g
i
c
s
q
u
a
r
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
)
P
T
2
:
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
S
o
l
v
i
n
g
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
o
r
k
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
n
d
o
u
t
t
h
e
i
l
l
o
g
i
c
c
h
o
i
c
e
s
o
f
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
n
s
f
o
r
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
t
r
i
p
s
)
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
m
a
k
i
n
g
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
p
l
a
n
a
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
t
r
i
p
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
b
u
d
g
e
t
a
n
d
g
u
r
e
o
u
t
t
h
e
t
r
a
v
e
l
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
d
a
y
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
r
i
p
,
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
n
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
m
o
n
e
y
t
o
s
p
e
n
d
o
n
e
a
c
h
d
a
y
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
o
r
k
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
h
e
l
p
t
h
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
g
u
r
e
o
u
t
t
h
e
c
o
s
t
f
o
r
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
r
i
p
s
w
i
t
h
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
n
s
)
8
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
n
t
o
a
n
d
r
e
a
d
a
m
o
d
e
l
o
f
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
o
n
o
n
e
s
f
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
a
n
d
h
o
b
b
i
e
s
a
n
d
l
l
i
n
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
a
b
l
e
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
t
o
n
d
o
u
t
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
l
i
k
e
s
a
n
d
d
i
s
l
i
k
e
s
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
t
o
n
d
o
u
t
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
f
a
m
i
l
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
l
i
k
e
s
a
n
d
d
i
s
l
i
k
e
s
)
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
T
B
L
T
C
y
c
l
e
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
n
o
u
s
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
#
E
-
T
e
x
t
b
o
o
k
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
P
r
e
-
T
a
s
k
P
h
a
s
e
T
a
s
k
P
h
a
s
e
P
o
s
t
-
T
a
s
k
P
h
a
s
e
9
T
a
l
k
a
b
o
u
t
l
i
k
e
s
a
n
d
d
i
s
l
i
k
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
h
i
n
g
s
i
n
t
h
e
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
r
o
o
m
P
T
1
:
M
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
n
t
o
a
n
d
r
e
a
d
a
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
a
n
d
s
e
l
e
c
t
o
n
e
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
t
w
o
g
i
v
e
n
t
o
m
a
t
c
h
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
t
e
x
t
u
a
l
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
)
P
T
2
:
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
a
n
d
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
o
r
k
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
d
r
a
w
t
h
e
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
)
S
p
o
t
t
h
e
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
g
i
v
e
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
a
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
a
n
d
w
o
r
k
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
8
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
t
w
o
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
s
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
a
n
d
n
d
o
u
t
t
h
e
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
s
)
1
0
C
o
m
p
a
r
e
T
a
s
k
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
n
t
o
a
n
d
r
e
a
d
a
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
r
o
o
m
a
n
d
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
d
i
s
c
r
e
p
a
n
c
i
e
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
t
e
x
t
u
a
l
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
t
a
k
e
t
u
r
n
s
t
o
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
h
i
s
/
h
e
r
i
d
e
a
l
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
t
e
a
m
w
o
r
k
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
d
r
a
w
t
h
e
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
t
a
s
k
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
t
a
k
e
t
u
r
n
s
t
o
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
o
n
e
s
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
a
n
d
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
)
1
1
T
a
l
k
a
b
o
u
t
g
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
h
e
g
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
c
l
a
s
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
n
t
o
a
n
d
r
e
a
d
a
n
a
r
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
n
e
s
c
l
a
s
s
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
M
o
n
d
a
y
a
n
d
l
l
i
n
t
h
e
t
a
b
l
e
)
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
g
a
p
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
o
r
k
i
n
p
a
i
r
s
t
e
x
t
c
h
a
t
t
o
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
o
n
c
l
a
s
s
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
T
u
e
s
d
a
y
)
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
t
a
k
e
t
u
r
n
t
o
r
e
p
o
r
t
t
o
t
h
e
c
l
a
s
s
a
b
o
u
t
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
y
f
o
u
n
d
o
u
t
a
b
o
u
t
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
s
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
N
o
n
e
1
2
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
d
r
a
w
(
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
n
t
o
a
n
d
r
e
a
d
a
d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
w
o
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
h
e
l
p
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
t
o
n
d
o
u
t
t
h
e
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
o
n
t
h
e
m
a
p
)
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
o
l
v
i
n
g
(
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
t
e
x
t
,
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
t
r
y
t
o
g
u
r
e
o
u
t
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
r
o
o
m
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
o
t
h
e
r
c
l
a
s
s
e
s
o
n
t
h
a
t
d
a
y
)
N
o
n
e
N
o
t
e
.
T
a
s
k
s
a
n
n
o
t
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
a
r
e
t
h
o
s
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
v
i
a
t
e
x
t
-
b
a
s
e
d
c
h
a
t
t
i
n
g
.
APPENDIX C
Samples of Students Language Production during the Final Exam Oral Task
Excellent Performance Average Performance Poor Performance
=
'
='
han4 ((Teacher
remind: hei se de))
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
ok. Lets see.
. . . ,
. . .
_. . . _=
Shall I say something
more? ((T. Anything you want))
((T: ok, go ahead))

((T: Anything
more?))
??
'[this sentence is re-
ally unintelligible]How about
, not really, Im not good at
this part. ((T: You did a good job.
Anything more?)) Id better go
home.
English: There are computer
and desk on the left of the room.
There is a computer on inside
the desk. There is a lamp to
the left of the computer. There
is one bed in the right side
of the room. The bed is blue.
There is a woman on the bed.
The woman is reading a book.
There is a picture in the right
room on the wall. There is chair
in the middle room. The chair
is blue. There are ve books
above the computer. There is
a window in the middle room.
The womans clothes is black
((teacher gave the correct pro-
nunciation)). The lamp is also
black. I watch. . . to the left of the
coffee . . . to the left of the com-
puter . . . computer
English: ok. Lets see. There is
a desk, a chair. Right, right is
a picture. There are two lamps
here. The left is desk. The chair
is blue. She wears black . . . she
wears black clothes. There are
seven. . . seven books. The wall
here is white. Shall I say some-
thing more? ((T: anything you
want)). The right is bed. Bed is
blue. On the desk is a computer.
Here one is window ((T: ok, go
ahead)). The desk is brown. ((T:
Very good. Anything more?))
The computer is white. The lamp
is black.
English: Her room left desk?
Above the desk computer? Her
desk middle chair [this sen-
tence is really unintelligible].
How about computer, not really,
Im not good at this part. ((T:
You did a good job. Anything
more?)) Id better go home.

Task-Based Language Teaching in

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Task-Based Language Teaching in

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Task-Based Language Teaching in

Online Ab Initio Foreign Language

((T: ok, go ahead))

You might also like