See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338444678

A conceptual model for integrating affordances of mobile technologies into

task-based language teaching

Article  in  Interactive Learning Environments · January 2020

DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1711132

CITATIONS READS

6 364

1 author:

Sijia Xue
University of Macau
9 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mobile social media in higher education View project

Technology distraction among secondary school students View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sijia Xue on 14 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Interactive Learning Environments

ISSN: 1049-4820 (Print) 1744-5191 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20

A conceptual model for integrating affordances

of mobile technologies into task-based language
teaching

Sijia Xue

To cite this article: Sijia Xue (2020): A conceptual model for integrating affordances of mobile
technologies into task-based language teaching, Interactive Learning Environments, DOI:
10.1080/10494820.2019.1711132

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1711132

Published online: 07 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nile20
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1711132

A conceptual model for integrating affordances of mobile

technologies into task-based language teaching
Sijia Xue
The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Due to a range of different affordances, mobile technologies can be used Received 16 December 2018
pedagogically for language teaching and learning. However, the Accepted 30 December 2019
connection of technology to education needs to be grounded in
KEYWORDS
theoretical frameworks and methodological principles. Task-based Affordances; mobile
language teaching (TBLT), as an optimal approach to language teaching technologies; TBLT; the
and learning, provides rationale and methodological principles for the Conversational Framework
application of mobile technologies. The Conversational Framework
(Laurillard, D. (2007). Pedagogical forms for mobile learning: framing
research questions. In N. Pachler (Ed.), Mobile learning: towards a research
agenda (pp. 153–175). London: UCL university.), on the other hand, can
be adapted as a framework for the design of learning process as well as
for the test of affordances of mobile technologies. Based on these
components, a conceptual model for integrating affordances of mobile
technologies into TBLT is proposed in this study. Such a model will serve
practice as well as research on the educational uses of mobile
technologies in the domain of language teaching and learning. Specific
procedures for the implementation of the model are illustrated and
demands for teachers as well as students are discussed.

1. Introduction
The powerful technical features of mobile technologies enable new forms of learning platform that
can serve contemporary pedagogies in a variety of educational contexts because they change the
nature of the physical relations between teachers, learners, and the objects of learning (Churchill,
Lu, & Chiu, 2014). With the pedagogical affordances of mobile technologies being appreciated, a
stronger connection between mobile technology integration and a learning-theoretical framework
is essential to guide research, practice, and policy. Rather than focusing on technology, a key prop-
osition is to lead education integration of mobile and emerging technologies through an appropriate
learning design framework (Lim & Churchill, 2016). Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been
prevalent since its establishment. However, TBLT confronts its major challenge in devising
approaches to make tasks authentic or perceived as authentic by students, in which meaning-
based communication can be built. The contributing factors of such a challenge are mainly
derived from the temporal and physical constraints of the classroom context (Lai & Li, 2011). Never-
theless, the issue could be addressed with the assistance of mobile technologies, which could not
only enhance the authenticity of tasks but also generate more opportunities for learner communi-
cation. Thus, the connection of mobile technology and TBLT could be an optimal approach to
language education in the future. As Doughty and Long (2003) suggest, technology offers a
natural and authentic venue for the realization of the methodological principles of TBLT, and TBLT

CONTACT Sijia Xue xuesijia@hku.hk

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. XUE

provides a rationale and pedagogical framework for the selection and employment of technology.
However, little research has been conducted concerning how to integrate mobile technology into
TBLT and no model in this regard has been put forward to date. To fill the gap, this article proposes
a conceptual model to integrate mobile technology into TBLT for language teaching and learning.
The model is based on the principles of TBLT and relevant theories of second language acquisition
(SLA), as well as the affordances of mobile technologies. The Conversational Framework (Laurillard,
2007) is also utilized for the construct of the model. Components of the model are elaborated and
the demands for both teachers and learners in terms of the implementation of the model are
discussed.

2. The conversational framework

Based on analysis of research and findings on student learning, the Conversational Framework was
developed to assist teachers to design learning process for their students. According to Laurillard
(2007), education essentially aims to provide students approaches to understanding the world,
and pedagogical technique ought to take various forms of communication and related mental activi-
ties into account, including discussion, adaption, interaction, and reflection. The Framework encom-
passes a conversational process between teacher and students on two interactive levels: discursive
level and experiential level. The former centers theory, concept and description-building in which
teacher describes and decides the content to be framed whereas the latter focuses on practice,
activity and procedure-building in which students act within certain environment to achieve a
goal and experience the results of their actions. The communication at discursive level takes the
form of questions and elaborations, benefiting from the reflection on practice while the interaction
at experiential level lies between the students’ actions to and feedback from the set environment,
benefiting from the adaption of theoretical discussion (see Figure 1).
While the Framework was originally designed to facilitate formal learning conducted by teacher-
student pair, the dialogic process at both levels can be extended to informal learning context in
which interaction occurs between students and other learners, taking the form of sharing, compari-
son, and collaboration. However, considering diverse language proficiency of learners, the Frame-
work suggests that teachers should take advantage over technology to establish a learning
environment in which poor learners are motivated to participate in learning activities. In order to
maintain the “continuity between contexts”, students are also encouraged to contact and

Figure 1. The conversational framework (Laurillard, 2012).

 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 3

collaborate with other learners by means of technology through appropriate tasks, constructing
their knowledge via social activities (Laurillard, 2007, p. 170). Although empirical research has
proved the Conversational Framework to be a promising design framework to analyze teachers’
educational uses of technologies, assist and encourage technology-mediated learning, and
support meaning making, it is indicated that the adoption of the Framework needs to include exter-
nal actors outside the classroom and interactions with them, for seamless learning in authentic set-
tings (Holmberg, 2017). Nevertheless, it still remains a question regarding the optimal pedagogical
forms specific to technology use for both teachers and students, in order to achieve such a task-
based interactive learning process.

3. Task-based language teaching (TBLT)

TBLT has been attractive to scholars in the domain of SLA for several decades. According to Pica
(2008), task-based instruction involves “activities that engage language learners in meaningful,
goal-oriented communication to solve problems, complete projects, and reach decisions” (p.71).
The core of TBLT is that communicative tasks are the basis of the curriculum and play the essential
role in the pedagogical practice in which meaning is prioritized (Lai & Li, 2011). TBLT is rooted in cog-
nitive and interactionist SLA theory and research findings. It is an “embryonic theory of language
teaching, not a theory of SLA”, entailing all the components that make language teaching efficient
(Doughty & Long, 2003, p. 51). Therefore, a range of various principles related to SLA may be involved
while adopting TBLT approach. Besides, TBLT emphasizes learning by doing, originating from the
concept of “integration education”, which stresses that newly-acquired knowledge is better inte-
grated into long-term memory and more readily retrieved when associated with real-life events
and activities (Doughty & Long, 2003, p. 58).
Use-centered theories of SLA serve as the foundation of TBLT, including interaction and sociocul-
tural approaches (Lai & Li, 2011). Based on interaction approach, learners are provided with authentic
language input and negative feedback when engaging in communicative activities, thus their
language outputs are revised and their attention moves towards the structural properties during
the interaction (Mackey & Polio, 2009). This theory asserts that optimal linguistic contexts and con-
ditions are created through TBLT for negotiated communication and are hence conducive to
language acquisition (Lai & Li, 2011). Sociocultural approach is another theoretical support for
TBLT. From sociocultural perspective, new strategies and knowledge are acquired by learners as
they take part in the interactive activities and internalize the impacts of working together. Thus, learn-
ing is supposed to occur through interaction, negotiation and collaboration; and instruction should
aim to establish an environment serving as a community in which students are likely to apply what
they are introduced trough activities (Scott & Palincsar, 2009).
Prabhu (1987) firstly proposed the model of TBLT, which contained three stages including pre-task
(a preparatory activity), task cycle (meaning focused activity or interactive process action), and post-
task (activity attending to form). This model was further developed by Willis (1996), who put forward a
framework that promoted language teaching around a task with three main stages including pre-task
(introduction to the topic and task, preparation), task cycle (task performance, planning and report),
and language focus (language analysis, practice) (see Table 1). According to Willis (1996), the purpose
of the pre-task stage is to activate students’ own linguistic resources to prepare them for the task
cycle. The task cycle consists of learners participating in the main task in groups, pairs, or individually,
depending on whether the task is interactive. In the task cycle, the learners use their existing linguistic
skills to complete the task while the teacher serves as a facilitator, only providing assistance when
necessary. On completing the task cycle, each group collectively prepares a report on its findings
and presents the report to the rest of the class, with the teacher only commenting as needed.
Finally, in the language focus part of the lesson, students are directed towards analyzing the
language forms used during the task. The teacher is advised to use this part of the lesson to allow
learners to notice new forms of language and then practice using them in various activities. Thus,
4 S. XUE

Table 1. Three-stage task model (Willis, 1996, p. 38).

Pre-task
Introduction to topic and tasks
Teacher explores the topic with the class, highlights useful words and phrases.
Learners may be exposed to example.
Task cycle
Task Planning Report
Students do the task in pairs or small Students prepare to report. Accuracy is Students exchange or present
groups. Teacher monitors; mistakes do important, so the teacher stands by and reports. Teacher listens and then
not matter gives advice. comments.
Language focus
Analysis Practice
Students examine then discuss. Teacher conducts practice of new words.

it can be noted that learners play the active and main roles in a TBLT model and the responsibilities of
the teacher is to motivate and support the learners in the process of task implementation.
While empirical studies have demonstrated that TBLT approach is effective in enhancing learners’
skills in various aspects such as writing (Ahmed & Bidin, 2016; Kafipour, Mahmoudi, & Khojasteh,
2018) and grammar (Namaziandost, Bohloulzadeh, & Pazhakh, 2017), it is suggested that the devel-
oping of TBLT model should relate to technology, particularly in an era of various advanced infor-
mation and communication technologies (Thomas & Reinders, 2011). Technology-mediated TBLT
approach has generated significant impacts on learners in their language learning in terms of auth-
entic learning (Anwar & Arifani, 2016). Moreover, a comfortable learning environment could be
created through technology for both language instructors and students, in which more opportunities
are provided for input, production and feedback (Lin, Wang, Grant, Chien, & Lan, 2014). Hence, it is
assumed that language teaching could be better performed around a task with the support of
technologies.

4. Affordances of mobile technologies for TBLT

Affordance is a normative concept employed to interpret how technology is applied in practice by its
users. According to Xue and Churchill (2019), affordances can be defined as “opportunities for an
educational activity that are determined and supported by perceived and actual features of a tech-
nology tool or an environment” (p. 1231). Churchill (2017) summarizes the affordances of mobile
technologies across the relevant studies into six dimensions, namely “resources, connectivity, colla-
borative, capture, analytical, and representational” (p. 180) (see Table 2). An increasing number of
studies are focusing on how these affordances of mobile technologies can be utilized to facilitate
language teaching and learning (Huang, Huang, Huang, & Lin, 2012). Particularly, a large body of

Table 2. Educational affordances of mobile technology (Churchill, 2017).

Affordances Contents
Resources A variety of digital resources can be delivered via mobile technology such as e-books, web pages and video
segments. These resources can be accessed anytime, anywhere by certain operations such as connecting to
the Internet.
Connectivity Students can connect to each other, facilitators and experts in the field through mobile technology,
synchronously and asynchronously.
Collaborative Mobile technology enables students to collaboratively build understanding, construct knowledge, manage
activities and negotiate roles during their learning.
Capture Mobile technology is equipped with the capabilities of capturing, storing and processing multiple forms of
data including photos, videos and audio files.
Analytical Mobile technology can be used as an analytical tool to aid students’ learning activities, including standard,
scientific and graphic calculators or specially designed analytical tools.
Representational Students can use mobile technology to create representations that demonstrate their thinking and
knowledge, such as mind maps.
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 5

research has been conducted regarding the affordances of mobile technologies in acquiring different
linguistic skills, such as vocabulary (Huang et al., 2012; Wu, 2015; Zhang, Song, & Huang, 2014),
reading (Chang & Hsu, 2011; Li & Li, 2011), speaking (Ahn & Lee, 2016; Xu & Peng, 2017), listening
(Rahimi & Soleymani, 2015), writing (Hsieh, Chiu, Chen, & Huang, 2010) and grammar (Guerrero,
Ochoa, & Collazos, 2010).
How the affordances of mobile technologies could be integrated with tasks to facilitate language
teaching and learning has also been investigated. For example, learners were required to leverage
the video recording function (capture affordance) of their mobile phones to produce short English
monologues and it was found that the learners were able to make increasingly longer videos over
time (Gromik, 2012). In another study, mobile phones with GPS technology (connectivity affordance)
were utilized to facilitate the learning of English vocabulary. The learners negotiated their way around
a zoo and completed a number of games based on different animals in the zoo (Sandberg, Maris, & de
Geus, 2011). Rashid, Cunningham, and Watson (2018) conducted a case study investigating the
impact of combined use of smartphones and TBLT approach on learners’ writing skills. The results
revealed that such a combination could create a learning environment which facilitated the
teacher in feedback offering, promoted the interaction between the teacher and students (collabora-
tive affordance), and enhanced the students’ writing skills. As indicated in these studies, mobile tech-
nologies, due to their unique affordances, could be used to support language teaching and learning
when connected with appropriately designed tasks. However, Burston (2016) argues that these tech-
nologies can only be deployed effectively when carefully planned and firmly grounded in learning
theories, particularly the SLA principles. Hence, a pedagogical model based on SLA theories that
are developed from empirical research is essential to integrating mobile technologies into TBLT
approach, in order to facilitate language teaching and learning.

5. Links between the conversational Framework, TBLT and mobile technology

Based on the analyses above, links between the Conversational Framework, TBLT and mobile tech-
nology can be articulated. The Conversational Framework is able to act as a framework for designing
a learning process as well as for testing what mobile technologies contribute to the learning process
(Laurillard, 2007). While the Framework takes the interactions between the learner and their world
into consideration, it focuses more on the establishment of a motivating environment through
mobile technologies in which teacher instruction and student action are connected to support the
learning process. However, the creation of constructivist learning environments to facilitate knowl-
edge construction should include presenting authentic tasks rather than abstract instruction,
provide real-world, case-based learning environments rather than pre-determined instructional
sequences, enable context-dependent and content-dependent knowledge construction, and
support collaborative construction of knowledge through social negotiation (Jonassen, 1994). By con-
trast, TBLT, based on interaction approach, provides learners more opportunities for collaboration
through authentic tasks in real-world environments. Nevertheless, due to the temporal and physical
constraints of the classroom context, a major challenge for the adoption of TBLT approach is how to
make tasks authentic, in which meaning-based communication can be built (Lai & Li, 2011). In order
to address such a challenge, mobile technologies can be employed as they offer digitally-facilitated
site-specific learning and support a wide range of learning activities such as capturing and sharing.
However, the application of mobile technologies needs to be grounded in learning theories (Burston,
2016). To sum up, with their affordances, mobile technologies could afford an authentic venue for the
realization of TBLT, and TBLT provides a rationale for the selection and use of the technology
(Doughty & Long, 2003). The dialogic process of the Conversational Framework, on the other
hand, offers a motivating environment for the implementation of TBLT and for the examination of
contribution of mobile technologies. Put together, these three components could be integrated to
construct a pedagogical form, in order to promote higher quality of learning facilitated with
mobile technologies.
6 S. XUE

6. A conceptual model for TBLT enhanced by affordances of mobile technologies

Based on the aforementioned discussion, a conceptual model has been proposed to integrate affor-
dances of mobile technologies into TBLT approach, in order to enhance language teaching and learn-
ing (see Figure 2). Such a model will serve practice as well as research on the educational uses of
mobile technologies in the domain of SLA. Yet, relevant SLA theories and principles need to be incar-
nated for the design of the model. The essence of this model is TBLT approach supported with affor-
dances of mobile technology. Students are the center of the entire paradigm that encompasses both
formal and informal learning contexts, which are encircled by sociocultural contexts to construct a
holistic mobile assisted language learning (MALL) ecology. Each learning context contains a range
of different pedagogical cycles based on the stages of the task, which construct the complete learn-
ing process together.

6.1. Pre-task stage

There are two pedagogical cycles involved at this stage: one is the instruction and question cycle, the
other is the negotiation and clarification cycle.

Instruction is a vital component in formal learning context and also the initial step of this model. For a
typical SLA classroom teaching, formal instruction constantly refers to the explicit learning of factual
knowledge, including lexical knowledge, metalinguistic knowledge, and grammatical analysis.
According to Hulstijn (2005), explicit learning is “input processing with the conscious intention to
find out whether the input information contains regularities and, if so, to work out the concepts
and rules with which these regularities can be captured” (p. 131). Rich input can be facilitated
through conscious attention to explicitly presented information (instruction), which can speed up
rate and entrenchment for learning (Norris & Ortega, 2000).
However, instruction in this model is more than explicit teaching of concepts and rules. It is auth-
entic linguistic input enriched and enhanced by means of technology. “Access and exposure to enga-
ging, authentic, and comprehensible yet demanding materials in the target language is essential for

Figure 2. A conceptual model for TBLT enhanced by affordances of mobile technologies.

 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 7

successful language learning” (Zhao, 2003). Explicit input can be enhanced by different methods in
order to raise the consciousness of learners (Ellis, 2008). Consequently, learners’ acquisition of input
increases if their attention is drawn to salient linguistic features, which can derive from explicit input
enhancement facilitated by technology (Chapelle, 2003). Therefore, in this cycle, mobile technologies,
due to their affordance of Resources, can be employed to maximize and enhance the authentic expli-
cit input of the target language. For example, a variety of digital resources can be delivered via mobile
technology such as e-books, web pages and video segments, which not only focuses on linguistic
knowledge but also cultural awareness.
Another responsibility for teachers in this cycle is to assign the task for students. Both form and
meaning should be focused on the tasks which are authentic to make it possible for students to suc-
cessfully engage in such tasks beyond the classroom and in their future life. The students should not
only improve language skills through the tasks but also other critical techniques like language learn-
ing strategies and foster their L2 identify during the fulfillment of the tasks. According to Ellis (2009), a
task needs to possess four main characteristics: a primary focus on (pragmatic) meaning; some kind of
“gap” (information gap, reasoning gap, and opinion gap); learners choose the linguistic resources
needed to complete the task; and there should be a clearly defined, non-linguistic outcome
(p. 223). Moreover, a good task integrated with technology should also allow for the possibility of
accessing sufficient resources and support to assist the task performance (Chapelle, 2011). In
addition, students’ electronic literacy regarding technology use and abilities in terms of harnessing
various modes for communication should also be emphasized (Hampel, 2006).

When a task is assigned, students are stimulated to negotiate about it with their classmates who may
help clarify the concepts involved. This process benefits not only the designing of plan for task
administration but also the interpretation of explicit input from the teacher. In negotiations,
problem utterances are checked, repeated, clarified and modified (Foster & Ohta, 2005). This
process is crucial for learners because comprehensible input gained through interaction adjustments
such as negotiating meaning and modifying output is essential to second language learning (Pica,
1994). Particularly, in a communicative task, learners can communicate about language in the
context of attempting to produce what they intend to generate in target language. By doing this,
language form and its relation to the meaning that learners are making efforts to express are nego-
tiated and the acquisition of target language is facilitated as a result (Cook, 1995). Such a process
could be facilitated with the Connectivity affordance of mobile technologies. For instance, connec-
tions between students could be built through mobile social media, which allow the students to com-
municate with each other both synchronously and asynchronously.

6.2. During-task stage

Four pedagogical cycles are included at this stage: learners’ self-regulation and reflection, peers’ self-
generation and compensation, learners’ collaboration with peers, and learners’ interaction with tea-
chers during the task completion.

With the explicit knowledge and specific task in mind, learners put these concepts into actions after
negotiating with their peers. When they are applying the knowledge into practice, learners are not
only justifying their mental concepts but are also provided opportunities to reflect on these concepts.
8 S. XUE

In turn, they adapt their actions to better accomplish the tasks. In fact, these two steps form a positive
cycle, interacting reciprocally with each other. During such a process, a more independent and motiv-
ated learner is cultivated and self-regulation is realized. Boud and Knights (1996) emphasize the
importance of establishing productive educational climate for reflection, suggesting teachers
should offer an opportunity for students to clarify their understanding of the concept, introduce a
simple exercise to illustrate reflection, model a reflective approach in their own presentation of
the concept, identify areas of the process and elements of reflection that students can make their
own, and treat reflection as a normal activity.
Self-regulation can be deemed as a process that facilitates students in their learning tasks to
achieve better performance. According to Zimmerman (2002), “self-regulation is not a mental
ability or a skill of academic performance; somewhat it is the process of directing the individual them-
selves in transforming their mental abilities into academic skills” (p. 65). For appropriate application of
knowledge, self-regulation involves self-awareness, self-motivation, and behavioral skill. Self-regu-
lated learners tend to achieve more positive academic outcomes than their counterparts who do
not practice self-regulation. When learners engage in self-regulation, they motivate themselves
employing appropriate learning strategies, managing time, setting learning goals, and self-reflecting
their performance throughout task administration (Ramdass & Zimmerman, 2011). While self-regu-
lation is learnable, students are rarely offered options in terms of tasks to pursue, methods to
adopt, or partners to work with, nor are they required to self-evaluate their performance on the
assigned tasks (Zimmerman, 2002). Thus, teachers should instruct explicit learning strategies and
assist students to establish self-regulation through tasks.

Meanwhile, other learners also produce their own actions in practice after the negotiation in order to
help fulfill the task at this stage. Similarly, novel concepts may be generated in their mind from experi-
ences to compensate previously constructed knowledge, and thus another cycle is formed. These
reciprocally interactive cycles, either on students or their peers, can be assisted by mobile technol-
ogies. Particularly, the Capture affordance of mobile technologies could be used to generate multiple
forms of data. For instance, mobile blogs can be deployed as digital diary for students to record their
reflections, in which students record their ideas and experiences during task performance. These pro-
cedures are crucial in that they not only aid learners to polish their knowledge and to form self-regu-
lation but also provide an opportunity for teachers to know students’ perceptions about the learning
process and evaluate the role mobile technology plays in this process.

This cycle is the core part of during-task stage, in which learners complete the task collaborating with
peers. Collaboration is a salient feature of TBLT because it generates opportunities for learners to
engage in communication for the achievement of tasks. Through such communication, learners
can contextualize their mental concepts, focus on meaning, construct their own knowledge from
experiences, and thus transfer input into intake. Meanwhile, during such a process, learners may
also accomplish implicit learning, which is input processing without awareness of regularities under-
lying the input (Hulstijn, 2005). According to Ellis (2005), learning can be kickstarted through explicit
noticing patterns and constructions, then integrated by implicit learning. Hence, collaboration is of
considerable significance in task-based mechanisms. As Burston (2016) suggests, student activities
need to be constructivist, collaborative, learner-centered, task-based, and require communicative lin-
guistic interaction to complete.
It is even more crucial for learners to collaborate with peers in a learning climate mediated by
mobile technologies. As Kukulska-Hulme (2006) identifies, mobile technologies can be exploited in
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 9

four main ways: supporting communication by arranging students in groups to stimulate collabora-
tive practice; creating and delivering content as learning resources; encouraging personal engage-
ment by social interaction; and creating contextual learning. Therefore, learners should be inspired
to orchestrate the potential of mobile technologies and fully harness their affordances to collaborate
with peers, who, in turn, may facilitate them to achieve the tasks. Particularly, the Collaborative affor-
dance of mobile technology could be utilized, which enables students to collaboratively build under-
standing, construct knowledge, manage activities and negotiate roles during their learning. By doing
this, learners can not only acquire the linguistic skills but also foster other techniques, and even
develop learning autonomy. As Lai (2017) argues, learners’ autonomous learning with technology
can be enhanced through strengthening collaboration.

In this cycle, feedback is provided based on students’ task performance and their output is modified
correspondingly. According to Churchill (2013), students should be offered feedback on work and be
identified where they are in their learning to improve their work, to become more effective and
motivated, and to become more independent and self-directed learners. Moreover, by providing
feedback, teachers are able to trace and analyze the progress of students engaging in the tasks.
This is even more significant for tasks in a mobile technology-mediated environment as how to
track the actual use of the technology by students out of the classroom always remains a question
for instructors as well as researchers (Burston, 2015).
With regard to the form of feedback, both oral and written forms can be adopted depending
on the technology employed. However, one key point is that the feedback should be intrinsic. In
Laurillard’ words (2007), when students’ contribution to the task is displayed, intrinsic feedback
should be given by teachers who should not just tell the students what is right or wrong but
should let the students realize the results of their own actions and be motivated to revise them-
selves. While indirect feedback may yield demands on learners’ language proficiency (Ferris,
2004), provision of feedback assisted with mobile technologies has been demonstrated to be
effective in enhancing learners’ speaking skills and thus may be applied in TBLT approach (Xu
& Peng, 2017). Consequently, benefiting from the mobile-assisted feedback provided by the
teacher, students can modify their output promptly and fulfill the task commendably. The
Analytical affordance of mobile technologies could be leveraged to facilitate this process. For
example, specially developed or selected mobile applications with task requirements and stan-
dards can be used as an analytical tool for students to check and modify their work during
the task completion.

6.3. Post-task stage

The last cycle occurs when the task is completed. Evaluation is a crucial part of effective student-cen-
tered learning experiences. In order to enable students to constantly enhance their learning, formality
is essential for evaluation (Churchill, 2013). Students produce artefacts during task administration and
demonstrate records of performance in task completion as evidence of their learning, from which
teachers identify their progress and make assessment. Such evaluation can occur in classroom as
formal guidance to help improve students’ learning outcomes and as an awarding mechanism to
encourage them for future tasks. As Burston (2016) claims, the results of outside activities have to
be brought back to the classroom for subsequent discussion and finalization of the task.
10 S. XUE

However, the assessment should base on diverse and flexible facets corresponding to students’
personal traits, such as language proficiency and digital literacy. Since each student may possess
different linguistic competence and the ability to use technology, the assessment should allow for
individual differences and be dynamic in accordance with students’ continuous progress. Learners
may be evaluated by the extent to which they have assimilated information into their own experience
and development (learning process and performance). Alternatively, artefact analysis such as looking
at quality of a text report or learning diaries can also be adopted (Taylor, 2006). Meanwhile, learners
may also be encouraged to conduct self-evaluation or peer-evaluation based on teacher’s feedback.
In addition, during the evaluation of students’ task performance, teachers are provided an opportu-
nity to reflect their own concepts delivered at the outset of the holistic teaching and learning process.
The teachers can not only justify the teachablility of the knowledge but also examine the feasibility of
the tasks in practice, thus to make further adaptations for their subsequent teaching. The Represen-
tational affordance of mobile technologies could be utilized at this stage. For example, students can
use mobile technologies to create representations that demonstrate their learning outcomes, such as
mind maps. On the other hand, the teacher could also present evaluation forms or rubrics through
mobile technologies for students to conduct self-evaluation.

6.4. In-class and out-of-class learning contexts

As shown in Figure 2, there exist two learning contexts in the model, in-class and out-of-class learning
contexts, which are encompassed by sociocultural factors to form a holistic MALL ecology. According to
Warschauer and Meskill (2000), two distinctive perspectives on integrating ICT into classroom teaching
should be considered: one is cognitive approach, which means that learners should be allowed
maximum opportunity to be engaged with language in meaningful contexts and construct their
own knowledge. This approach can be achieved by authentic input from teachers by means of tech-
nologies like multimedia, audio-visual and software; the other is socio-cognitive approach, which stres-
ses that leaners acquire the language through socialization, such as collaboration on authentic tasks
and projects. However, the scholar focuses only on the formal classroom setting, failing to take out-
of-class learning context into account. Moreover, mobile technologies can not only be integrated in
classroom teaching and learning but also that beyond the classroom. Therefore, the two approaches
mentioned by Warschauer and Meskill (2000) are applied in separate learning contexts within the pro-
posed model, allowing for their different characteristics and the limitations of classroom setting.
However, in-class and out-of-class learning activities are not totally isolated with each other. The
intersections are students’ interactions with both the teacher and their peers, where reflection and
self-regulation of learners may occur. The model takes both formal and informal learning experiences
of a learner into account, which constitute the holistic learning experience of the learner, aiming to
understand the learners’ construction of language across both formal and informal learning contexts.
In addition, sociocultural factors should also be considered when technology is integrated into
language teaching design. As Kucirkova (2017) suggests, interaction among stakeholders’ beliefs,
social and economic factors, moral values, cultural norms, and political factors should be taken
into consideration as technology is an activity rather than a tool and should be recognized in a
given system. Lai (2017) also points out that autonomous language learning with technology is
influenced by both learners’ internal factors (gender, proficiency level) and external factors (social
influence and support), which interact mutually. Thus, when mobile technologies are employed to
enhance TBLT, characteristics of specific social contexts within which learning activities occur need
to be considered to optimize the affordances of the technology.

7. A sample practice design

In order to demonstrate how the proposed model could be used to promote learning, a sample prac-
tice design is put forward in this section. In this learning design, mobile social media technologies
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 11

Figure 3. Diagram of procedures for the sample practice design.

such as WeChat is leveraged to enhance EFL learners’ communicative competence. WeChat is a free
cross-platform mobile social media application designed for smartphones, compatible with various
operating systems such as Android and iOS. It is widely accepted and used for its salient features,
including instant voice messaging, posting and public platforms. In the context of education,
WeChat can be employed as a useful tool to facilitate teaching and learning due to its affordances
such as resources sharing, authentic learning, collaboration and community-building (Xue & Church-
ill, 2019).
A video-producing task that aims to improve EFL learners’ oral proficiency is designed in this
sample, in order to illustrate how WeChat may be deployed through the model to facilitate language
learning. At the pre-task stage, the teacher could share authentic learning materials (such as video
footage for video producing and editing) through WeChat, due to its affordance of resources
sharing, for students to preview before the class. In the classroom, the teacher instructs the main lin-
guistic skills that need to be practiced through the task, elaborates the task requirements as well as
the criteria for assessment. Meanwhile, questions regarding the task raised by students are
addressed. The students form small groups and negotiate with their team members about the
task (such as allocation of responsibilities). They can also search for information needed through
the searching function of WeChat on their mobile devices to prepare for the task.
During the task completion, students practice the linguistic skills in a collaborative way with their
group members through role playing. Learning communities could be established due to the connec-
tivity affordance of WeChat for communication and collaboration. The students take photos and
produce videos with the capture affordance of WeChat to record their progress. These contents gen-
erated by the students could not only be shared to the teacher for tracing and monitoring, but could
also be used for self-reflection. At the same time, instant feedback could be provided through
WeChat by the teacher based on the questions emerging from the task performance so that students
could make appropriate modifications in a timely fashion.
12 S. XUE

At the post-task stage, the completed videos are shared to the class and demonstrated in the
classroom for evaluation with the representational affordance of WeChat. The teacher identifies
the progress in individual students and makes corresponding assessment based on the artefacts pro-
duced. Peer evaluation could also be conducted to promote interaction. Meanwhile, adaptations of
teaching may be generated through teacher reflection at this stage as the teacher reflects on the task
completion by the students. The procedures for the adoption of the design has been presented in the
following diagram (see Figure 3).
The model proposed in this study could be applied for design-based research to examine the
effectiveness of mobile technology-mediated TBLT on learners’ learning outcomes. Both quantitative
and qualitative data can be generated through a learning design as presented above. For instance,
pre- and post- oral tests can be utilized as quantitative data to compare the proficiency of learners’
speaking skills. Artefacts such as videos and chatting records produced by learners can be used as
qualitative data to identify progress in specific aspects of communicative competence. In addition,
interviews can be conducted to explore both teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of and attitudes
towards the application of the proposed model facilitated with mobile technologies.

8. Conclusion
This study proposes a model for supporting task-based language teaching with affordances of mobile
technologies. While students are deemed as the center of the model, for whom the paradigm is
framed in order to enable them to construct their own linguistic knowledge, teachers’ pedagogical
role should not be overlooked because they are the designer of tasks. The task should be a holistic
activity which engages language use in order to achieve some non-linguistic outcome while meeting
a linguistic challenge, with the overall aim of promoting language learning, through process or
product or both (Samuda & Bygate, 2008). Teachers should be aware of the challenges in applying
mobile technologies into TBLT. Specifically, at the pre-task stage, they should familiarize students
with the topic and aid them with necessary preparation; during the task administration, clear criteria
for assessment and intrinsic feedback should be provided; and post-task activities should involve
evaluation and reflection (Lai & Li, 2011). In other words, an optimal mobile technology-mediated
task should build in more opportunities for technology-facilitated activities, and for ownership and
control over what the learners do (Laurillard, 2007). Another issue that needs to be taken into con-
sideration is how to integrate MALL into curriculum for achieving comprehensive application of
mobile technologies to the whole process of language education (Burston, 2014).
In addition, the implementation of the model involves certain demands on both teachers and lear-
ners. On the one hand, learners need to hold positive attitudes towards democratic, learner-centered
and holistic approach to learning in order to benefit from the task performance. Moreover, they also
have to possess a suite of novel knowledge and skills, such as digital literacy, communicative com-
petence and intercultural competence. On the other hand, teachers, as facilitator, have to raise
learner awareness, design appropriate tasks, monitor learner performance, promote learners’ partici-
pation in effective interaction and conduct follow-up activities after the task (Lai & Li, 2011). Only
when these issues are appropriately addressed, can the combination of mobile technology and
TBLT be well practiced. Although the model proposed in this study is grounded in learning theories
developed from the existing research and literature within the domain, empirical studies are in need
in order to examine the reliability and validity of the model. Future research could also explore how
different pedagogical cycles within the model interact with each other to influence teaching and
learning that mediated with mobile technologies.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 13

ORCID
Sijia Xue http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5058-9229

References
Ahmed, R. Z., & Bidin, S. J. B. (2016). The effect of task based language teaching on writing skills of EFL learners in Malaysia.
Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6(3), 207–218.
Ahn, T., & Lee, S. M. (2016). User experience of a mobile speaking application with automatic speech recognition for EFL
learning. British Journal of Education Technology, 47(4), 778–786.
Anwar, K., & Arifani, Y. (2016). Task based language teaching: Development of CALL. International Education Studies, 9(6),
168–183.
Boud, D., & Knights, S. (1996). Reflective learning for social work: Research, theory and practice. In N. Gould, & I. Taylor
(Eds.), Reflective learning for social work: Research, theory and practice (pp. 23–34). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Burston, J. (2014). The Reality of mall: Still on the Fringes. CALICO Journal, 31(1), 103–125.
Burston, J. (2015). Twenty years of MALL project implementation: A meta-analysis of learning outcomes. ReCALL, 27(1),
4–20.
Burston, J. (2016). The future of Foreign language instructional technology: BYOD MALL. The EuroCALL Review, 24(1), 3.
Chang, C.-K., & Hsu, C.-K. (2011). A mobile-assisted synchronously collaborative translation-annotation system for English
as a foreign language (EFL) reading comprehension. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(2), 155–180.
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing
Company.
Churchill, D. (2017). Mobile technologies and digital resources for learning. Singapore : Springer.
Churchill, D., Lu, J., & Chiu, T. (2014). Integrating mobile technologies, social media and learning design. Educational Media
International, 51(3), 163–165.
Cook, G. (1995). Principles and practice in applied linguistics. England: Oxford University Press.
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning.
Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50–80.
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: OUP.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 19, 221–246.
Ferris, D. (2004). The ‘‘grammar Correction’’ Debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and
what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.
Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language Classrooms. Applied
Linguistics, 26(3), 402–430.
Gromik, N. (2012). Cell phone video recording feature as a language learning tool: A case study. Computers & Education, 58
(1), 223–230.
Guerrero, L.A., Ochoa, S. F., & Collazos, C. A. (2010). A mobile learning tool for improving grammar skills. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1735–1739.
Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a syn-
chronous online environment. ReCALL, 18, 105–121.
Holmberg, J. (2017). Applying a conceptual design framework to study teachers; use of educational technology.
Education and Information Technologies, 22, 2333. doi:10.1007/s10639-016-9536-3
Hsieh, W., Chiu, P., Chen, T., & Huang, Y. (2010). The effect of situated mobile learning on Chinese rhetoric ability of
elementary school students. 2010 6th IEEE International Conference on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technologies
in Education (WMUTE), 177–181.
Huang, Y.-M., Huang, Y.-M., Huang, S.-H., & Lin, Y.-T. (2012). A ubiquitous English vocabulary learning system: Evidence of
active/passive attitudes vs. Usefulness/ease-of-use. Computer and Education, 58, 273–282.
Hulstijn, J. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second language learning:
Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 129–140.
Jonassen, D. (1994). Towards a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34–37.
Kafipour, R., Mahmoudi, E., & Khojasteh, L. (2018). The effect of task-based language teaching on analytic writing in EFL
classrooms. Cogent Education, 5(1), 16.
Kucirkova, N. (2017). iRPD—A framework for guiding design-based research for iPad apps. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 48(2), 598–610.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2006). Mobile language learning now and in the future. In P. Svensson (Ed.), From vision to practice:
Language learning and IT (pp. 295–310). Sweden: Swedish Net University.
14 S. XUE

Lai, C. (2017). Autonomous language learning with technology: Beyond the classroom. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Lai, C., & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical Review. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 498–521.
Laurillard, D. (2007). Pedagogical forms for mobile learning: Framing research questions. In N. Pachler (Ed.), Mobile learn-
ing: Towards a research agenda (pp. 153–175). London: UCL university.
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. London:
Routledge Falmer.
Li, Y., & Li, J. (2011). Learning on the move: A case study of mobile learning assisted english reading instruction in Chinese
tertiary education. 2011 6th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), 978-983.
Lim, C., & Churchill, D. (2016). Mobile learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(2), 273–276.
Lin, T.-J., Wang, S.-Y., Grant, S., Chien, C.-L., & Lan, Y.-J. (2014). Task-based teaching approaches of Chinese as a Foreign
language in second life through teachers’ perspectives. Procedia Technology, 13(C), 16–22.
Mackey, A., & Polio, C. (2009). Multiple perspectives on interaction. New York: Routledge.
Namaziandost, I., Bohloulzadeh, G., & Pazhakh, A. (2017). The effect of task-based language teaching on motivation and
grammatical achievement of EFL junior high school students. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(2), 243–259.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis.
Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, Processes, and
outcomes? . Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527.
Pica, T. (2008). Task-based instruction. In N. V. Deusen-Scholl & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and edu-
cation (pp. 71–82). Boston, MA: Springer Science Business Media LLC.
Prabhu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rahimi, M., & Soleymani, E. (2015). The impact of mobile learning on listening Anxiety and listening Comprehension.
English Language Teaching, 8(10), 152–161.
Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. (2011). Developing self-regulation skills: The important role of Homework. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 22(2), 194–218.
Rashid, S., Cunningham, U., & Watson, K. (2017). Task-based language teaching with smartphones: A case study in
Pakistan. Teachers and Curriculum, 17(2), 33–40.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sandberg, J., Maris, M., & de Geus, K. (2011). Mobile English learning: An evidence-based study with fifth graders.
Computers & Education, 57, 1134–1347.
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2009). Sociocultural Theory. Source: The Gale Group. Retrieved from http://dr-hatfield.com/
theorists/resources/sociocultural_theory.pdf
Taylor, J. (2006). Evaluating mobile learning: What are appropriate methods for evaluating learning in mobile environ-
ments? In M. Sharples (Ed.) Big issues in mobile learning: Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of
Excellence mobile learning Initiative (pp. 25–27). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=
10.1.1.183.9628&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Thomas, M., & Reinders, H. (2011). Task-based language learning and teaching with technology. Language Learning and
Technology, 15(3), 32–36.
Warschauer, M., & Meskill, C. (2000). Technology and second language learning. In J. Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of under-
graduate second language education (pp. 303–318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Edinburgh: Addison Wesley.
Wu, Q. (2015). Designing a smartphone app to teach English (L2) vocabulary. Computer & Education, 85, 170–179.
Xu, Q., & Peng, H. (2017). Investigating mobile-assisted oral feedback in teaching Chinese as a second language. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 30, 173–182.
Xue, S., & Churchill, D. (2019). A review of empirical studies of affordances and development of a framework for edu-
cational adoption of mobile social media. Educational Technology Research & Development, 67(5), 1231–1257.
doi:10.1007/s11423-019-09679-y.
Zhang, H., Song, W., & Huang, R. (2014). Business English vocabulary learning With mobile Phone. International Journal of
Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 46–63. doi:10.4018/IJCALLT.2014040104
Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent Developments in technology and language learning: A literature Review and Meta-analysis.
CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7–27.
Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.

View publication stats