Technology and Task-Based Language Teaching: A Critical Review

Author(s): Chun Lai and Guofang Li

Source: CALICO Journal , Vol. 28, No. 2 (2011), pp. 498-521
Published by: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/calicojournal.28.2.498

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/calicojournal.28.2.498?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Equinox Publishing Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
CALICO Journal

This content downloaded from

78.162.147.76 on Sat, 04 Feb 2023 12:06:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Technology and Task-Based Language Teaching:
A Critical Review
Chun Lai
The University of Hong Kong
Guofang Li
Michigan State University
ABSTRACT
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been drawing researchers’ and practitioners’
attention since its onset in the 1980s. The rich and still expanding literature on TBLT is
helping to mature both its theoretical conceptualization and practical implementation in
foreign and second language education. Technology has played and will continue to play
an important role in this maturation process. This review focuses on the intersection of
technology and TBLT, examines the mutual contributions of technology and TBLT to each
other, and discusses the challenges in implementing and researching TBLT in technol-
ogy-mediated environments. In addition, this review outlines a set of crucial issues to
which attention must be paid to further develop technology-enhanced TBLT.
KEYWORDS
Task-based Language Teaching, Computer-mediated Communication
INTRODUCTION
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been attracting language educators’ attention for
the past 30 years. It is a process-oriented approach to language teaching that centralizes
communicative language teaching at the heart of syllabus design and instructional goals
(Littlewood, 2004; Nunan, 2004; Richards, 2005). The essence of TBLT is that communicative
tasks serve as the basic units of the curriculum and are the sole elements in the pedagogical
cycle in which primacy is given to meaning. Centering language education around tasks is
expected to give learners an experiential educative process in which they use the target lan-
guage for meaning making and in which this negotiative language use process will spur and
promote the learners’ language acquisition (Samuda & Bygate, 2008).
Across the variety of definitions of tasks presented, several elements have been stressed:
connectedness with and resemblance to “real-world” activities (Long, 1985; Skehan, 1998),
“collective exploration and pursuance of foreseen or emergent goals within a social milieu”
(Candlin, 1987, p. 10), primacy of meaning (Ellis, 2003; Skehan, 1998), and nonlinguistic
goals (Samuda & Bygate, 2008; Willis, 1996). However, when communicative tasks are im-
plemented in classroom settings, a major challenge is devising ways in which to make tasks
more authentic or perceived as authentic by the students. A second challenge is designing
tasks that generate meaning-based communication. As Ellis (2003) pointed out, “teachers
and students find it difficult to consistently orient to language as a tool and to adopt the role of
CALICO Journal, 28(2), p-p 498-521. © 2011 CALICO Journal
498
This content downloaded from
78.162.147.76 on Sat, 04 Feb 2023 12:06:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CALICO Journal, 28(2) Chun Lai and Guofang Li
language users when they both know that the raison-d’etre for their being together is to teach
and learn the language” (p. 252). According to Ellis, TBLT basically calls for teachers and
students to “forget where they are and why they are there” (p. 252), which is hard to realize
considering the “educational[ly] imperative” nature of the classroom (Goffman, 1981, p. 53).
Various other challenges have also been revealed while implementing tasks in language class-
room contexts, including: (a) students’ passive learning style and overreliance on the teacher,
which weaken the implementation of TBLT in certain sociocultural contexts (Bruton, 2005;
Burrows, 2008; Littlewood, 2007); (b) crowded and cramped classrooms, which can create
discipline issues if everyone in the class starts to talk at the same time, inevitably bringing
“uncontrollable” and “unwelcome” noises (Bruton, 2005; Carless, 2007; Li, 1998); (c) mixed-
proficiency levels in the classroom, which make quicker students bored and leaves slower
students struggling to complete the tasks (Mustafa, 2008); and (d) students’ avoidance of the
use of the target language in fulfilling the communicative tasks (Carless, 2004; Littlewood,
2007).
Many of these challenges are due to the temporal and physical constraints of the classroom
context and could potentially be minimized with the assistance of technology. Communication
and information technologies expand the range of tasks with online resources (Skehan, 2003;
Stone & Wilson-Duffy, 2009), enhance the authenticity of tasks and motivation for task imple-
mentation (Sadler, 2009; González-Lloret, 2003), facilitate student ownership of and agency
in the tasks (Kern, 2006; Kern, Ware, & Warschauer, 2004; Reinders & White, 2010), and
provide convenient venues for follow-up, posttask work that can help students further their
language and culture knowledge. In the meantime, TBLT provides a viable approach to guide
the selection and design of technology-enhanced language learning resources and experience
(Chapelle, 2003, Skehan, 2003). In their seminal paper, Doughty and Long (2003) elaborated
on the interdependence between technology and TBLT: technology provides a natural and au-
thentic venue for the realization of the methodological principles of TBLT, and TBLT provides a
rationale and pedagogical framework for the selection and use of technology. Ortega (2009a)
also presented an in-depth analysis of the “elective affinities” of technology and tasks both
in theory and practice. In her view, technology and TBLT align their theoretical emphasis on
“doing language” and experiential learning and share similar pedagogical functions in terms
of enhancing motivation and authenticity in language learning, offering student choices and
providing feedback, and fostering community of learning.
In addition to the relationship between technology and TBLT illustrated above, research in
digital literacy also urges a closer look into the interaction between technology and TBLT. This
line of literature argues that the use of technology in language teaching promotes the devel-
opment of digital literacies, which is a crucial aspect of language learning in the 21st century
(Murray, 2005; Warschauer, 2006), and that learning language via technology activates and
demands different cognitive, attitudinal, social, and behavioral mechanisms from learning a
language via face-to-face interaction (Chun, 2008; Hampel, 2006). Thus, examining the in-
tersection of technology and TBLT not only enriches and pushes the development of TBLT, but
can also inform the use of technology for second language education.
The literature review in this article offers a critical review of the rapidly increasing collection
of studies that examine the elective affinities of technology and tasks. We begin the review
by considering the theoretical foundations of TBLT and operationalizing the definitions of task
and TBLT we use in the review. We then discuss the reciprocal relationship between technol-
ogy and TBLT. On one hand, technology facilitates and enhances TBLT both in terms of its ef-
fectiveness and its contribution to our understanding of TBLT; on the other hand, TBLT serves
as a useful pedagogical framework and set of principles that enrich and maximize the use
of technology for language learning. We then discuss the challenges the field faces in imple-
499

menting TBLT in technology-enhanced environments. We conclude with a discussion of issues
to address in future research and practice.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF TBLT
TBLT owes its genealogy to the educational theories that highlight the interrelationships
between experience and learning and is rooted in cognitive and interactionist SLA theory
(Doughty & Long, 2003; Samuda & Bygate, 2008). In Doughty and Long’s words, TBLT is
an “embryonic theory of language teaching” that incorporates various “efficient” teaching
components derived from SLA theories and works in education and psychology (p. 51). TBLT
has its educational origins in the notion of “integral education” (Doughty & Long, 2003, p.
58), which is exemplified in Dewey’s views on the importance of experience and relevance in
learning and in Bruner’s notion of learning for use via participation within a community and
emphasis on the development of intuitive understanding by means of engaging with authentic
problems (Samuda & Bygate, 2008).
Focusing on SLA theories per se, TBLT has its foundations in use-oriented theories of SLA,
namely, the interaction, the sociocultural, and the ecological approaches (Ortega, 2009a).
The interaction approach to SLA is a psycholinguistic use-oriented theory that serves as a
theoretical foothold for TBLT. It stresses that engaging learners in communicative activities
provides them with quality language input and negative feedback, pushes them towards
modified output, and channels their attentional resources selectively on structural proper-
ties during the interaction (Long, 1996; Mackey & Polio, 2009). This theoretical perspective
posits that TBLT provides ideal linguistic environments and conditions for negotiated interac-
tion and are thus potentially beneficial for language learning. In contrast, the sociocultural
approach to SLA provides yet another theoretical support for TBLT. This approach argues
that language learning via physical, social, and symbolic artifacts develops in and because of
learners’ interaction with various social-material environments (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) and
that “socially-organized and goal-directed actions play a central role in human development”
(Lantolf & Beckett, 2009, p. 460). Thus this theoretical perspective supports the value of
TBLT in offering opportunities for scaffolding and collaborative dialogues that are the essence
of learning. The ecological approach to language learning serves as yet another theoretical
foundation for TBLT. An ecological approach to language learning views language learning as
a relational human activity co-constructed between humans and their environment (Kramsch
& Steffensen, 2008). According to this perspective, language learning emerges within “the
context of the learners’ activities, where learners utilize language as well as other tools and
the given conditions of the classroom to achieve particular goals that are driven by their mo-
tivations and intentions” (Jeon-Ellis, Debski, & Wigglesworth, 2005, p. 124) and the purpose
of language learning is “to act, and by acting, in a world where language is performative”
(Atkinson, 2002). TBLT provides and enables contexts for acting and achieving goals through
completing authentic tasks.
TASKS IN TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED TBLT: A DEFINITION OF TERMS
Considering the various definitions of tasks proposed and the particularity of task performance
in technology-enhanced environments, we think it important in this review to operationalize
what we mean by tasks. Critically analyzing and synthesizing the previous definitions of
tasks, Samuda and Bygate (2008) propose a definition that highlights the essential elements
of tasks: “A task is 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” (p. 69). In another review of TBLT,
500
This content downloaded from
78.162.147.76 on Sat, 04 Feb 2023 12:06:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CALICO Journal, 28(2) Chun Lai and Guofang Li
Ellis (2009) provides an operational definition that contains a similar set of basic criteria—to
use language holistically to fulfill nonlinguistic goals that induce a primary focus on meaning.
1. The primary focus should be on ‘meaning’ (by which is meant that learners
should be mainly concerned with processing the semantic and pragmatic
meaning of utterances)
2. There should be some kind of ‘gap’ (i.e. a need to convey information, to
express an opinion or to infer meaning)
3. Learners should largely have to rely on their own resources (linguistic and
non-linguistic) in order to complete the activity
4. There is a clearly defined outcome other than the use of language (i.e., the
language serves as the means for achieving the outcome, not as an end in
its own right). (p. 223)
These two definitions represent the dominant view of tasks in the field, namely an emphasis
on the linguistic aspect of language learning and a strong bent for controlled and structured
activities (Ortega, 2009a) that are “externally imposed on a person or group” (Oxford, 2006,
p. 97). However, the appropriateness of such a predominant focus on the linguistic aspect of
language learning is called into question when applying TBLT in a technology-enhanced lan-
guage learning context.
The introduction of technology into the equation enlarges the number of venues and re-
sources for task performance and allows for the possibility of freer and less structured tasks.
For instance, Lamy (2007) regarded a technology-enhanced task to be “less structured, more
inquiry-based task space” that “encourages learners to exercise agency and enact identities”
(p. 263). Arguing for the affinities between technology and TBLT, Ortega (2009a) brought up
the urgency of broadening our conceptualization of “tasks” and suggested we view them as
projects and quests so as to realize the potential technology brings to TBLT. Her insight was
shared by Warschauer (2001) who stressed the importance of developing advanced commu-
nication skills in the 21st century in learners and argued for extending the current conceptu-
alization of task to technology-mediated, project-based learning (e.g., designing a route and
budget for a one-night trip to somewhere in the target culture that requires not only email
exchanges but also the use of web pages and face to face communications; see Appel & Gi-
labert, 2002).
In view of the above arguments, we operationalize tasks as holistic activities in which learn-
ers make use of their language and (cross-)cultural and communicative resources to achieve
some nonlinguistic outcome through stretching their linguistic, (cross-)cultural, internet-based
communication, and digital literacy skills. Our review is informed by two research areas: (a)
research studies that explore the implementation of traditional pedagogical tasks (e.g., spot-
the-difference tasks, jigsaw tasks, and decision making tasks) and TBLT pedagogical cycles
consisting of such tasks in technology-mediated environments and (b) research studies that
investigate issues related to the implementation of internet-mediated, inquiry-based, or proj-
ect-based tasks in both intra-cultural and intercultural contexts.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND TBLT
In this section, we review the literature that explores the reciprocal relationship between
technology and TBLT. We present research findings on the contributions of technology for
TBLT and on the contribution of TBLT as a pedagogical framework for technology-enhanced
language learning.
501

Contributions of Technology to TBLT
Recent research has explored whether and how technologies contribute to TBLT. It has yielded
some insights into the ways in which technologies help with learning through tasks and en-
riched our understanding of tasks, task design, and TBLT pedagogical cycles.
Does technology help enhance learning from tasks?
A large amount of research has explored the feasibility and, more important, the benefits of
doing tasks mediated by technological means. These research studies examined whether and
how online tasks, either individual communication tasks or in systematic TBLT cycles, have
positive effects on language learning. The online tasks that have been investigated include
text-based and multimodal computer-mediated communication (CMC) tasks consisting of
synchronous (e.g., online chatting) and asynchronous (e.g., email, blogs, and wikis) forms of
communication.
Does technology help increase the quantity of language production during task performance?
Text-based CMC permits anonymous contributions, which may help lower affective filters dur-
ing task performance and hence has the potential to generate greater amounts of language
production more easily among students. Text-based CMC has been found to increase the
amount of language (e.g., more turns, words, and sentences) that students produce dur-
ing task performance because they found this context more motivating and themselves less
anxious in producing the target language (Beauvois, 1995; Chun, 1994; Kelm, 1992; Kern,
1995; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996). Different modes of CMC have also been
found to have differential impacts on the amount of language induced: students produced a
greater amount of language both during online task performance (Pérez, 2003) and in sub-
sequent face-to-face discussion (Abrams, 2003) when interacting via synchronous CMC than
in asynchronous CMC. Moreover, evidence has shown that multimodal CMC, in which audio,
video, and text are all available to learners, helped to boost language production during task
performance. For instance, beginning learners’ language production was greatly supported by
the addition of text chat to audioconferencing (Vetter & Chanier, 2006); learners produced
longer but more interrupted dialogues in audio-plus-video context than in an audio-alone con-
text (O’Malley, Anderson, & Bruce, 1996). In addition, learners produced a greater number
of turns when they could see each other’s image during online chatting and more utterances
using target expressions in voice chat regardless of the availability of images (Yamada, 2009).
Thus technology supports an increase in the amount of language production during task per-
formance.
Does technology help enhance the quality of language production during task performance?
Text-based CMC generates a form of written conversation that combines the advantages of
both oral communication and written discourse for task performance. This feature contributes
to technology’s advantage in eliciting more complex structures (Böhlke, 2003; Kern, 1995;
Kitade, 2000) and greater grammatical accuracy (Salaberry, 2000) in students’ task perfor-
mance than in face-to-face contexts. Learners have also been found to produce a wider range
of speech acts and discourse functions during task performance in both text chat (Chun,
1994; Wang, 1994) and a 3-D virtual world (Svensson, 2003). Further, learners consistently
used L2 during task performance and engaged in off-task interaction less frequently during
online audio chat sessions than in face-to-face interactions (Heins, Duensing, Stickler, & Bat-
stone, 2007). Finally, collaborative project-based tasks in a wiki were found to induce greater
creativity in writing and more complex language production over time (Mak & Coniam, 2008).
502
This content downloaded from
78.162.147.76 on Sat, 04 Feb 2023 12:06:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CALICO Journal, 28(2) Chun Lai and Guofang Li
Modes of online communication affect both the types of discourse functions and the linguistic
features of language production: the discourse in synchronous interaction was found to be
freer and resembled face-to-face conversation, and the discourse in asynchronous discus-
sions was more constrained and resembled the initiation-response-feedback discourse typi-
cally found in traditional classrooms (Sotillo, 2000). In contrast, asynchronous CMC elicited
syntactically more complex language (Sotillo, 2000, Hwang, 2008), greater lexical richness
(Hwang, 2008), and more accurate, formal, and longer T-units (Kitade, 2006) in learners’ task
performance. The different modalities of communication technology also enhance the quality
of task performance differently. For instance, learners demonstrated greater confidence in
their ability to use grammatically accurate language and produced a greater number of self-
corrections during task performance via text chat (Yamada, 2009). Written CMC also gener-
ated greater complexity and variety in the use of pragmatic strategies among the learners
than oral CMC and face-to-face sessions (Sykes, 2005). Thus, research results are mixed but
present strong evidence that technology helps enhance the quality of language production
during task performance.
Does technology help promote task-based language development? An important question re-
searchers have been investigating is whether the observed enhanced quantity and quality of
task performance mediated by technology leads to language development. Researchers have
provided various accounts on how scaffolding from expert peers during task performance in
technological environments allowed learners to move from other-regulated to self-regulated
performance. For instance, Rankin (2008) found that ESL students and native English speak-
ers engaged in abundant collaborative behaviors during digital game play and that these in-
game interactions scaffolded ESL students’ second language learning. Similar findings have
also been reported in the online tandem task performance between a native Korean-speaking
learner and his American partner who was learning Korean (Chung, Graves, Wesche, & Bar-
furth, 2005). The Korean expert-peer was found to provide scaffolding in the form of guiding
questions and contextualization. This scaffolding helped his American partner to self-regu-
late and better internalize the Korean language and culture information. In a similar study,
Thorne (2003) provided a clear account of how one French learner, Kirsten, gradually gained
self-regulation over French through technology-mediated task performance with her native
speaker partner: Kirsten went through the process of object-regulation, where she relied on
the meditational affordances of grammar texts with verbal paradigms and vocabulary lists, to
other-regulation during instant message and email interactions with her intercultural partner,
and then to self-regulation where she participated in an extended and unrehearsed dialogue
in French.
In addition, researchers have also provided evidence of long-term language development in
syntax, vocabulary, speaking, writing, and intercultural competence as a result of technolo-
gy-mediated task performance. For example, Stockwell and Harrington (2003) showed that
intercultural email discussions on a series of cross-cultural topics led to gains in syntactic
development and incidental vocabulary learning. Furthermore, positive evidence has been
presented on the development of general speaking proficiency (Payne & Whitney, 2002):
students conducting a part of a task in text-based online chatting and another part in face-
to-face interaction scored higher in speaking tests at the end of the 15 weeks than students
conducting all of the tasks in face-to-face mode. In addition, technology-mediated task per-
formance has also been found to scaffold the development of writing proficiency and inter-
cultural competence. For instance, Murray and Hourigan (2008) found that blogging helped
learners develop their writing with greater formal grammatical accuracy. Furthermore, cross-
cultural, project-based task performance via blogs over time was also found to lead to the
development of intercultural competence (Ducate & Lomicka, 2008; Elola & Oskoz, 2008).
Thus, there is ample evidence that task performance in technology-mediated environments
supports language development.
503

How does technology enhance the learning from tasks?
With the accumulating evidence on the power of technology to enhance task performance and
task-based language learning, researchers have sought to understand how technology con-
tributes to general task-based language development. The factors that have been discovered
include the equalization of participation, the enhancement of noticing and self-monitoring, the
facilitation of language play, and social cohesiveness. Taken together, these factors contribute
significantly to language learning.
How does technology equalize the amount of production by learners during task performance?
The features of online discourse and analyses of learners’ behaviors during online interaction
and have shown that text-based CMC equalizes their participation during task performance
due to “the reduction of static and dynamic social context cues” or “the absence of oral in-
teraction constraints” (Ortega, 1997, p. 84) such as interruption, transfer of speakership,
and extra attention freed-up from monitoring pronunciation. Consequently, students dem-
onstrated more balanced participation during task performance via text-based chatting (Sul-
livan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996); quieter, less motivated, and less successful students
participated in the task to a greater extent than in traditional situations (Beauvois, 1995;
Kelm, 1992). Teachers were also found to play a less authoritative or dominant role during
interaction (Beauvois, 1998; Chun, 1994; Kern, 1995), and their participation had less of a
negative impact on student participation (Fitze & McGarrell, 2008). All these factors worked
together to equalize the amount of language produced by learners during task performance
mediated by text-based CMC.
Multimodal communicative environments bring another factor into play, namely the greater
control learners are given in such environments which in turn supports learner agency in the
learning process by offering opportunities for learners to manipulate various communication
modes and tools at their disposal in order to actively participate in task performance (Ken-
ning, 2010). Various studies have shown that learners use text chat in multimodal confer-
encing systems for different purposes: to signal or circumvent sound problems, to clarify
questions without interrupting the flow of the communication, to legitimate themselves as
turn takers, and to conduct off-topic conversations (Blake, 2005; Hampel, Felix, Hauck, &
Coleman, 2005; Lamy, 2006). In Sauro’s (2004) study, for example, less dominant speakers
used text chat tactically to maintain a foothold in the conversation and support their language
production during task performance.
How does technology enhance noticing and self-monitoring and facilitate language play and
social cohesiveness during task performance? As described above, learners have been found
to produce more complex and grammatically more accurate language in task performance
mediated by technology, text-based CMC in particular. This heightened complexity and ac-
curacy was argued to be due to the increase in processing time and the salience of language
production during online text-based task performance, thereby giving learners more opportu-
nities to monitor their language production (Kitade, 2000; Smith, 2004). Empirical evidence
has confirmed the enhancement of noticing in the technological environment. For instance,
Lai and Zhao (2006) found that learners self-corrected significantly more often when perform-
ing tasks in online text-based chatting than in face-to-face communication. Smith (2008)
further found that, unlike what was reported from face-to-face task performance literature,
learners self-corrected grammatical points more often than lexical points, which suggested
heightened attention to linguistic forms in the online text-based setting. Moreover, Sauro and
Smith (2010) found that such on-the-go monitoring was correlated with enhanced linguistic
complexity and lexical diversity in task performance. Thus the enhanced self-monitoring dur-
ing online text-based task performance might have contributed to the increased accuracy in
learners’ language production in this communicative context.
504
This content downloaded from
78.162.147.76 on Sat, 04 Feb 2023 12:06:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CALICO Journal, 28(2) Chun Lai and Guofang Li
The specific features of online communication (e.g., speaking in front of a screen, typing, and
clicking/dragging the mouse) trigger changes in discursive practices (Kenning, 2010), which
explains the increased diversity of speech acts and discourse functions reported in online task
performance. For example, Darhower (2002) showed that text-based online chatting trans-
formed learner-task interaction into “a learner-centered discourse community governed by
communicative autonomy and the use of language and discourse functions that go beyond
those encountered in the typical L2 classroom” (p. 249). In particular, the online task perfor-
mance was characterized by lengthy greetings and small talk episodes and indicate a special
effort by students to build an online community. The anonymity of the online chatting also
fostered opportunities for more role playing, joking, and teasing, which contributed to social
cohesiveness during task performance. Warner (2004) found similar playfulness in learners’
task performance in a multi-object oriented (MOO) environment. Belz and Reinhardt (2004)
reasoned that CMC task performance lends itself to language play because of the time afford-
ed by the slower pace of the communication and the quasi-anonymity brought about by the
“deindividuation” of the communication medium (p. 348). Therefore, technology transforms
the nature of task performance by making learners’ language production less constrained
and more diverse by forging “a hybridity that allows for an interplay between students’ non-
academic identities and the discursively constructed institutionalized roles of the classroom”
(Thorne, 2003, p. 40).
How does technology contribute to learning during task performance? To understand how
technology facilitates language learning during task performance, researchers focused on the
linguistic actions and cognitive processes that occur during task performance and the general
motivational effect task performance generates for language learning.
First, examination of the occurrence of negotiated interaction during technology-mediated task
performance has yielded some positive findings. Ortega (2009b) conducted a comprehensive
review of the research on the interaction in text-based CMC and concluded that the frequency
of negotiated interaction occurring during technology-mediated task performance depended
largely on the design of the tasks. Free discussions online usually led to disappointingly low
instances of negotiated interaction (Blake, 2000; Jepson, 2005), whereas carefully designed
tasks that are seeded with focal linguistic forms or are project focused generally generated
high instances of negotiated interaction (e.g., Kötter, 2003; Pellettieri, 2000; Smith, 2003;
Toyoda & Harrison, 2002). More important, the nature of negotiated interaction during tech-
nology-mediated task performance was found to be favorable to language learning since the
ambiguous nature of the online interaction forced learners to take extra efforts to make their
intention for negotiation more salient to their interlocutors. For instance, Kitade (2006) found
that native-speaker/nonnative-speaker dyads exhibited accurate, complicated, formal, and
explicit signals and salient triggers and responses during task-based email exchanges. Simi-
larly, Erben (1999) found that the audio-graphic communication amplified discursive practices
like explaining and paraphrasing. These enhanced discourse features contribute to enhanced
learning during the performance of technology-mediated tasks.
Second, learners’ engagement with the cognitive construct of noticing of feedback from the
interlocutors, which is argued to be essential to language development (Schmidt, 2001), has
also been found to be heightened during technology-mediated task performance (Pellettieri,
2000; Lai & Zhao, 2006; Lai, Fei, & Roots, 2008). Operationalizing noticing as collaborative
language-related episodes, Shekary and Tahririan (2006) found that the occurrence of such
instances during task performance in online text-based chatting far exceeded those reported
in face-to-face interactions. Further, these instances of noticing were associated with subse-
quent learning of the linguistic items. Operationalizing noticing differently as learner-reported
attention during stimulated recall, Lai and Zhao (2006) reported a similar finding on higher
instances of noticing of interactional feedback during task performance in online text-based
505

chatting. Such enhanced noticing was also found in task performance mediated by voice chats
(Sotillo, 2010). Thus, by enhancing learners’ noticing of interactional feedback during task
performance, technological mediational tools increase learners’ opportunity for learning.
In addition to examining the linguistic and cognitive moves learners make during online task
performance, researchers have also examined the motivational effect of online task perfor-
mance. In particular, several studies have reported that engaging learners in technology-
mediated communication environments helped them construct a positive L2 identity, which
indirectly facilitated their language development by promoting ownership and agency. For
example, Lam’s (2000, 2004) case studies on several English language learners gave vivid
accounts of how these learners, who bore the identity of a withdrawn failure in the instruc-
tional context, thrived in the online community and developed a new identity as an active and
confident English user among a network of peers on the internet. In a yearlong ethnographic
study on adolescent English language learners’ interaction on the pop fiction sharing and
critiquing site, Fanfiction (http://www.fanfiction.net), Black (2006) documented the ways in
which the learners exploited the social, textual, and technological elements of this networked
community to advance their literacy development and strengthen their identity as writers in
the target language. Therefore, the construction of a positive L2 identity motivates learners
to invest more time and effort into language learning.
Does technology help enrich our understanding of TBLT?
In the above section, we reviewed the research studies that demonstrated how technology
helps enhance task-based language learning. However, the contribution of technology to TBLT
also lies in its contribution to helping enrich our understanding of TBLT; it pushes researchers
to rethink the nature of tasks and task performance, and informs our understanding of task
design and TBLT pedagogical cycles.
As we have argued at the beginning of the paper, the advent of technology is pushing re-
searchers to broaden their conceptualization of tasks (Ortega, 2009a; Warschauer, 2001) and
to reassess the issues related to task design when implementing TBLT in technology-mediated
environments. Chapelle (2001) proposed a set of criteria which tasks in technology-enhanced
environments should take into account. In Chapelle’s view, tasks must focus on meaning and
form and be authentic to allow for the possibility of students successfully engaging in such
tasks outside of the classroom or in their future life. The benefits of tasks should go beyond
language learning and foster other crucial skills (e.g., language learning strategies) and sup-
port the development of a positive L2 identity. Moreover, appropriate tasks in a technology-
mediated environment need to ensure the availability of adequate resources and support to
aid the task performance. Building on Chapelle’s work, Hampel (2006) added two more im-
portant criteria: tasks should (a) foster electronic literacy both in terms of technical use and
approaches to learning and (b) support a gradual systematic increase in learners’ competency
in orchestrating the combined potential of various modes for communication, the significance
of which is corroborated in Hauck and Youngs’ (2008) study on the implementation of the
pedagogical framework in promoting telecollaboration. Warschauer (2001) proposed that a
project-based learning model is most appropriate to maximize the potential of technology.
In this model, teachers should give overt instruction in, and guide learners in critical reflec-
tion on, sophisticated communication skills focusing on the content, coherence, organization,
pragmatics, syntax, and lexis of the online communication. Teachers should also assist learn-
ers in critically interpreting information and communication in social contexts so that learners
can acquire the skills necessary to engage in effective cross-cultural communication and col-
laboration. Despite the different emphases in each of these researchers approaches, they are
506
This content downloaded from
78.162.147.76 on Sat, 04 Feb 2023 12:06:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CALICO Journal, 28(2) Chun Lai and Guofang Li
sending the same message: designing tasks in technology-mediated environments demands
attention to a much more complex set of issues than designing tasks in face-to-face commu-
nication contexts.
In addition to redefining appropriate tasks in technology-mediated environments, researchers
are reassessing the nature of task performance when it is mediated by technology because
task performance in this environment, especially in the case of telecollaborative task perfor-
mance, is not just about linguistic performance per se but rather involves a complex system
of digital literacy, communicative competency, and intercultural understanding. Lamy (2004)
pointed out that communicative competency during technology-enhanced TBLT consists of
a composite of skills and includes not only linguistic-functional competence, sociocultural
competence, and institutional competence, but also environmental competence (e.g., dem-
onstrating good understanding and use of the facilities offered by the environment itself).
Furthermore, the nature of sociocultural competence and institutional competence is trans-
formed in technology-mediated environments: sociocultural competence now includes an un-
derstanding of social and cultural norms of the communicative functions of various technologi-
cal tools (see Kramsch & Thorne, 2002), and institutional competence involves the ability to
join and sustain a dual discourse when the participation is mediated via technological means.
Furthermore, researchers are underscoring the fact that various types of play during online
communication is an important construct to understand task performance (Warner, 2004) and
that “to understand the development of L2 literacy in the new networked computer media
requires a model of communication that looks at how learners’ identities are created through
a ritual of role play and dramatic acts” (Lam, 2000, p. 477). Therefore, implementing TBLT in
the technology-mediated environments has spurred researchers to look beyond researching
and discussing the conventional constructs associated with TBLT (e.g., negotiated interaction)
to investigate an expanded set of constructs (e.g., learner identity development, play, etc.).
Using technology to mediate TBLT is also driving researchers and practitioners to explore
what TBLT pedagogical cycles would work effectively in such a new environment. Currently
there are two major propositions about TBLT pedagogical cycle: the pedagogical-tasks-to-
target-task cycle (Long, 1985) and the pretask, during-task and posttask pedagogical cycle
(Ellis, 2003; Willis, 1996). One fundamental difference between these propositions is the
controversial issue of focus on form: whether and when to focus on form (Ellis, 2009). So in
technology-mediated environments, what should an appropriate TBLT pedagogical cycle look
like and how should pedagogues position focus on form in this cycle?
Various researchers have pointed out that task performance in technology-mediated environ-
ments, especially project tasks, is often not naturally facilitative of attention to form (Blake,
2000; Ortega, 2009a; Skehan, 2003). Skehan voiced concern about learners’ overt attention
to meaning with little focus on form when doing web-based tasks. This lack of focus on form
can be observed in technology-enhanced task performance both for language learning and
for intercultural learning purposes in various contexts. For example, Blake and Smith (2003)
noted learners’ overt focus on lexis rather than on morphsyntax during task performance in
text-based chatting. Similarly, Schwienhorst (2000) and Tudini (2003) found that teachers
or expert peers provided little error correction during pair-based interaction. To address this
issue, both the intercultural and intracultural CMC literature points toward the desirability
of an expanded pre-, during-, and posttask TBLT pedagogical cycle in technology-mediated
environments. On the one hand, the literature stresses the necessity of preparing learners
sufficiently for the technology-enhanced tasks at the pretask stage: familiarizing them with
the topic and assisting them with relevant lexical and discourse preparation (Abrams, 2006);
helping them understand each other’s cultural norms and practices as well as communication
routines, sociocultural perceptions, and practices for the particular technology used for com-
munication (Thorne, 2006; Ware, 2005); and giving students clearly articulated evaluation
507

criteria or expectations for focus on form and provision of feedback during task performance
(Ware & O’Dowd, 2008). On the other hand, the literature also acknowledges the significance
of the posttask stage (Skehan, 2003) and suggests that teachers structure various, carefully
sequenced posttask activities that build on the previous interactions (Ware & O’Dowd, 2008).
These posttask activities could be in the form of either engaging learners in analyzing the
learner-generated corpus from their performance in the preceding communicative task (Belz,
2006; Belz & Vyatkina, 2005) or engaging students in analyzing the recordings of the audio
interactions and the shared screen content to reflect on form (Levy & Kennedy, 2004). The
use of portfolios and learner diaries has also been proposed to engage students in reflections
on their online interaction and what they have learned both linguistically and culturally (Ware
& O’Dowd, 2008). In all, as Salaberry (2001) pointed out, “the success of a technology-driven
activity will likely depend as much, or more, on the successful accomplishment of pre- and
post-activities than on the technology activity itself” (p. 51).
Thus research studies in the field suggest that when implementing TBLT in technology-me-
diated environments, with the extra cognitive load and the enhanced authenticity of task
performance, it is most appropriate and much desired to adopt a TBLT pedagogical cycle that
emphasizes pre- and posttask stages to facilitate and elaborate the learning from the task.
Contributions of TBLT to Technology-Enhanced Language Learning
In this section, we review the literature that examines how TBLT serves as a pedagogical
framework to advance the field of technology-enhanced language learning.
In her seminal paper, Chapelle (1997) reviewed the development of the field of technology-
enhanced language learning and affirmed that the field was in urgent need of theory-guided,
principled means for design so as to maximize the potential of technology for language learn-
ing. Building on her work, Doughty and Long (2003) proposed the deployment of TBLT to
guide and enrich the design and operation of technology-enhanced language learning. They
illustrated 10 methodological principles of task-based language teaching design and provided
examples on how to use these principles to design optimal technology-enhanced language
learning environments.
Since that time, research efforts have been made to examine the advantages of applying
a TBLT pedagogical framework in complimenting technology-enhanced language learning.
Smith (2009) and González-Lloret (2008) conducted studies on technology-enhanced TBLT
as extracurricular activities and projects, respectively. These studies presented evidence that
learners incorporated input from their interlocutors and that such incorporation had a last-
ing impact on subsequent L2 use for learners of different ages. Exploratory studies on using
TBLT to design online courses have established its feasibility as a design framework; Duran
and Ramaut (2006) and Rosell-Aguilar (2005) showed that it is possible to design online TBLT
courses for beginning learners. The works by Hampel and her colleagues (Hampel & Hauck,
2004; Hampel, 2006) further reported positive perceptions from learners and teachers on
online tutorials that adopted a TBLT approach. Existent quasi-experimental studies, although
few in number, have also demonstrated the effectiveness of online TBLT courses. Lai, Zhao,
and Wang (in press) compared the learning in online TBLT versus in a more traditional course
and found that the application of the TBLT approach led to greater fluency in learners’ end-of-
semester language production and that learners expressed overall enjoyment of the TBLT ap-
proach. Focusing on tandem learning, Appel and Gilabert (2006) reported on a 2-month study
that compared the language production of email tandem pairs on assigned tasks and that of
pairs who were not assigned any specific tasks. They found that students who were assigned
508
This content downloaded from
78.162.147.76 on Sat, 04 Feb 2023 12:06:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CALICO Journal, 28(2) Chun Lai and Guofang Li
tasks produced greater amounts of language and were more homogenous in the amount of
language production, the frequency of exchange with their tandem partners, and interest in
sustaining exchange with their partners.
Although research is still at the initial stage of testing the feasibility and effectiveness of ap-
plying TBLT to enrich technology-enhanced language learning, the current literature suggests
that TBLT is a viable pedagogical framework that does well in guiding the design and aug-
menting the effect of technology-enhanced language learning.
CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTING TBLT VIA TECHNOLOGY
The reciprocal relationship between technology and TBLT suggests the intersection between
the two is a promising area both in terms of practical application and research value. Despite
the great potential technology brings to TBLT, it also introduces a whole suite of issues for
both the learners and the teachers that complicates the nature of TBLT. Thus, implementing
TBLT in technology-mediated environments presents various challenges. Using technology for
language learning requires that learners possess many computer skills. When using technol-
ogy to guide instruction, teachers must take on new pedagogical roles. For researchers who
wish to investigate TBLT, when the tasks occur in a technological environment, many of the
key concepts to be researched and the ways of conducting the research must be redefined.
Demands on the Learners
Successful implementation of TBLT in technology-enhanced environments, especially in tele-
collaborative projects, requires learners to possess a suite of new knowledge and skills, in-
cluding digital literacy, communicative competency, and intercultural competency. Learners
are often described as missing these skills (Reinders & White, 2010), not being aware of the
affordances of different media, or lacking the capacity to use them constructively to meet
their learning needs (Hampel, 2006; Kress, 2003). Hauck and Youngs (2008) found that
learners participated in a semester-long telecollaborative course but still failed to develop the
capacity to make informed use of the various tools available in the Lyceum audioconferenc-
ing system (http://lyceum.open.ac.uk), despite the incorporation of an initial familiarization
stage with various technologies in the system. In addition to lacking the digital literacy and
the skills to use various technologies, O’Dowd (2003) reported that learners also lack the in-
tercultural competency or the disposition to acquire this competency necessary for successful
telecollaborative projects.
Hampel (2006) identified yet another level of challenge learners face when implementing TBLT
in technology-mediated environments. Hampel emphasized the fact that learners need to be-
lieve in the democratic, learner-centered, holistic approach to learning in order to benefit from
task performance online. Further, Skehan (2003) stressed that learners need to be aware of
the problems and pitfalls of technology-mediated task performance and the strategies to use
at the pre-, during- and posttask phases of technology-mediated TBLT. Through implementing
TBLT in an online course, Lai et al. (in press) found that learners lacked the positive attitudes
and skills to benefit from TBLT: they became easily frustrated because of the extensive use of
the target language, were afraid of making errors, and did not take the initiative to actively
participate in the process. The learners also encountered problems in building rapport with
each other and maintaining group dynamics during task performance and found it hard to
engage in the project without the immediate presence of their instructor and peer learners.
509

Other than the challenge of learners’ personal skills and understanding, successful implemen-
tation of TBLT in technology-mediated environments is also subject to learners’ understanding
and awareness of how their personal histories and sociocultural norms affect their own and
their telecollaborative partners’ online task performance. Kramsch and Thorne’s (2002) analy-
sis of the telecollaborative email communication between their American and French students
gave a vivid account of how sociocultural norms of the communicative functions of various
CMC tools affected the learners’ use of online tools in task performance. The American and
French partners held different expectations about the use of online interaction, and this dif-
ference led to miscommunication and disappointment in their telecollaborative experiences.
Similar findings were reported in studies in different contexts as well (Ware, 2005; O’Dowd,
2003). Thus, ensuring the success of TBLT in technology-mediated environments involves an
extra layer of challenge in terms of enhancing learners’ consciousness of their own behavior
and their interlocutors’ behavior.
Considering the knowledge and skills required of learners, preparation that helps them de-
velop such knowledge and skills is essential to secure the success of TBLT implementation.
Several recent attempts that investigated the effectiveness of learner training have yielded
some promising results (Cornelius & Boos, 2003; Fiori, 2005; Lai & Lin, 2010). Although sug-
gestions for the areas in which learners need training and how the learners should be trained
in these areas exist in the literature (Hampel, 2006; Hubbard, 2004; Lai et al., in press;
Skehan, 2003), systematic learner training models for different contexts and specific training
guides that could guide the day-to-day operation are still lacking.
Demands on the Teachers
The complexity of TBLT in technology-mediated environments, created by the need to cope
with the intensive demands of technology and the learner, imposes many more demands on
the teachers (Wang, 2006).
A multitude of roles have been proposed for teachers to play in order to facilitate good learn-
ing outcomes from task performance: they have to raise learner awareness, be familiar with
the culture of the L1 and the L2, design appropriate tasks, monitor the collaborations, sup-
port learners in improving their ability to participate in effective interactions, and follow up
on both the online and in-class exchanges (Chun & Wade, 2004; Hampel, 2006; Hampel &
Hauck, 2005; O’Rourke & Schwienhorst, 2003; Kern, 2006; Son, 2007). In addition to their
roles during the task performance, teachers are also expected to play crucial roles before and
after the task. Before the task, teachers need to provide appropriate training and awareness-
raising in intercultural activities (e.g., how to elicit cultural meanings from partners; O’Dowd &
Eberbach, 2004) and establish clear expectations for providing feedback to interlocutors dur-
ing interactions as well as examples on when and how to provide feedback (Ware & O’Dowd,
2008). After the task, teachers should help students review the transcripts of the interaction
and guide them to reflect on the language and intercultural issues that emerged during the
interactions (Levy & Kennedy, 2004). Thus, the teacher’s role in technology-enhanced TBLT
is expected to be multifaceted and requires a pedagogical shift: “the teacher shifts out of the
‘omniscient informant’ role and focuses on structuring, juxtaposing, interpreting, and reflect-
ing on inter-cultural experiences” (Kern, Ware, & Warschauer, 2004, p. 249).
Unfortunately, various accounts have shown that teachers lack the necessary skills to support
TBLT in technology-mediated environments. Teachers have been found to be not well prepared
to carry out TBLT in classrooms, and their lack of understanding thwarts their TBLT practice
(Carless, 2009; Jeon & Hahn, 2007). Furthermore, teachers have been found to have minimal
510
This content downloaded from
78.162.147.76 on Sat, 04 Feb 2023 12:06:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CALICO Journal, 28(2) Chun Lai and Guofang Li
belief in the benefits of technology (e.g., the intercultural and linguistic learning potential)
for language learning and inadequate preparation for assisting students to avoid communica-
tion breakdown or to properly deal with miscommunication and for training learners to make
effective and culturally rich exchanges in technology-enhanced environments (Fuchs, 2009;
Lam, 2000; O’Dowd & Eberbach, 2004; O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006; Ware & Kramsch, 2005). If
language teachers themselves do not believe in the value of technology or do not have the
skills to implement technology-enhanced TBLT, how can we expect them to assume the role
of performance facilitator and student trainer?
Thus when implementing TBLT in technology-mediated environments, we face the challenge
of enhancing teachers’ understanding of the pedagogical values of the various tools in techno-
logical environments and their communicative and intercultural competency, enabling them to
serve as effective trainers and facilitators for the learners. However, there is a paucity of work
that could inform us of the issues involved in teacher training at the intersection of technology
and TBLT. The only study known to us is a recent study by Fuchs (2009) in which she demon-
strated the effectiveness of a contextualized approach that connected ESL student teachers in
the US and EFL student teachers in Germany via CMC and engaged them in working together
to jointly create TBLT units. Thus, much more work is needed before we can have a more
complete understanding of how to prepare teachers for technology-enhanced TBLT.
Demands on Researchers
Putting into practice technology-enhanced TBLT poses tremendous obstacles to conducting
research in the area. Since significant difference exists between TBLT in face-to-face class-
rooms versus technology-mediated environments, merely following the existing research par-
adigms may not suffice in giving a truthful account and capturing the complexities of online
task performance.
Technology-enhanced TBLT is not just about language learning; it also involves building other
essential skills such as collaboration skills, communication competency, digital literacy, and
identity formation (Chapelle, 2001; Warschauer, 1998, 2001). Thus the learning outcome
from technology-enhanced TBLT should no longer be measured just in terms of language
development and learning autonomy, but also in terms of measuring gains in the learners’
ability to collaborate and communicate effectively online with peers and intercultural partners,
the development of their intercultural competency and digital literacy skills, and the forma-
tion and development of their L2 identity. Researchers have started to recognize these kinds
of issues and have sought to broaden our conceptualization of learning through TBLT tasks
beyond linguistic gains. However, to capture this complexity is not easy because some of the
proposed constructs, such as learner agency, intercultural competency, and digital literacy,
are not easily defined or measured.
In addition to the need to reevaluate the nature of learning from technology-enhanced TBLT,
some researchers also question the feasibility of adopting the conventional analytical frame-
work for online interaction. An oft-cited example is the expanded negotiated interaction model
proposed by Smith (2003) from his research on task performance in text-based CMC. Smith
argued that because of the lack of turn adjacency, a more accommodating model for negoti-
ated interaction in CMC needs to take into account the regular occurrence of “split negotiation
routines” (i.e., the delay between the initial trigger and the indicator). In his analysis of the
interaction between tandem learners in a MOO, O’Rourke (2005) reached a similar conclusion:
the signal-response taxonomies of face-to-face interaction “cannot be applied unmodified to
negotiation in the MOO” (p. 457), and more fine-grained taxonomies of linguistic level and
511

response strategies are needed to represent the complexity of the interaction data in this con-
text. Similarly, Warner (2004) pointed out that “the standard referential definitions of com-
munication” no longer suffice in depicting the whole of communication (p. 69). As a result,
Chun (2008) reiterated the necessity to modify the traditional face-to-face model of analysis
to accommodate the different parameters in technology-mediated environments. Thus the
research field stands in need of developing an appropriate analytical framework to examine
the complexity of technology-enhanced TBLT.
In terms of research methodology, CALL scholars also face a set of challenges in data collection
methods and data analysis approaches. Smith (2008) demonstrated the insufficiency of ana-
lyzing online synchronous interaction data based solely on printed transcripts because printed
transcripts fail to capture some crucial data such as deleted text during text-based chatting,
data which are valuable in revealing learners’ language development (Sauro & Smith, 2010).
Smith claimed that such simplistic data collection methods may potentially distort research
findings. His point was reiterated in Seedhouse and Almutairi’s (2009) study in which they
argued that the multimodal complexity of task-based interaction is hard to capture solely via
chat transcripts since transcripts are highly indexical and provide minimized information. They
suggested a holistic approach to the analysis of task-based interaction by relating nonverbal
communication and the physical performance of the task to the details of the talk, a challenge
to which technology provides a viable solution. These researchers proposed the utilization of
screen recording software and other additional technological tools such as video recording (to
capture learners’ gesture and facial expressions) and eye-tracking systems (to capture learn-
ers’ eye gazes; Smith, 2010; Seedhouse & Almutairi, 2009). By capturing these minute, yet
important bits of information, we can obtain a more dynamic and accurate representation of
synchronous online interactions that would feed into the measurement of some key cognitive
constructs, such as noticing and focus on form, during online task performance. However,
the utilization of some of these data collection methods may not be easy to arrange and the
interpretation of the collected data may be quite precarious sometimes. In a similar vein, the
sufficiency of the conventional methods of discourse analyses for chat transcripts and other
interaction records is called into question when analyzing learners’ online interaction. “The
synergistic use of conversation analysis, social semiotics and geosemiotics” (Lamy, 2006, p.
16) may well provide the most in-depth analysis, reveal the intricacy of online interaction,
and tap into the more subtle constructs such as learner agency. However, to capture the com-
plexity of technology-enhanced task performance is extremely time consuming and laborious
(Seedhouse & Almutairi, 2009). Furthermore, how to make the best use of the vast amount
of information in order to make sense of the complexity of learner behavior during online task
performance is yet another challenge that researchers have to face.
CONCLUSION
With both TBLT and technology-enhanced language teaching being gradually adopted by lan-
guage teachers, we would envision technology and TBLT becoming part and parcel of each
other due to their elective theoretical and practical affinities (Ortega, 2009a). In this review,
we set out to understand how the current literature in the field has informed us of the re-
ciprocal relationship between technology and TBLT and to identify the challenges for further
development in this intersection. This rapidly developing field has sent us a positive message
on the contribution that technology can make to enhance learning in TBLT and the contribu-
tion TBLT has made to improve technology-enhanced language learning. The literature has
also built up excellent foundational work in terms of individual online task design. However,
to further develop the field, we need to put more effort into several emerging directions such
as the construction of a comprehensive guiding framework for technology-enhanced TBLT and
512
This content downloaded from
78.162.147.76 on Sat, 04 Feb 2023 12:06:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CALICO Journal, 28(2) Chun Lai and Guofang Li
the exploration of different pedagogical applications thereof. We also need to look in some
new directions that are critical to the successful implementation of technology-enhanced TBLT
but are largely underexplored such as learner preparation and teacher training. Further de-
velopment of this field should build on the current work and at the same time invest more de-
velopment and research efforts into the critical areas identified above. Furthermore, to carry
the field forward, research efforts need to be “ethically responsible” (Ortega & Zyzik, 2008,
p. 334) and adopt a more cautious attitude while keeping an open mind to understand the
benefits of technology for task performance by learners from diverse backgrounds and with
varied cultural capital.
REFERENCES
Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German.
Modern Language Journal, 87, 157-167.
Abrams, Z. I. (2006). From theory to practice: Intra-cultural CMC in the L2 classroom. In L. Ducate &
N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From Theory and Research to New Directions in Foreign Lan-
guage Teaching (pp. 181–210). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Appel, C., & Gilabert, R. (2002). Motivation and task performance in a task-based web-based tandem
project. ReCALL, 14, 16-31.
Appel, C., & Gilabert, R. (2006). Finding common ground in LSP: A computer-mediated communication
project. In E.A. Macia, A. S. Cervera, & C. R. Ramos (Eds.), Information technology in languages
for specific purposes: Issues and prospectus (pp. 75-90). New York: Springer.
Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language
Journal, 86, 525-545.
Beauvois, M. H. (1995). E-talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-assisted classroom discussion.
Computers and the Humanities, 28, 177–190.
Beauvois, M. H. (1998). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the for-
eign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 198–217.
Belz, J. A. (2006). At the intersection of telecollaboration, learner corpus analysis, and L2 pragmatics:
Considerations for language program direction. In J. Belz & S. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated
inter-cultural foreign language education (pp. 207-246). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Belz, J. A., & Reinhardt, J. (2004). Aspects of advanced foreign language proficiency: Internet-mediated
German language play. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 324-362.
Belz, J. A., & Vyatkina, N. (2005). Computer-mediated learner corpus research and the data-driven
teaching of L2 pragmatic competence: The case of German modal particles (CALPER Working
Paper Series, No. 4). The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Advanced Language Profi-
ciency Education and Research.
Black, R. W. (2006). Language, culture, and identity in online fanfiction. E-learning, 3, 170-184. Re-
trieved from http://www.wwwords.co.uk/elea
Blake, R. J. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on FL Spanish interlanguage.
Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120–136. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/
blake/default.html
Blake, R. J. (2005). Bimodal CMC: The glue of language learning at a distance. CALICO Journal, 22, 497-
511. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=146
Böhlke, O. (2003). A comparison of student participation levels by group size and language stages dur-
ing chatroom and face-to-face discussions in German. CALICO Journal, 21, 67-88. Retrieved
from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=282
513

Bruton, A. (2005). Task-based language teaching: For the state secondary FL classroom? Language
Learning Journal, 31, 55-68.
Burrows, C. (2008). An evaluation of task-based learning (TBL) in the Japanese classroom. English
Today, 24, 4, 11-16.
Candlin, C. N. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. N. Candlin & D. F. Murphy (Eds.),
Language learning tasks(Lancaster Practical Papers in English). Lancaster and London: Lan-
caster University.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools.
TESOL Quarterly, 38, 639-332.
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from
Hong Kong. System, 35, 595-608.
Carless, D. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT versus P-P-P debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of
English Language Teaching, 19, 49-66.
Chapelle, C. A. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning
& Technology, 1(1), 19-43. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/chapelle/default.html
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the
age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence.
System, 22, 17-31.
Chun, D. M. (2008). Computer-mediated discourse in instructed environments. In S. S. Magnan (Ed.),
Mediating discourse online (pp. 15-45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Chun, D. M., & Wade, E. R. (2004). Collaborative cultural exchanges with CMC. In L. Lomicka & J. Cooke-
Plagwitz (Eds.), Teaching with technology (pp. 220-247). Boston: Heinle.
Chung, Y., Graves, B., Wesche, M., & Barfurth, M. (2005). Computer-mediated communication in Ko-
rean-English chat rooms: Tandem learning in an international languages program. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 62, 49-86.
Cornelius, C., & Boos, M. (2003). Communication abstracts. Communication and Information Technol-
ogy, 25, 533-555.
Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the
intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19, 249-277. Retrieved from
https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=426
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign
language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50-80. Retrieved from http://llt.
msu.edu/vol7num3/doughty/default.html
Ducate, L., & Lomicka, L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 9-28.
Duran, G., & Ramaut, G. (2006). Tasks for absolute beginners and beyond: Developing and sequencing
tasks at basic proficiency levels. In K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education:
From theory to practice (pp. 47-75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal
of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221-246.
514
This content downloaded from
78.162.147.76 on Sat, 04 Feb 2023 12:06:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CALICO Journal, 28(2) Chun Lai and Guofang Li
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2008). Blogging: Fostering inter-cultural competence development in foreign lan-
guage and study abroad contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 421-444.
Erben, T. (1999). Constructing learning in a virtual immersion bath: LOTE teacher education through
audiographics. In R. Debski & M. Levy (Eds.), WORLDCALL: Global perspectives on computer-
assisted language learning (pp. 229-248). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Fiori, M. (2005). The development of grammatical competence through synchronous computer-me-
diated communication. CALICO Journal, 22, 567-602. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/
memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=151
Fitze, M., & McGarrell, H. M. (2008). Teacher language in ESL face-to-face and written electronic discus-
sions. TESL-EJ 12, 2, 1-24. Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume12/
ej46/ej46a2
Fuchs, C. (2009). Computer-mediated task design: Language student teachers’ expectations and real-
izations. Letras & Letras, Uberlandia, 25, 37-64.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
González-Lloret, M. (2003). Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction: En busca de Esmeraldas.
Language Learning & Technology, 7(1), 86-104. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num1/
gonzalez/default.html
González-Lloret, M. (2008). Computer-mediated learning of L2 pragmatics. In E. Alcon Soler & A. Marti-
nez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp.
114-132). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hauck, M., & Youngs, B. L. (2008). Telecollaboration in multimodal environments: The impact on task
design and learner interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 87–124.
Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and
learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18, 105-121.
Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distance language
courses. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 66-82. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol
8num1/hampel/default.html
Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2005). The challenges of implementing online tuition in distance language
courses: Task design and tutor role. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hampel, R., Felix, U., Hauck, M., & Coleman, J. (2005). Complexities of learning and teaching languages
in a real-time audiographic environment. German as a Foreign Language, 3. Retrieved from
http://www.gfl-journal.de/3-2005/hampel_felix_hauck_coleman.pdf
Heins, B., Duensing, A., Stickler, U., & Batstone, C. (2007). Spoken interaction in online and face-to-face
language tutorials. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 279-295.
Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), New
perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 45-67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum.
Hwang, P. A. (2008). Linguistic characteristics in synchronous and asynchronous CMC. English Language
& Literature Teaching, 14, 47-66.
Jeon, I. J. & Hahn, J. W. (2007). Exploring EFL teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching:
A case study of Korean secondary school classroom practice. Asian EFL Journal, 8, 123-143.
Jeon-Ellis, G., Debski, R., & Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Oral interaction around computers in the proj-
ect-oriented CALL classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 121-145. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/jeon/default.html
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations­—and negotiated interaction—in text and voice chat rooms. Language
Learning & Technology, 9(3), 79-98. Retrieved from llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/pdf/jepson.pdf
515

Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A
preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 441-445.
Kenning, M. M. (2010). Differences that make the difference: A study of functionalities in synchronous
CMC. ReCALL, 22, 3-19.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quality and
characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.
Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40,
183-210.
Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and
research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243-260.
Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet
chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 143-166.
Kitade, K. (2006). The negotiation model in asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC):
Negotiation in task-based email exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23, 319-348. Retrieved from https:
//www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=121
Kötter, M. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems. Language Learning
& Technology, 7(2), 145-172. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/kotter/default.html
Kramsch, C., & Steffensen, S. V. (2008). Ecological perspectives on second language acquisition and
socialization. In P. A. Duff & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education,
volume 8, Language socialization (pp. 17-28). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. (2002). Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In D.
Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Language learning and teaching in the age of globalization (pp. 83-
100). London: Routledge.
Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge Falmer.
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3),102-
120. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num3/pdf/laizhao.pdf
Lai, C., Fei, F., & Roots, R. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26, 70-90.
Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=723
Lai, C., & Lin, X. L. (2010). Learner strategy training and TBLT. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Association of Applied Linguistics, Atlanta, Georgia.
Lai, C., Zhao, Y., & Wang, J. W. (in press). Task-based language teaching in online ab initio Chinese
classrooms. Modern Language Journal.
Lam, W. S. E. (2000). Second language literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager
writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 457-482.
Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: Global and local con-
siderations. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 44-65. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/
vol8num3/lam/default.html
Lamy, M. N. (2004). Oral conversations online: Redefining oral competence in synchronous environ-
ments. ReCALL, 16, 2, 520-538.
Lamy, M. N. (2006). Multimodality in second language conversations online: Looking for a methodology.
In Proceedings of Third International Conference on Multimodality. Pavia, Italy.
Lamy, M. N. (2007). Interactive task design: Metachat and the whole language learner. In del P. Garcia
Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 242-264). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
516
This content downloaded from
78.162.147.76 on Sat, 04 Feb 2023 12:06:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CALICO Journal, 28(2) Chun Lai and Guofang Li
Lantolf, J., & Beckett, T. (2009). Timeline: Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Language
Teaching, 42(4), 1-19.
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language develop-
ment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction.
Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 53-72. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num3/
lee.pdf
Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2004). A task-cycling pedagogy using stimulated reflection and audio-
conferencing in foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2), 50-69.
Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/levy/default.html
Li, D. (1998). “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in
introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677-697.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT journal, 58,
319-326.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms.
Language Teaching, 40, 243-249.
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language training.
In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie & T. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York:
Academic Press. 
Mackey, A., & Polio, C. (2009). Multiple perspectives on interaction. New York: Routledge.
Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school
students in Hong Kong. System, 36, 437-455.
Murray, D. (2005). Technologies for second language literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25,
188-201.
Murray, L., & Hourigan, T. (2008). Blogs for specific purposes: Expressivist or socio-cognitivist approach?
ReCALL, 20, 83-98.
Mustafa, Z. (2008, October 29-31). Teachers’ levels of use in the adoption of task-based language
teaching in Malaysian classrooms. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on
Language Learning. USM, Penang.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding ‘the other side’: Inter-cultural learning in a Spanish-English email
exchange. Language Learning & Technology 7(2), 118-144. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/
vol7num2/odowd/default.html
O’Dowd, R., & Eberbach, K. (2004). Guides on the side? Tasks and challenges for teachers in telecol-
laborative projects. ReCALL, 16, 129-144.
O’Dowd, R., & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with ‘failed communication’ in telecollabora-
tive exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23, 623-642. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/member
Browse.php?action=article&id=112
O’Malley, C., Anderson, A. H., & Bruce, V. (1996). Comparison of face-to-face and video-mediated inter-
action. Interacting with Computers, 8, 177-192.
O’Rourke, B. (2005). Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22, 433-466.
Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=144
517

O’Rourke, B., & Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Talking text: Reflections on reflection in computer-mediated
communication. In D. Little, E. Ushioda, & J. Ridley (Eds.), Learner autonomy in the foreign lan-
guage dlassroom: Learner, teacher, curriculum and assessment (pp. 47-60). Dublin: Authentik.
Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research
agenda for FL computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1),
82–93. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/ortega/default.html
Ortega, L. (2009a, September 13-16). Task and technology in language learning: Elective affinities
and (dis)encounters. Plenary delivered at the 3rd International Task-Based Language Teaching
Conference. Lancaster, UK.
Ortega, L. (2009b). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication.
In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 226-253). New York:
Routledge.
Ortega, L., & Zyzik, E. (2008). Online interactions and L2 learning: Some ethical challenges for L2 re-
searchers. In S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating discourse online (pp. 331-355). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing.
Oxford, R. (2006). Task-based language teaching and learning: An overview. Asian EFL Journal, 8, 94-
121.
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output,
working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7-32. Retrieved from
https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=327
Pérez, L. (2003). Foreign language productivity in synchronous versus asynchronous computer me-
diated communication. CALICO Journal, 21, 89-104. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/
memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=283
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical
competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts
and practice (pp. 59-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rankin, Y. A. (2008). Design and evaluation of massively multiplayer online role-playing games that
facilitate second language acquisition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern Univer-
sity, Evanston, IL.
Reinders, H., & White, C. (2010). The theory and practice of technology in materials development and
task design. In N. Harwood (Ed.), Materials in ELT: Theory and practice (pp. 58-80). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teaching today (RELC portfolio Series 13). Singapore:
SEAMEO Regional Language Center.
Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2005). Task design for audiographic conferencing: Promoting beginner oral interaction
in distance language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 417-442.
Sadler, R. (2009). Can you build this? Virtual construction for language learning in Second Life. In
L. Stone & C. Wilson-Duffy (Eds.), Task-based III: Expanding the range of tasks with online
resources. International Association for Language Learning and Technology (IALLT).
Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communi-
cation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 1, 5-27.
Salaberry, M. R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospec-
tive. Modern Language Journal, 85, 39-56.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sauro, S. (2004). Cyberdiscursive tug-of-war: Learner repositioning in a multimodal CMC environment.
Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19, 2, 55–72.
518
This content downloaded from
78.162.147.76 on Sat, 04 Feb 2023 12:06:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CALICO Journal, 28(2) Chun Lai and Guofang Li
Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2010). Investigating L2 performance in text chat. Applied Linguistics, 31, 1-24.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.
3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwienhorst, K. (2000). Virtual reality and learner autonomy in second language acquisition (Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation). Trinity College, Dublin.
Seedhouse, P., & Almutairi, S. (2009). A holistic approach to task-based interaction. International Journal
of Applied Linguistics, 19, 311-338.
Shekary, M., & Tahririan, M. H. (2006). Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat.
Modern Language Journal, 90, 557-573.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2003). Focus on form, tasks and technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16,
391-411.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language
Journal, 87, 38-57.
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26, 365-398.
Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair.
Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 85-103. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/
smith/default.html
Smith, B. (2009). Task-based learning in the computer-mediated communicative ESL/EFL classroom.
CALL-EJ Online, 11(1). Retrieved from http://callej.org/journal/11-1/smith.html
Smith, B. (2010). Employing eye-tracking technology in researching the effectiveness of recasts in CMC.
In F. M. Hult (Ed.), Directions and prospects for educational linguistics (pp. 79-90). Heidelberg:
Springer Verlag.
Son, J. B. (2007). Learner experiences in Web-based language learning. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 20, 21-36.
Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous
communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.
edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html
Sotillo, S. M. (2010). Quality and type of corrective feedback, noticing and learner uptake in
synchronous computer-mediated text-based and voice chats. In M. Putz & L. Sicola (Eds.),
Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing.
Stockwell, G. & Harrington, M. W. (2003). The incidental development of L2 proficiency in NS-NNS
email interactions. CALICO Journal, 20, 337-359. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/mem
berBrowse.php?action=article&id=326
Stone, L., & Wilson-Duffy, C. (2009). Task-based III: Expanding the range of tasks through the web.
International Association for Language Learning and Technology (IALLT).
Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-
assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29, 491-501.
Svensson, P. (2003). Virtual worlds as arenas for language learning. In U. Felix (Ed.), Language learning
online: Towards best practice (pp. 123-143). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Sykes, J. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat.
CALICO Journal, 22, 399-431. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.
php?action=article&id=142
519

Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in inter-cultural communication. Language Learning
& Technology, 7(2), 38-67. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/default.html
Thorne, S. L. (2006). Pedagogical and praxiological lessons from internet-mediated inter-cultural for-
eign language education research. In J. A. Belz & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated inter-
cultural foreign language education (pp. 2-30). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and
native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 82-99. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/toyoda/default.html
Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 141-159. Re-
trieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/tudini/default.html
Vetter, A., & Chanier, T. (2006). Supporting oral production for professional purpose in synchronous
communication with heterogeneous learners. ReCALL, 18, 5-23.
Wang, Y. M. (1994). E-mail dialogue journaling in an ESL reading and writing classroom (Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation). University of Oregon.
Wang, Y. M. (2006). Negotiation of meaning in desktop videoconferencing-supported distance language
learning. ReCALL, 18, 122-146.
Ware, P. D. (2005). “Missed” communication in online communication: Tensions in a German-American
telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 64-89. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.
edu/vol9num2/ware/default.html
Ware, P. D., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through
telecollaboration. Modern Language Journal, 89, 190-205.
Ware, P. D., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learn-
ing & Technology, 12(1), 43-63. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/wareodowd/de
fault.html
Warner, C. N. (2004). It’s just a game, right? Types of play in foreign language CMC. Language Learning
& Technology, 8(2), 69-87. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/pdf/warner.pdf
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language
classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7–26. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.
php?action=article&id=604
Warschauer, M. (1998). Researching technology in TESOL: Determinist, instrumental, and critical ap-
proaches. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 757-764.
Warschauer, M. (2001). Millennialism and media: Language, literacy and technology in the 21st century.
In D. Graddol (Ed.), Applied linguistics for the 21st century (pp. 49-59). International Association
of Applied Linguistics (AILA) Review, 14.
Warschauer, M. (2006). Literacy and technology: Bridging the divide. In D. Gibbs & K. L. Krauss (Eds.),
Cyberlines 2: Languages and cultures of the internet (pp. 163-174). Albert Park, Australia:
James Nicholas.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
Yamada, M. (2009). The role of social presence in learner-centered communicative language learning
using synchronous computer-mediated communication: An experimental study. Computers and
Education, 52, 820-833.
520
This content downloaded from
78.162.147.76 on Sat, 04 Feb 2023 12:06:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CALICO Journal, 28(2) Chun Lai and Guofang Li
AUTHORS’ BIODATA
Chun Lai is Assistant Professor at the University of Hong Kong and currently teaches under-
graduate and graduate courses in second language education. Her interests include technol-
ogy-enhanced language learning, task-based language teaching, and technology integration.
Her most recent project focuses on the development of a learner training model to support
learners’ autonomous use of technology for foreign language learning. She has published
various articles on task-based language teaching in technology-enhanced environments and
online L2 course and learning environment design.
Guofang Li is Associate Professor in the Department of Teacher Education at Michigan State
University. Li specializes in ESL/ELL/EFL education, family and community literacy, and Asian
American education. Li has received numerous national awards for her works, including the
2010 Early Career Award of AERA, the 2008 Early Career Award of Division G: Social Context
of Education, AERA, and the 2006 Ed Fry Book Award of the National Reading Conference.
Li’s major publications include three sole-authored books, Culturally Contested Literacies:
America’s “Rainbow Underclass” and Urban Schools (Routledge, 2008), Culturally Contested
Pedagogy: Battles of Literacy and Schooling between Mainstream Teachers and Asian Immi-
grant Parents (SUNY Press, 2006, winner of 2006 Ed Fry Book Award, National Reading Con-
ference), and “East is east, west is west”? Home literacy, culture, and schooling (Peter Lang,
2002), as well as several edited volumes including: Best Practices in ELL Instruction (Guilford,
2010), Multicultural Families, Home Literacies, and Mainstream Schooling (IAP, 2009), and
Model Minority Myths Revisited: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Demystifying Asian Ameri-
can Education Experiences” (IAP, 2008).
AUTHORS’ ADDRESSES
Chun Lai
325 Hui Oi Chow Science Bldg.
University of Hong Kong
Pokfulam Rd.
Hong Kong SAR
Phone: + 852 28597087
Email: laichun@hku.hk
Guofang Li
350 Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing MI 48824
Phone: 517 432 9617
Email: liguo@msu.edu
521