<p>The implementation of language learning tasks in EFL settings has been questioned for a number of reasons: limited use of L2, student overuse of a shared L1, a lack of connection between tasks and institutional demands, managing off-task behaviour and teacher unfamiliarity with tasks (Butler, 2011; Carless, 2004, 2008, 2009; Tinker Sachs, 2007). This study took an ecological approach (Van Lier, 2004) to investigate tasks and task implementation conditions designed to address the first four of these concerns. The study was a two-phase, mixed-method design in which I implemented ecologically valid tasks in an EFL course for South Korean university freshmen. The first phase was a one-semester exploratory study of six task-types with the aim of identifying deviations from the task-as-workplan. Differences from the workplan were discussed in relation to which stage of the task cycle, activity. planning. report (see J. Willis, 1996b) students re-interpreted and how these changes altered learning opportunities. The key findings were: (1) the students generally followed the workplan and engaged in extensive English-language collaborative assistance (Ohta, 2001). (2) Students rarely used the ‘planning’ phase of the task cycle to rehearse their public reports. They used this time to add new content, often using L1. (3) Throughout the task cycle, talk about grammar was rare except when one of the students was writing their team’s answer. (4) Echoing Carless (2008), students used markedly more L1 when the tasks were more “absorbing” because students worked to create interesting content rather than to develop their L2. (5) Of the six task types, the values clarification (VC) task was found to have best prompted students to discuss both lexis and grammar and to do so using relatively little L1. Based on these findings, the second phase, a quasi-experimental intervention, was carried out to determine the effect of three task implementation conditions on VC task performance. The conditions were: (1) an input-processing activity (IPA) done either pre- or post-task (cf. J. Willis, 1996b); (2) task and procedural repetition (Kim, 2013); and (3) raising learners’ metacognitive awareness (MA) of the purposes of the task (cf. Ewald, 2004). The intervention took place across six weeks of regularly scheduled classes. Students were kept in the same small teams throughout the study. The main findings were: (1) Students did not use target items from the IPA in their task performances; (2) Neither task nor procedural repetition had a statistically significant impact on the number or type of LREs, the amount of L1 used or on the correct use of a targeted task-natural grammar form. However, LRE counts and L1 use showed unpredicted negative trends. (3) The MA activity positively reversed the negative trends from repetition for some teams, indicating it provided a way to refocus participants on the learning objectives of the task particularly through the responses of other students. The following conclusions were made. First, for students to use target language in task interaction, it should be essential to the task. Second, the inclusion of collaborative writing in speaking tasks promotes attention to grammar. The effects of task repetition are mitigated by familiarity with members of the team; and therefore, effects of task repetition reported elsewhere represent the interaction of language development plus a new interlocutor. Finally, the metacognitive awareness activity affected student output, but had no impact on the use of input, suggesting training in learning from input may be needed. This study concludes with suggestions for further research and language teaching pedagogy.</p>
Blogging in the Target Language: Review of the “Lang-8” Online Community
