1. Using Information and Communication Technologies to Support Tasks in the EFL Classroom Maria Elena Solares solares@unam.mx Department of Applied Linguistics Centro de Enseñanza de Lenguas Extranjeras Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México September, 2009

2. Premises of TBLT (Willis, 2004) Language as an organic process Language as an organic process Input hypothesis Input hypothesis Output hypothesis Output hypothesis interaction interaction negotiation of meaning negotiation of meaning

3. Task-Based Language Teaching Promotes meaningful learning/assimilation of content and development of skills by solving tasks similar to real life. Promotes meaningful learning/assimilation of content and development of skills by solving tasks similar to real life. Linguistic regularities are acquired through noticing during communicative activity, and should therefore be addressed primarily by incidental focus on form during task performance. (Michael Swan. 2005. p. 376) Linguistic regularities are acquired through noticing during communicative activity, and should therefore be addressed primarily by incidental focus on form during task performance. (Michael Swan. 2005. p. 376)

4. Task (Skehan 1998, p. 95) Real life activity where there is a communication problem to solve, where the focus is on meaning, where the task completion is fundamental and where the assessment of the task is made in terms of the outcome. Real life activity where there is a communication problem to solve, where the focus is on meaning, where the task completion is fundamental and where the assessment of the task is made in terms of the outcome. A task has a not clearly defined linguistic objective but in order to solve it learners are involved in the use of the target language. A task has a not clearly defined linguistic objective but in order to solve it learners are involved in the use of the target language. Focus during task performance is on the linguistic resources that learners use and develop to carry out the task. Focus during task performance is on the linguistic resources that learners use and develop to carry out the task.

5. Instructional Design (Textbooks, TBLT and ICTs) American Cutting Edge. Level 4 By Peter Moor and Sara Cunningham Module 2 “Memories” Language Focus: S. Past & Past Continuous, Used to, not … any longer Task: Describe a childhood memory Task: Describe a childhood memory

9. Task (Project Poster) Objectives: Students will write a story to participate in “ A Story Telling Contest ”. Students will write a story to participate in “ A Story Telling Contest ”. Students will use the digital tool “Project Poster” to publish their story on line. Students will use the digital tool “Project Poster” to publish their story on line.Outcome: A written story published on line as a Poster. A written story published on line as a Poster. Potential Linguistic Output: Narrative tenses: simple past, past progressive, used to Narrative tenses: simple past, past progressive, used to Cohesive elements: expressions for beginning ( This all happened about.... years ago / One day, when I was...); telling ( Suddenly / After a while / So, anyway / Then ) and; ending the story ( So, eventually / In the end ). Cohesive elements: expressions for beginning ( This all happened about.... years ago / One day, when I was...); telling ( Suddenly / After a while / So, anyway / Then ) and; ending the story ( So, eventually / In the end ). http://poster.4teachers.org/teacher/teacher_posters.php?teacher_id=112515&class _code=192145&action=&poster_id=&showImage=1 http://poster.4teachers.org/teacher/teacher_posters.php?teacher_id=112515&class _code=192145&action=&poster_id=&showImage=1

12. Pre-task (Webworksheet and links) Define the final task and the intermediary ones Define the final task and the intermediary ones Define linguistic, lexical and cohesive components Define linguistic, lexical and cohesive components Choose appropriate links Choose appropriate links Sequence the activities Sequence the activities Design a variety of tasks which develop sts’ communicative competence for telling stories Design a variety of tasks which develop sts’ communicative competence for telling stories Show plenty of models and provide plenty of input Show plenty of models and provide plenty of input Design rubrics for product evaluation Design rubrics for product evaluation http://poster.4teachers.org/worksheet/view.php?id=120518

15. Post-task (Blog) Students read everyone’s stories and vote for the best ones Students read everyone’s stories and vote for the best ones

17. Students’ opinions on task experience Cool! I liked it a lot Cool! I liked it a lot Useful, innovating Useful, innovating Funny and fast learning Funny and fast learning Entertaining, there was curiosity to read everyone's stories Entertaining, there was curiosity to read everyone's stories To write the story we had to search about the topic, put that on a story, look for the style to write. Besides as the instructions for publishing were in English we learned new words. To write the story we had to search about the topic, put that on a story, look for the style to write. Besides as the instructions for publishing were in English we learned new words. It gave me extra class practice. I had to read all the stories in English! (language exposure and practice) It gave me extra class practice. I had to read all the stories in English! (language exposure and practice)

18. Students’ opinions (cont.) Scared: I did not know how to use the tools. Interested: when I saw what I could do with them. Surprised: when I discovered a different way of learning. Scared: I did not know how to use the tools. Interested: when I saw what I could do with them. Surprised: when I discovered a different way of learning. An experience which related me to the English language in a different and more creative way. An experience which related me to the English language in a different and more creative way. Interesting to know about my peers and share my experience with them. (group cohesion) Interesting to know about my peers and share my experience with them. (group cohesion) You can learn by reading other people’s stories. (learning as a social event) You can learn by reading other people’s stories. (learning as a social event) I feel now closer to technology. I feel now closer to technology.

19. M e t h o d

20. Research Questions Do tasks foster language learning? Do tasks foster language learning? Do web-supported tasks foster language learning? Do web-supported tasks foster language learning? If so, how? If so, how? If web supported tasks foster language learning, what exactly fosters learning: If web supported tasks foster language learning, what exactly fosters learning: the task or the use of digital tools? the task or the use of digital tools? the teaching approach or the means of instruction? the teaching approach or the means of instruction?

21. Sample 3 groups of university students 3 groups of university students Control (306): 25 sts Control (306): 25 sts Experimental 1 (308): 23 sts Experimental 1 (308): 23 sts Experimental 2 (308): 25 sts Experimental 2 (308): 25 sts Intermediate level Intermediate level Men and women Men and women 19 to 28 years old 19 to 28 years old From different study areas From different study areas

22. Variables Dependent: narrative tenses Dependent: narrative tenses Independent: different teaching approaches and means of instruction Independent: different teaching approaches and means of instruction

23. 3 Groups Control: Control: - Traditional text-book based teaching (PPP) Experimental 1: Experimental 1: - TBLT around the task “ A Story Telling Contest ” - Non-web-supported task and on-site learning Experimental 2: Experimental 2: - TBLT around the task “ A Story Telling Contest ” - Web-supported task and blended learning

24. Evaluation Instruments A story before + after instruction A story before + after instruction Chart for qualitative analysis of narrative tenses in free contexts Chart for qualitative analysis of narrative tenses in free contexts Diagnostic exam before + after instruction Diagnostic exam before + after instruction Quantitative analysis of narrative tenses in controlled contexts Quantitative analysis of narrative tenses in controlled contexts Questionnaire: students’ opinions / perceptions concerning: Questionnaire: students’ opinions / perceptions concerning: Achievement of objectives Achievement of objectives Instruction Instruction Means and materials Means and materials

25. Results?

26. BEFOREAFTER Mean5.58.3 Median4.47 Mode5.28.6

27. BEFOREAFTER Mean5.77.5 Median4.76.3 Mode5.2 / 6.39.2

28. BEFOREAFTER Mean5.37.2 Median3.96.2 Mode4.3 / 5.76.9

29. Diagnostic Exam: improvement in 3 groups Grade average increases from the first to the second exam in the three groups: Control: 5.5 (before) to 8.3 (after) Control: 5.5 (before) to 8.3 (after) Experimental 1: 5.7 (before) to 7.5 (after) Experimental 1: 5.7 (before) to 7.5 (after) Experimental 2: 5.3 (before) a 7.2 (after) Experimental 2: 5.3 (before) a 7.2 (after) No. of students that fail the exam decreases and no. of students that pass the exam increases before and after instruction in the three groups: Control: 14 failed + 11 passed (before)  1 failed + 24 passed (after) Control: 14 failed + 11 passed (before)  1 failed + 24 passed (after) Exp. 1: 11 failed + 12 passed (before)  2 failed + 21 passed (after) Exp. 1: 11 failed + 12 passed (before)  2 failed + 21 passed (after) Exp. 2: 13 failed + 12 passed (before)  3 failed y 22 passed (after) Exp. 2: 13 failed + 12 passed (before)  3 failed y 22 passed (after) The mode in the students’ grades increases in the three groups: Control: 5 (before)  9 (after) Control: 5 (before)  9 (after) Exp. 1: 5.2 and 6.3 (before)  9.2 (after ) Exp. 1: 5.2 and 6.3 (before)  9.2 (after ) Exp. 2:4.3 and 5.7 (before)  7 (after) Exp. 2:4.3 and 5.7 (before)  7 (after)

30. Preliminary “conclusions” / insights What exactly fosters learning: the task or the digital tools? Unable to give an answer yet What exactly fosters learning: the task or the digital tools? Unable to give an answer yet What explains the preliminary results? What explains the preliminary results? Same teacher  TSLT  A Story Telling Contest (only difference) Same teacher  TSLT  A Story Telling Contest (only difference) Improvement is more relevant in the last group  students’ profile Improvement is more relevant in the last group  students’ profile Saying TBLT is good does not mean PPP is not Saying TBLT is good does not mean PPP is not Learning depends 100% on the learner Learning depends 100% on the learner

31. Explaining preliminary results (cont.) Much wider concept of “learning” beyond narrative tenses  development of other competences/literacies and aspects of learning Much wider concept of “learning” beyond narrative tenses  development of other competences/literacies and aspects of learning Opportunities for learning awareness and motivation in language learning Opportunities for learning awareness and motivation in language learning Language + language learning + language teaching Language + language learning + language teaching Other factors influencing learning (means, approach, teacher, learner): class schedule, classroom conditions, students’ profile Other factors influencing learning (means, approach, teacher, learner): class schedule, classroom conditions, students’ profile

32. “Winning is important but what brings real joy is the experience of being fully engaged in whatever your are doing”

33. Thank you! solares@unam.mx

34. References Willis, J. & Leaver, B. (Editors). (2004). Task-based Instruction in Foreign Language Education. Practices and Programs. USA: Georgetown University Press. Willis, J. & Leaver, B. (Editors). (2004). Task-based Instruction in Foreign Language Education. Practices and Programs. USA: Georgetown University Press. Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by Hypothesis: The Case of Task-Based Instruction. Applied Linguistics, (26) 3, 376-401. OUP. Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by Hypothesis: The Case of Task-Based Instruction. Applied Linguistics, (26) 3, 376-401. OUP. Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: OUP. Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: OUP.