1

TAKING IT TO TASK ThenewsletteroftheJALTtask-basedlanguageteachingSIG.Volume1Issue1–July2016

CONTENTS

Pg.2.Editorial/Announcements

Pg.3.Article:AuntSalliesandRealIssues:MovingTask-basedLanguageTeachingForwardbyRodEllis,TheUniversityofAuckland

Pg.9.Article:TaskIntegrityandTaskFrequencyintheL2ClassroombyCraigLambert,CurtinUniversity

Pg.17.LessonPlan:CreatinganInstructionalYouTubeVideobyOsazeCuomo,OsakaUniversityofTourism

SIG INFORMATION

Coordinator: JustinHarris

Treasurer: KymJolley

ProgramChair: PaulLeeming

PublicationsChair: ColinThompson

MembershipChair: AndrewAtkins

OfficeratLarge: BrentCotsworth

Ifyou’reinterestedinpublishinginTakingittoTask,oryouhaveanyotherqueries,contactusat:tbltinasia@gmail.com.

www.tblsig.org

2

EDITORIAL

Welcome to our first issue of Taking it to Task! From 2016 we have decided to change our regularpublicationtoadigitalnewletterformat.WehopetobeabletoacceptagreatervarietyofsubmissionsthanwedidwithOnTask,whichwillstillincludetheoreticalarticlesandpracticallessonplansthatweretheheartofOnTask,butalsoopinionpieces,bookreviewsandTBLT-relatednews.

Inthisfirstissue,wearepleasedtoincludearticlesfromRodEllisandCraigLambertaswellasalessonplanfromOsazeCuomo.WebeginwithRodElliswhoprovidesanoverviewofhis talkatTBLT inAsia2016 inwhich he outlines a number of issues facing TBLT and how they can be addressedwithin anAsian teaching context. Next, Craig Lambert’s article serves as a practical guideline for teachersinterested in gaining the maximum benefits from task repetition. The lesson plan involves studentscreatingtheirownInstructionalYouTubevideosthatcoveravarietyoftopics.

Wehope thatyouenjoy reading this issue,and if anyofyouhaveaTBLT relatedarticle, lessonplan,bookrevieworopinionpiecethatyouwouldliketosubmitforconsiderationinafutureissueofTakingittoTask,pleasecontactusattbltinasia@gmail.com

ColinThompson,PublicationsChair

JustinHarris,Coordinator

ANNOUNCEMENTS

CONFERENCE

ThebiggesteventfortheJALTTBLSIG,thebiennial“TBLTinAsia2016”conferencehasjustfinishedasthisissuegoesout.Thisconferenceserieshasgonefromstrengthtostrengthandthisyearwehadover60 paper presentations, workshops and poster presentations from speakers representing about 14differentcountries.Planningfor2018startsnow.Ifyou’dliketobeinvolved,letusknow.

NEW BOOKS

JaneWillistellsusthather latehusbandDaveWillis’ lastbook(writtenwithJane) isnowavailableforpurchase.Ourmemberswill surelybeawareofDave’s influenceonboththetheoreticalandpracticalaspectsofTBLT.Whilethisbook“WinningtheGrammarWars–whatgrammarreallyisandhowweuseit”, isnotdirectlyconcernedwithTBLT, itwillbeof interest toanyone involved in language teaching.ThefirstpartoftheKindleversionisavailableforfree.

3

ARTICLES

AuntSalliesandRealIssues:MovingTask-basedLanguageTeachingForward

RodEllis–TheUniversityofAuckland

INTRODUCTION

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has many of the characteristics of a ‘movement’ and,unsurprisingly, as such it has attracted considerable criticism. These criticisms, however, areoftenbasedonmisconceptionsofwhatTBLTconsistsofandofitstheoreticalunderpinnings–the ‘aunt sallies’ ofmy talk. Ellis (2009) and Long (2016) addressed thesemisconceptions intheir defence of TBLT. Themain focus ofmy talk, however, is not themisconceptions but anumberof‘realissues’thatneedtobeaddressedifTBLTistomoveforward.InthispreviewofmytalkIcommentbrieflyoneachoftheseissues.

1. Thedefinitionofa‘task’The key question here is whether ‘task’ should be defined narrowly in terms of theactivitiesthatlearnerscarryoutintherealworldorintermsofactivitiesthatarepurelypedagogicinnature.Long(1985;2015;2016)hasconsistentlyarguedthatthetaskstobe included ina course shouldbeneeds-based.Hedefines tasksas ‘target tasks’ andproposes that the starting point for establishing the content of a task-based syllabusshouldbetheidentificationofthosetargettasksthataspecificgroupoflearnersneedinorderto“functionadequatelyinaparticulartargetdomain”(Long,1985;91).IhavetakenadifferentviewonthegroundsthatforlearnersinstateschoolsinacountrylikeJapan it is spurious to attempt to identify the ‘target tasks’ that theymight need toperforminthefutureandthatamorerealisticapproach is tomakeuseof ‘pedagogictasks’thatwillmotivatelearnerstocommunicate.

2. TypesoftasksVarioustypologiesoftasktypeshavebeenproposed.Theseoftenconsistoflistsofthepedagogictasksthatfigureintask-basedteaching(e.g. information/opiniongap,role-playing,personal,problem-solving,story-completion)–see,forexample,Bruton(2002)andWillis (1996). What is lacking is a principled way of classifying such tasks. I willsuggest that tasks canbeusefully classified in termsof two intersectingdimensions–input-basedversusoutput-basedandunfocusedversusfocused.

4

Unfocused FocusedInput-based Written instructions about

howtomakeamodelairplane.Learners are required to readthe instructions and assemblethemodel.

Oral descriptions of the location ofanimalsinazoo.Theinstructionsaredesigned so that learners have todistinguish between singular andpluralnouns.Learnersplacepicturesof the animals in the correctlocations(Shintani,2016)

Output-based Learners act as judges todecide what punishment togive toanumberofoffenderswhengiven informationaboutthe crimes they hadcommitted (Foster andSkehan,1996)

Things-in-pocket task (Samuda,2001). Learners shown the contextsofaperson’spocketandareaskedtospeculate who the person might be(target=epistemologicalmodels).

Iarguethatmoreattentionneedstobepaidtoinput-basedtasks–researchershaveingeneralonlybeeninterestedinoutput-basedtasks.Iwillalsoargue–contrarytoLong(2016)andSkehan(1998)–thatfocusedtasksalsohaveanimportantplaceinTBLTandinresearchingTBLT.

3. TaskcomplexityandthesequencingoftasksThe issue of task complexity is important for syllabus design if one accepts the basicpremisethatthecontentofanysyllabusneedstobeorganizedintermsofaprogressionfrom‘simple’to‘complex’.Theproblemishowtodefine‘taskcomplexity’.Long(2016)sawthisasa‘realissue’.Henotedthatwhile“muchgoodworkhasbeenpublishedontaskcomplexity…theoverallyieldhasbeendisappointing”(p.27).Hesawthesolutionas more research to “help make findings cumulative, encourage replication studies,increase productivity, and generally speed up progress on this issue”. To my mind,however, little progress can be made until some fundamental issues have beenaddressed. Iwill argue thatdetermining the complexityofa task isproblematicgiventhattasksareholisticinvolvingclustersoffeaturesandthatthatcomplexitycannotbeconsideredpurelyintermsofthedesignfeaturesoftasks,ashowataskisimplementedalsoaffectsitscomplexity–perhapsevenmoresothandesignfeatures.Ithuschallengethevalidityofagrowingbodyofresearchaimedatidentifyinghowthedesignofataskaffects complexity andpropose that until awell-rounded theoryof task complexity isavailable it will be necessary for course designers to rely mainly on experience andintuitionabouthowtosequencetasks.

5

4. Theroleofexplicitinstruction

In ‘pure’ TBLT – the kind that Long (2015) promotes – there is no room for explicitinstructionprecedingtheperformanceofatask,asthisconstitutesareturnto‘focusonforms’. I will argue that it is premature to dismiss ‘focus on forms’ as there is clearevidencethatitcanresultin,atleast,automatizedexplicitknowledge.However,Iwillalsosuggestthatthereisaneedtoinvestigatewhateffectexplicitinstructionhasontheperformance of a task and point to evidence that it can have deleterious effects onfluencyandglobalaccuracyandcomplexity.Thus,eveniffocusedtasksdoresultinthelearning of a target feature, theymay not promote the ‘balanced development’ thatSkehanseesasthegoalofTBLT.

5. Pre-emptiveversusreactivefocusonformEllis, Basturkmen and Loewen (2001) distinguished the form-focused episodes thatoccurred in teacher-class task-based interaction in terms of whether they were pre-emptive, inwhich case either a student or the teacher initiated a focus on a specificlinguisticfeature,orreactivewhenaclassroomparticipant(normallytheteacher)drewattentiontoaparticularlinguisticformthatwasthesourceofaproblem.Long(2015)isadamantthatfocus-on-formshouldbeentirelyreactive.Iwillarguethatthisisneitherpractical–asteacherswillalwaysfeeltheneedtoaddressquestionsaboutformraisedbytheirstudents–northeoreticallydesirableaspre-emptivefocusonformcanusefullydrawlearners’attentiontoform.

6. TypesofcorrectivefeedbackThere is of course plenty of evidence that reactive focus-on-form (i.e. correctivefeedback)isbeneficial.Theresearchtodatehasfocusedontherelativeeffectivenessofdifferenttypesofcorrectivefeedback(i.e.input-providingversusoutput-promptingandimplicitversusexplicit)leadingtodifferencesinopinionandconsiderabledebate.Thisresearch, however, has only investigated the effects of corrective feedback on theacquisitionofspecificgrammaticalstructurestargetedinfocusedtasks.Iwillarguethatteachers should employ a variety of corrective feedback strategies and that what ismissingislongitudinalstudiesofunfocusedcorrectivefeedback.

7. TimingoffeedbackTheissuehereiswhetherreactivefocusonformneedstooccurduringtheperformanceof a task or can be delayed until after the task has been completed. There is littlediscussionofthisinTBLTcirclesalthoughitwouldseemthatimmediate,onlinefocusonform is considered preferable given the psycholinguistic importance attached to

6

learning-through-interaction and the fact that the research that informs TBLT hasinvestigatedthis.The question of the timing of feedback is an important issue because a commonposition in the advice given out to teachers is that immediate feedback is needed inaccuracyworkbutfeedbackshouldbedelayedinfluencywork(Hedge,2000;Scrivener,2005). InTBLT,however, thedistinctionbetweenaccuracyand fluencyworkdoesnotapply, as the goal is to develop accuracy and fluency, along with complexity,contiguously. I report on two studies that have investigated immediate and delayedfeedbackbutconcludethat,atthispoint,itisnotpossibletoadjudicateonthisissue.

8. Participatorystructure–groupworkversuswholetaskAcommonmisconceptionaboutTBLTisthatitinevitablyinvolvessmallgroupwork.Thismisconceptionmayagainhavearisenbecausesomuchoftheresearchhasinvestigatedhowlearnersperformtasksinpairsorgroups.Buttaskscanbeperformedinavarietyofparticipatorystructures,includingteacher-class–asisnecessarywithinput-basedtasks– and individually when learners work by themselves - as in Prabhu’s (1987)Communicational Language Teaching Project. Teachers have a choice of participatorystructureinTBLT.WhatislackinginaccountsofTBLT,however,isdiscussionaboutwhatconstitutesanappropriateparticipatorystructurefordifferentgroupsofstudents.

9. Transferabilityoftask-basedabilitiesExperimentalstudieshavefrequentlyusedtasksaspre-andpost-teststomeasurethelearningofspecificlinguisticformsthatresultsfromperformingthetreatmenttasks.Incaseswheretheperformanceofthetreatmenttaskinvolvessomekindofintervention(forexample,correctivefeedback)thereisclearevidenceoflearning.However,incaseswherethereisnosuchintervention,transferabilitytoanewtaskmaynotbefound(seeEllis,2009)asinanumberoftask-repetitionstudies.ThisisclearlyakeyissueforTBLTbut has been little researched. To establish transferability, longitudinal studies areneeded.

10. TeachereducationforTBLTTBLT,with its emphasis onholistic teaching and learning-through-doing, constitutes amajorinnovationforteachersaccustomedtoastructuralapproach.TeachersmaylackconfidenceintheirL2proficiencyandthusfeelthattheycannotusetasks(Butler,2011).Students may be unconvinced that the incidental learning that TBLT caters to is themostefficientwayoflearninganL2.Stateeducationalsystemsmayrequireteacherstoteach to a syllabus that specifieswhat is tobe learned in termsof lists ofwords andgrammatical structures. A particular problem is that teachers sometimes lack a clear

7

understanding of what a ‘task’ is. These problems can only be addressed in stateeducational systems if a clear commitment is made to abandoning structuralspecifications and discrete-point assessment or, at least, complementing suchassessmentwithperformance-basedtests.TheproblemsassociatedwithimplementingTBLT,whensucha commitmenthasbeenmade, require carefully-designed initial andin-service teacher training/ education programmes as occurred when TBLT wasintroduced into state schools inBelgium (seeVandenBranden,2006). Without suchprogrammesTBLThaslittlechanceofsuccess.

In theconclusion tomy talk Iwill suggest that thebestway forward for countries like Japanmight be amodular curriculum – with a strong task-based component but with some task-supported instruction when it becomes clear that learners could benefit from explicitinstruction.

REFERENCES

Bruton,A.(2002).Fromtaskingpurposestopurposingtasks.ELTJournal,56,280-288.

Butler,Y. (2011).The Implementationofcommunicativeand task-based language teaching intheAsia-Pacificregion.AnnualReviewofAppliedLinguistics,31,36-57.

Ellis,R.(2009).Task-basedlanguageteaching:Sortingoutthemisunderstandings.InternationalJournalofAppliedLinguistics19,221–246.

Ellis,R.,H.Basturkmen,andS.Loewen.(2001).LearneruptakeincommunicativeESL lessons.LanguageLearning,51,281–318.

Foster,P.andSkehan,P. (1996).The influenceofplanningandtasktypeonsecond languageperformance.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition,18,299-323.

Hedge,T. (2000).Teachingand learning inthe languageclassroom.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-based languageteaching. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (eds.). Modelling and Assessing SecondLanguageAcquisition(pp.77-100).Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Long,M.(2015).Secondlanguageacquisitionandtask-basedlanguageteaching.Malden,USA:Wiley-Blackwell.

Long,M.H.(2016).IndefenceoftasksandTBLT:Nonissuesandrealissues.AnnualReviewofAppliedLinguistics,36,5-33.

8

Prabhu,N.S.(1987).Secondlanguagepedagogy.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Samuda,V.(2001).Guidingrelationshipsbetweenformandmeaningduringtaskperformance:theroleoftheteacher.InM.Bygate,P.SkehanandM.Swain(eds.).Researchingpedagogictasks,secondlanguagelearning,teachingandtesting.Harlow:Longman.

Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning teaching: A guidebook for English language teachers. Oxford:MacMillanEducation.

Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Skehan,P.(1998).Acognitiveapproachtolanguagelearning.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Van den Branden, K. (ed.). (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Willis,J.(1996).AFrameworkfortask-basedlearning.Harlow:Longman.

9

TaskIntegrityandTaskFrequencyintheL2Classroom

CraigLambert,CurtinUniversity

ABSTRACT

Thisarticleprovidesapractical introductiontogainingmaximumbenefitsfromtherepetitionoftasksinthelanguageclassroom.ThearticleisintendedtocomplementLambert,KormosandMinn(2016)withapractitioner’sguidetotasksinlanguageteaching.Itbeginswithadiscussionof the essential characteristics of tasks as pedagogic tools and the role that they play in L2learning.This is followedbyadiscussionof the importanceof task frequency in the learningprocessandhowtaskrepetitionintheclassroommightposethreatstotheintegrityoftasksasL2 learning tools. Finally, the last section discusses implementation strategies to ensureadequatetaskfrequencywhileatthesametimepreservingtaskintegrity,promotingoptimumtransfer of practice across tasks, and minimizing learner fatigue in repeating the same taskmultiple times. This section also discusses optional modifications to the basic approach toimplementingtaskswhichcanbeusedtooptimizedifferentaspectsof learners’performanceacrossa tasksequence.Thearticle thusprovidesapracticalbasis for teachers toexperimentwithtask-basedlanguageteaching intheirownclassroomsinordertodeterminewhatworksbestfortheirlearnersandintheireducationalcontexts.

TASKS AS L2 LEARNING TOOLS Taskshavebeenvariouslydefined in the literatureonL2 instructionalplanning.Atone level,anyactivitywhich requiresefforton thepartof a learner insideoroutsideof the classroomcouldbe referred tocolloquiallyasa task.However, in themore technical senseof taskasaunit of analysis in task-based instructional design, tasks have been conceptualized in twoprimary ways. One of these focuses on situational authenticity (e.g., Long, 2015; Robinson,2011)and theotheron interactionalauthenticity (e.g., Ellis, 2003;Yule,1997). In the formercase,itisessentialthattasksreflectreallifeeventsthatlearnersneedtocompleteoutsideoftheclassroom,andthefocusininstructionaldesignistocreateprogressivelymoredemandingversionsofthesetasksinordertoallowlearnersagraduatedmeansofperfectingtheirskillatcompleting them (Long, 2015). In the latter case, there is no constraint on tasks to mimicsomethinglearnersdooutsideoftheclassroom,buttasksdoneedtoprovidetheopportunityto use language in ways for authentic communication in the classroom and be enjoyableenoughtoengagelearnersandtogeneratetheeffortrequiredtoperformthemwell.

In both approaches, however, tasks are argued to promote language acquisition in awaythatisdistinctfromtheothertypesofactivitiesthataretypicallyusedinlanguageclassrooms.It isgenerallyagreedthat languageknowledge,as itrelatestotheabilitytospeakalanguagefluently, is ultimately implicit knowledge (N. Ellis, 2002). Implicit language knowledge is the

10

comprehensive and relatively effortless knowledge that allows proficient speakers of alanguagetocommunicateinrealtimewhilefocusedonthemeaningofwhattheyaresaying,often without being able to explain why they say the things they say. By contrast, explicitlanguageknowledgeisthelesscompleteandconsciousrule-basedknowledgecharacteristicofspeakerswho have learned a language formally. Although these learners can usually explainwhytheirutterancesarecorrectlyformed,theapplicationofthisknowledgetendstobeslowandrequiresconsiderableconsciouseffortonthepartofthespeaker.

There is considerable evidence for a distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge.Paradis (2004) argues that implicit andexplicit knowledgeare likely tobe stored indifferentparts of the brain. The basic argument is that explicit language knowledge is stored in thetertiary cortex andmakes use of the limbic system like other forms of declarativememory,whereasimplicitlanguageknowledgeisstoredinconnectionsbetweenthecorticalprocessorsbywhichitisacquiredanddoesnotinvolvethelimbicsystem.However,traditionalapproachesto language instruction are based on the assumption that explicit knowledge can becomeimplicitknowledgethroughpractice.Learnersmemorizerules,practicemanipulatingsentencesexemplifyingtheserules,andthenattempttousetheserulesincommunicationduringsituatedgrammaractivitiesinwhichtheyapplytheserules.Ifimplicitandexplicitknowledgearedistinct,however, as recent evidence seems to indicate, it is unlikely that explicit knowledge everbecomes implicit knowledge through practice and that theywill be accessed and developedthrough different processes based on distinct cognitive mechanisms (R. Ellis, 2011). Theuniqueness of tasks as learning tools is that they are able to tap into and develop learners’implicitlanguageknowledge(Lambert,2016).

At a practical level, the question for L2 teachers and materials designs is what essentialfeaturesdefinetasksaslearningtoolsanddifferentiatethemfromtherangeofotherlearningactivitiesthatareusedinL2instruction.R.Ellis(2009)arguesthattopreservetheintegrityoftasksaslearningtools,theymustbedesignedandimplementedtocreatefourkeyconstraintsonlearners’performance:

(1) They should focus learners on themeaning of what is being said rather than on thelanguageusedtosayit.

(2) Theyshouldinvolveagapininformation,opinionorinferencethatcreatestheneedforcommunication.

(3) Learners should not be providedwith language to usewhile performing the task norshouldtheybedirectedtousespecificlanguagewhilecompletingit.Rathertheyshouldbe required to access the full rangeof their own resources inorder to arrive at theirownmeansofcompletingit.

(4) Theaimofa taskshouldbetoarriveatacommunicativeoutcomebeyondtheuseoflanguageforitsownsake.

Ifevenoneofthesecharacteristicsisabsent,theintegrityofthetaskasalearningactivitywillbecompromised,and the resultingactivity is likely tobecomea situatedgrammaractivity inwhich learners draw on and develop explicit knowledge of the language. Although such

11

exercisesmay serve important functions in adult L2 acquisition, these functions are distinctfrom the function served by tasks.When all four of these characteristics aremet, however,tasksoftenallowteachersandresearcherstotapintoanddevelopimplicitratherthanexplicitknowledge.

TASK FREQUENCY IN THE L2 LEARNING PROCESS

It has been argued that a large part of mastering an additional language consists of theprogressive and ongoingmapping of language forms to specific communicative functions (N.Ellis,2002).Thisprocessinvolveslearners instructuringandrestructuringtheirresourcesintoexpedientlinguisticstrategiesbywhichtheycanachievetheircommunicativeneeds(Verspoor,de Bot & Lowie, 2011). Verspoor and Behrens (2011), for example, describe the process asfollows:

Iflanguagelearningisabottom-upprocess,wherelanguageisnothingmorethanaset of conventions, learners have to find their own strategies to express theirintentions. They will pick up those conventions that they have heard mostfrequently, but in trying to express them, they may also try a set of varyingstrategies,frommoresimpleonestomorecomplexones,correctorincorrect,andoften in juxtaposition. Eventually, however, they discard the least effective onesanduseacombinationofthemoreeffectiveones(Verspoor&Behrens,2011,p.38).

CrucialtothisprocessiswhatMacWhinney(2001)referstoasthedevelopmentofcuestrength.As it relates to linguistic processing, cue strength refers to the degree ofmapping betweenlinguistic formsand functionsor the likelihood that specific forms (morphological, lexicalandsyntactic) will be used tomark a given function. In order to successfully associate effectivelanguageformstospecificfunctionalneeds,L2learnersmustaccomplishtaskssupportingthisconnection frequently. According to MacWhinney, task frequency can become a barrier toeffective L2acquisition.Heargues that “becausemostbasic linguistic tasks [in first languageacquisition]arewellabovethresholdfrequency,thedimensionoftaskfrequencyisseldomanimportantdeterminantofrelativecuestrength.However,inthecaseofaL2…taskfrequencycouldbecomeafactordeterminingageneralslow-downinacquisition”(MacWhinney,2001,p.71).

Inotherwords,manyessentialtaskfunctionsmaynotoccurfrequentlyenoughinnaturallyoccurring situations to result in the acquisition of a full range of linguistic resources in L2learners. Thus,whileoneprimary functionof task-based L2 instruction is toprovide learnerswithtasksthatchallengetheirlinguisticresourcesandpushthemtodevelopmorepreciseandeffectivemeansof reaching specific communicative ends, a secondprimary functionof task-based instruction is toprovidethemwith intensivepractice inperformingthesetaskssothattheyhaveadequateexposure toeffectively internalize thenew linguistic resources that theybringtobearinmeetingtaskdemands.

12

Intensive repetition of tasks can also facilitate the learning process by priming effectivelinguisticstrategiesbroughttobearontasks.N.Ellis(2002),forexample,arguesthatlearnerstendtoreuseutteranceswhichhavebeenrecentlyprimedinmemoryratherthanconstructingnovel utterances. He claims that lexical items, thematic roles and word sequences primethemselves inmemory over stretches of discourse approximately ten sentences in length ortime intervals of up to 20minutes. The probability of learners reusing forms increases as afunction of how recently they have been used. Thus, task sequences planned to provide L2learnerswithintensivetaskrepetitioncanprovideforthresholdlevelsoftaskfrequencyaswellasimprovethepracticeopportunitiesthattasksprovidebyincreasingtheprobabilityofspecifictask-relevantstructuresthatlearnershavebroughttobearincompletingthembeingrecycledthroughouttheirperformances.

PUTTING TASKS TO WORK IN THE L2 CLASSROOM Akeyquestionforimplementingtask-basedlanguageteachingisthushowtoensureadequatetask frequency while at the same time preserving task integrity and promoting optimumpriming effects and transfer of new language across the tasks in a sequence. Bygate (2001)discussestwopedagogicoptionsforprovidinglearnerswithopportunitiestorepeattasks:sametaskrepetitionandparalleltaskrepetition.Inthefirstcase,learnersrepeattheexactsametask,whereas in the second case, they repeat similar tasks with slightly different content (e.g.,describeadifferent,butsimilarshirteachtime).However,bothformsoftaskrepetitionposepotentialthreatstotaskintegrityandtolearnermotivation.Itwillberememberedthatinordertopreservetheintegrityoftaskstheymustbedesignedandimplementedtofocuslearnersonmeaning (R.Ellis, 2009). If learnershavealreadycompeteda task, itbecomes less likely thattheywill remainfocusedonachievingthesameendwhenaskedtodo itagain.Furthermore,eventhemostmotivatedlearnersarelikelytohaveapointatwhichtheybecomeboredwithrepeatingthesameorsimilartasks(Bygate,2001).

Parallel taskrepetitionhas theadvantageofpreservingthe integrityof tasks in termsofafocusonmeaningaswell aspossiblyprolonging learners interest in completing the taskanddelayingtheonsetoffatigue.Thedrawbackisthatitmayreducethetransferabilityofprimedlanguageandconsequentlycompromisethepracticeopportunitiesthattasksprovide.Lambert(2014),forexample,inalarge-scalestudyoftask-relatedlanguagevariationinbothnativeandnon-nativespeakersofEnglish foundthatevenoncloselyparallelclothingdescriptions tasks,lexical selection and specific syntactic structureswerepartially dependenton the itembeingdescribed.Inotherwords,whenthelexicalitemsrequiredforthetaskchanged,thelikelihoodofnovellinguisticstrategiesincreased,andthelikelihoodthatlearnerswouldbeabletorecyclethe linguistic strategies thatwereusedonpreviousversionsdecreased. Same task repetitionavoidsthisreductionintransferabilitybetweentasks,butitcanalsocompromisetaskintegrityand increase the onset of boredom and fatigue. When two learners have established thecommunicative outcome of a given task, it is not realistic to expect that theywill remained

13

focusonmeaninginreachingthissameoutcomeagain.Theyaremorelikelytoseethetaskasameanstopracticelanguageandfocusmoreonthelanguagetheyusethanthecommunicativeoutcometheyachieveinsubsequentrepetitions.

It is interesting to note, however, that people do often repeat the exact same task innaturallyoccurringcommunicationoutsideoftheclassroom(e.g.reclaimingapieceofclothingfromacloakroom,explaininghowtoinstallsomething,tellinganinterestingstory,expressingan opinion about a book ormovie). The difference is that they tend to do sowith differentinterlocutors each time. Furthermore, they do not only perform these tasks themselves buthearothersperformthemaswell. InarecentstudyoftheeffectsofsametaskrepetitiononimmediategainsinL2fluency,Lambert,KormosandMinn(2016)proposewhattheyrefertoasAural-OralTaskRepetition.Thisinvolveslearnersrepeatingtasksinpairs,alternatingtheroleofspeakerandlisteneroneachperformanceandworkingwithadifferentinterlocutoreachtime.Thisapproachmaintainstheecologicalvalidityoftaskrepetitionandpreservestheintegrityoftasksaslearningtoolsbycreatingconditionsinwhichlearnerscanremainfocusedonmeaning,addressagenuinecommunicationgapbasedontheirownlinguisticresources,andarriveatacommunicativeoutcomeforeachrepetitionofthetask.

Furthermore,theauthorsfoundthatevenaftersixrepetitionsoftheexactsamethreetasks(instruction, narration, and opinion) as both speaker and as listener (36 performances total)over a period of 90minutes, feelings of boredom or fatigue were quite rare among the 32Japanese learnersofEnglishwhoparticipated in thestudy.Following the treatment, learnerscompleted an open-ended questionnaire which asked about (1) the value they perceived inrepeatingthetasks,(2)thenumberofrepetitionstheyfeltwereoptimal,and(3)thevaluethattheyperceivedinworkingwithdifferentpartners.Almostalloftheparticipantsreportedthatrepeating the taskswasuseful for them.The twomain reasonsprovidedwere that ithelpedthem improve their fluency and that it helped them to incorporate new language into theirperformances either from memory or from their partners. Furthermore, they reported theoptimalnumberofrepetitionsforsolidifyingthesegainsintheshorttermwasbetweenthreeand fourdependingon the task. Interestingly, these results corroborated the findingson thefluencyoftheirspeech.Sametaskrepetitionhadthemostpronouncedeffectonspeechrateacrossthefirstthreeperformanceswithsmallergainscontinuingthroughthefifthperformance.Furthermore, gains between the first two performances were primarily associated withreduction in clause-final pausing,which the authors argue is connectedwith conceptualizingthecontent,whereasgainsbetweenthesecond,thirdandfourthperformanceswereprimarilyassociatedwith reduction inmid-clause pausing,which the authors argue is connectedwithrefining the lexical itemsandsyntactic structuresused.Thus, three to four repetitionsof thesameL2learningtasksseemtohavebeenneededforlearnerstooptimizethedifferentaspectsoftheirL2fluencyintheshort-termregardlessofthetaskbeingcompletedortheproficiencylevelofthespeakers.

Askinglearnerstochangepartnersaftereachperformanceofatask,however,canbetimeconsuming.Onepossibility is to set up the classroom for groupsof four. Learners should beseatedsothattwolearnerssitside-by-sidetoeachotherandface-to-facewiththeothertwo.

14

Forthefirsttaskperformance,theyworkwiththelearnerinfrontofthem.Forthesecond,theyquickly rotate90degreesandworkwith the learnerbeside them.For the third, theyquicklyswitchseatswiththepersonbesidethemandworkwiththelearnerwhowaspreviouslysittingdiagonaltothem.Theserepetitionscanalsobetimedandthetimegraduallyreduced.This isknown as 4-3-2 technique. Originally proposed byMaurice (1983), it has subsequently beenresearched in several studies beginning with Nation (1989) and Arevart (1989). Using thistechnique effectively, however, requires piloting the task with similar groups to understandhowmuchtimeanunpressuredperformancerequiresandtodetermineappropriatereductionintervals to promote fluency while still allowing learners to successfully complete the task.Furthermore,whentimepermitsandtheteacherfeelsthatataskischallengingenoughforthegrouptobenefitfrommorethanthreerepetitions,learnerscanbeshuffledintonewgroupsbygivingeachmemberanumberfromonetofourandaskingthemtoformnewgroupsbasedonthesenumbers(i.e.,thefourstudentswiththenumberoneformgroupone,twosgrouptwo,etc.).Lambert(2004)providesconcretelessonplansbasedonthisprinciple.Thetaskcanthenberepeatedthreemoretimesfollowingthesameproceduresoutlinedabove.

Another useful device to bring learners’ performances in linewith teacher’s expectationsacross a repetition sequence is to ask learners to self-evaluate after each performance. Forexample,supposethattheteacher’sexpectationsarethatlearnersaretocompleteatask,(1)usingonlyEnglish,(2)withoutshowingtheirpartnertheirpaper,and(3)byfindingthecorrectanswer.Onepossibilityistocreateaself-evaluationsheetforlearnerstocompleteaftereachperformance.Theymightbeinstructedtogivethemselves3pointsonCriterion1,iftheyusedallEnglish,2pointsiftheyusednomorethantwowordsoftheirL1,andnopointsiftheyusedmorethantwowords.Ifsimilarscalesarethencreatedfortheothertwocriteriatototalof10points for each performance thatmeets all of the teacher’s expectations, it puts learners incontrol of their progress and may result in more of them reaching criterion levels ofperformance by the end of each sequence (see, Stroud, 2016, for the effects of a similartechnique using point cards over the course of an entire semester rather than a single tasksequence).

However,itisimportanttorememberthattheideasinthisarticle,basedonLambertetal.(2016), are provided as an empirical basis for teachers to experiment with task repetitioneffectivelyintheclassroomandtodeterminewhatworksbestwiththeirownlearnersandintheirowneducationalcontext.These ideasarenotmeanttobeapplieduncritically.Teachersshouldremainsensitivetotheirlearners’responsestotasksandmakeadjustmentsaccordingly.It ishopedthatthepresentarticlewillprovideabasis forsuchexperimentationandresult inmoreeffectivetask-basedlanguageteachinginJapanandelsewhere.

REFERENCES

Arevart,S.(1989).Grammaticalchangethroughrepetition.RELCJournal,20,42-60.

15

Bygate,M.(2001).Effectsoftaskrepetitiononthestructureandcontroloforallanguage.InBygate,M.,Skehan,P.&Swain,M.(Eds.)ResearchingPedagogicTasks.Harlow:Longman.

Ellis,N.(2002).Frequencyeffectsinlanguageprocessing:Areviewwithimplicationsfortheoriesforimplicitandexplicitlanguageacquisition.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition,24,143-188.

Ellis,R.(2003).Task-basedlanguagelearningandteaching.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Ellis,R.(2009).Task-basedlanguageteaching:Sortingoutthemisunderstandings.InternationalJournalofAppliedLinguistics,19,221-246.

Ellis,R.(2011).TheInterfaceHypothesisRevisited.InN.Yuzawa(Ed.),ProceedingsoftheJACET50thCommemorativeInternationalConvention(pp.1-6).Fukuoka:JapanAssociationofCollegeEnglishTeachers(JACET).

Long,M.(2015).SecondLanguageAcquisitionandTask-BasedLanguageTeaching.Wiley/Blackwell.

Lambert,C.(2016).TasksversusExercises.TESOLEncyclopaediaofEnglishLanguageTeaching.Malden,MA:Wiley/Blackwell.

Lambert,C.(2014).TheDevelopmentofNominalConstructionsinTask-BasedForeignLanguageInstruction:TheCaseofReferentSimilarity.Ph.D.Dissertation,LancasterUniversity.

Lambert,C.(2004).Reverse-EngineeringCommunicationTasks.ELTJournal58,18-27.

Lambert,C.Kormos,J.andMinn,D.(2016).TaskRepetitionandSecondLanguageSpeechProcessing.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition,FirstView.

MacWhinney,B.(2001).Thecompetitionmodel:Theinput,thecontext,andthebrain.InP.Robinson(Ed.),Cognitionandsecondlanguageinstruction(pp.69-90).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Maurice,K.(1983).Thefluencyworkshop.TESOLNewsletter17:429.

Nation,P.(1989).Improvingspeakingfluency.System17(3):377-384.

ParadisM.(2004).ANeurolinguisticTheoryofBilingualism.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Robinson,P.(2011).Secondlanguagetaskcomplexity:Researchingthecognitionhypothesisoflanguagelearningandperformance.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Skehan,P.(2014).Processingperspectivesontaskperformance.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Stroud,R.(2016).Goal-settingandL2taskengagement.Manuscriptinpreparation.HoseiUniversity.

16

Verspoor,M.&Behrens,H.(2011).Dynamicsystemstheoryandausagebasedapproachtosecondlanguagedevelopment.InM.Verspoor,K.deBot&W.Lowie(Eds.),Adynamicapproachtosecondlanguagedevelopment:Methodsandtechniques(pp.25-38).Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Verspoor,M.deBot,K.&Lowie,W.(2011).ADynamicApproachtoL2Development:MethodsandTechniques.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Yule,G.(1997).ReferentialCommunicationTasks.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

17

LESSON PLAN:

CreatinganInstructionalYouTubeVideo

OsazeCuomo,OsakaUniversityofTourism

Thisisamulti-weekseriesoftasksaimedatintermediatetoadvancedlearnersleadingintothecreationofaYouTube-styleinstructionalcookingvideo.Thetaskswillbespreadoutoverseveralweeks.

GOALS

• UnderstandingtheYouTubeecosystemasaplaceforlearningandsharingideas• Creatinganexplanatorycookingvideo• Sendingvideofilesasattachments• Familiarizingstudentswithvocabularyandconceptsrelatedtomoderntechnology• Promotingautonomouslearningandproblemsolvingusingonlineresources

MATERIALS

• Screenconnectedtoacomputerforwatchingvideosasaclass• Classroominternetconnectionormeanstodownloadvideostowatchinclass• Smartphone(ifmostorallstudentsintheclassdonothaveasmartphonethislessonplanwillbemuchmoredifficulttoimplement)

PREPARATION WEEK 1 Select2-3short(2-5minutes)instructionalcookingvideosonYouTube(AppendixA).Videosshouldbeofvaryingproductionvaluetogivestudentsarealisticimageofwhatcanbedonewithbasicequipment.TheinstructorcanalsocreateanoriginalvideoinplaceofoneoftheYouTubevideos.Thishelpsstudentstobecomecomfortableinallthestepsthattheywillberequiredtocompleteandhelpsgenerateclassinterest.Writealistofingredientsand

18

equipmentusedineachvideo(AppendixB).Printoutalistofinstructionsfromthevideo(AppendixC),withoneinstructionperpage.Lastly,picturesofeachrecipewillbeneeded.Writefourtofivestatementsabouttheproductionandstructureofthevideos(AppendixD).

PRE-TASK

Gathertheclassaroundthescreen.Askstudentstothinkabouttheirfavoritefood,howisitmade?Cantheymakeit?Iftheydon’tknowhow,wouldtheylearn?DotheyeverwatchcookingvideosonYouTube?

STAGE 1 Putstudentsintogroups,showapictureofthedishinthefirstvideoandaskstudentstopredicttheingredientsthatwillbeusedinthedish.Watchthevideoandhavethemchecktheirpredictionsbycirclingtheingredientsandequipmenttheyhear(AppendixA).Afterconfirmingtheingredientsandequipmentusedintherecipe,distributetheinstructioncards(AppendixB)toeachgroupandaskthemtoputtheminorder.Watchthevideosandstudentschecktheirpredictions.Makenoteofthecookingverbs(prep,flip,spritz),andthelanguageusedforsignposting(first,next,afterthat,etc.).Repeattheprocessforeachvideo.Afterwatchingthevideosasktheclasswhichtheylikedbestandwhy.Drawattentiontothepresenter,anysignpostinglanguageused,andaboutproductionaspectsofthevideos.Encouragethestudentstothinkaboutwhatmakesagoodvideo.

STAGE 2 Distributethepreviouslypreparedstatements(AppendixD)regardingtheproductionandstructureofthevideostoeachgroup.Studentsshouldbeencouragedtolookupunknownwordsandphrases.Watchthevideosathirdtimeandhavestudentsdecidewhichstatementsapplytoeachvideo.Reviewanyvideoproductionterms(take,cut,shot,angle,lighting)usingexamplesfromthevideosifthereisanyconfusiononthepartofthestudents.Askthestudentsiftheyhaveevermadeavideoandgivetimeforanystudentswithexperiencetoshare,thengivestudentsanoutlineoftheirproductivetask.

19

TASK

CreateaYouTube-styledvideoexplaininganddemonstratinghowtocooktheirfavoritefoodVideocanbemadewithonepersonorinagroupof2or3peopleVideoshouldbe3to5minutesinlengthVideoshouldhavesomeproductionvalues(titlecards,music,cuts)VideomustbeuploadedtoYouTube(eitherpublicorprivate)andsenttotheteacher

Concludetheclassbyaskinghowmanycookingverbsthestudentscanremember?Howmanyvideoproductionwordscantheyremember?Reviewthekeystalkedaboutearlierforcreatinganinterestingvideo.Formanystudentsthiswilllikelybetheirfirsttimeeditingavideoandtheymaybesomewhatunsurehowtogoaboutit.YouTubehasitsowneditingsoftwarethatisfreeandeasytousebutstudentsarefreetoputthevideotogetherhowevertheyseefit.

WEEK 2 / WEEK 3 Checkinwithstudentseachweektoseehowtheyareprogressing.Ifoundmanyofmyfirstyearstudentsneededabitofinstructiononthebasicsofsendingemailsointhe3rdweekamini-lessononwhattoincludeinanemailmaybebeneficial.AdditionalareastocoverwouldbehowtocreateaYouTubeaccount,howtouploadavideo,howtochangeprivacysettings,andhowtosendalink.Dependingonhowmuchtimeisavailabletheseactionscouldbeturnedintotasks,alternativelyiftimeisshorttheseactionscouldbegivenasresearchtasksoutsideofclass.Duetothesizeofmostvideofilesitislikelythatstudentswillnotbeabletosendthemasattachments.Thispointshouldbeemphasizedsostudentsareawaretheymustsendthelinktotheinstructorbeforetheclassmeetsforthevideopresentations.

POST-TASK WEEK 4 OR WEEK 5

BEFORE FINAL VIEWING Theinstructorshoulddownloadthevideosfromthelinkssentbythestudentorhaveareliableinternetconnectionforin-classviewing.Theinstructorprescreensthestudents’videos,makingnotewherelanguageusagecouldbemoreclear,withafocusonlanguagerelatedtosignpostingandgivinginstructions.Sendthetime-codesofeachsegmentbacktothestudents(forexample‘pleasecheck1:15-1:20’).Givethestudentsadeadlinebywhichtheymusttranscribeandrewritesegments.

20

IN CLASS Watcheachstudentvideo,recyclelanguageusedinStage1asmuchaspossible.GivethestatementsusedinStage2(AppendixD)togroupsofstudentsandagainaskthemtodecidewhichstatementsapplytoeachvideo.Makealistofawards(bestpresenter,bestcinematography,bestintro,etc.)andgivethestudentssecretballots.Thewinnersineachcategorycouldgiveanacceptancespeechtotalkabouttheirproductionprocess.

NOTES Thelengthoftimegiventostudentscanbemodifiedtosuittheclasscalendar.Ifpossiblegivetheassignmentoveralongbreakorevena3-dayweekendtoallowstudentsmoreproductiontime.Ratherthanacookingvideo,thethemeforthevideoscouldbe‘givingaguidedtour’or‘reviewinganewproduct’withacorrespondinglanguageemphasis.

21

APPENDIX A 1.1.1.1 AltonBrown-GrilledGrilledCheese1.1.1.2 www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIIWJUvrxEY

22

APPENDIX B

AltonBrown-GrilledCheeseSandwichesCircletheequipmentheusestomakethegrilledcheesesandwiches

Spatulas Pan charcoalgrill

Oven Tongs aluminumfoil

Circletheingredientsheusestomakethegrilledcheesesandwiches

Spices Lemon cheese mustard

Butter oliveoil salt bread

23

APPENDIX C (DELETE THE NUMBERS AND ENLARGE TO PRINT ONE PER PAGE) 1. mixthespicesandthecheesetogether2.putthecheeseonthespatulas3.putthecheeseonindirectheat4.prepthebread5.spritztheoliveoilon6.putthebreadondirectheat7.flipthebread8.movethecheeseover9.slidethecheeseontothesandwich10.putthebreadandthecheesebackonindirectheat

24

APPENDIX D (ENLARGE AND PRINT ONE PER PAGE) 1.1.1.3 Thevideowasshotinonetake1.1.1.4 Thepresenterusedasignoff1.1.1.5 Thepresenterreadfromascript1.1.1.6 Thepresenterclearlymovedfromonepartoftheexplanationtothenext1.1.1.7 Thepresenterwasserious