This study assesses a range of task-based interaction (i.e. structured vs. unstructured tasks) between lower-English-proficiency middle school English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in a task-based learning (TBL) class employing conversation analytic methodology. From the video data, which allowed for an emic analysis of the students’ vocal and non-vocal actions when engaging in the different task types, it was found that in both the structured and unstructured task interactions, because the students were mainly focused on task completion, there were frequent minimal turns and sequences. A deviant case analysis revealed that the participants prioritized task completion as the focus of activities even when engaging in social talk by evoking various types of roles (e.g. students, friends). The study proposes several pedagogical suggestions for employing tasks in lower-level EFL contexts.
Al-GahtaniS.RoeverC. (2013). ‘Hi doctor, give me handouts’: Low-proficiency learners and requests. ELT Journal, 67, 413–424.
2.
AtkinsonJ.M.HeritageJ. (Eds.) (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BaileyK.M.NunanD. (Eds.) (1996). Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative research in second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BalamanU. (2019). Sequential organization of hinting in online task-oriented L2 interaction. Text & Talk, 39, 511–534.
5.
BalamanU.SertO. (2017). Local contingencies in L2 tasks: A comparison of context-sensitive interactional achievements across two different task types. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Language and Literature, 10, 9–27.
6.
BarnesD. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In MercerN.HodkinsoE. (Eds.), Exploratory talk in school (pp. 1–17). London: Sage.
7.
BlazD. (2013). Differentiated instruction: A guide for foreign language teachers. Abingdon: Routledge.
8.
BodenD. (1994). The business of talk. Cambridge: Polity Press.
9.
BreenM. (1987). Learner contribution to task design. In: CandlinC.MurphyD. (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 23–46). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
BreenM. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In JohnsonR. (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
ButlerY.G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36–57.
12.
ButtonG.CaseyN. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In AtkinsonJ.M.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 167–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
BygateM.NorrisJ.BrandenK. (2009). Understanding TBLT at the interface of research and pedagogy. In Van den BrandenK.BygateM.NorrisJ. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 495–500). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
14.
CarrollD. (2000). Precision timing in novice-to-novice to L2 conversations. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11, 67–110.
15.
CarrollD. (2005). Vowel-marking as an interactional resource in Japanese novice ESL conversation. In RichardsK.SeedhouseP. (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis (p. 214–234). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
CazdenC. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
17.
ChenQ.WrightC. (2017). Contextualization and authenticity in TBLT: Voices from Chinese classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 21, 517–538.
18.
ChenJ.C.KentS. (2020). Task engagement: Learner motivation and avatar identities of struggling English language learners in the 3D virtual world. System, 88, 1–14.
19.
ClaymanS.HeritageJ. (2002). The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
CliftR. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of actually. Language, 77, 245–291.
21.
CoughlanP.DuffP. (1994) Same task, different activities: analysis of a second language acquisition task from an activity theory perspective. In LantolfJ.P.AppelG. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
22.
CrookesG. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–383.
23.
DaoP.IwashitaN.GatbontonE. (2017). Learner attention to form in ACCESS task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21, 454–479.
24.
DengC.CarlessD. (2009). The communicativeness of activities in a task-based innovation in Guangdong, China. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 18, 113–134.
25.
DoughtyC.PicaT. (1986). ‘Information gap’ tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition?TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305–325.
26.
DrewP.HeritageJ. (Eds.) (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
EksildsenS.W.WagnerJ. (2015). Embodied L2 construction learning. Language Learning, 65, 268–297.
28.
EllisR. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4, 193–220.
29.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
EllisR. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246.
31.
FaganD. (2015). Managing language errors in real-time: A microanalysis of teacher practices. System, 55, 74–85.
32.
FosterP.SkehanP. (2009). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. In Van den BrandenK.BygateM.NorrisJ. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 275–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
33.
GardnerR. (2015). Conversation analysis and orientation to learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5, 229–244.
34.
GassS.MackeyA.Ross-FeldmanL. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611.
35.
GreerT. (2016). Learner initiative in action: Post-expansion sequences in a novice ESL survey interview task. Linguistics and Education, 35, 78–87.
36.
HallJ.K.LooneyS.D. (Eds.) (2019). The embodied work of teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
37.
HallJ.K.VerplaetseL. (2000). Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
HellermanJ. (2006). Classroom interactive practices for literacy: A microethnographic study of two beginning adult learners of English. Applied Linguistic, 27, 377–404.
39.
HellermanJ. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
40.
HellermanJ.Pekarek DoehlerS. (2010). On the contingent nature of language-learning tasks. Classroom Research, 1, 25–45.
41.
HellermanJ.EskildsenS.W.Pekarek DoehlerS.Piirainen-MarshA. (Eds.) (2019). Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action: The complex ecology of language interaction ‘in the wild’. Cham: Springer.
42.
HeritageJ. (1984). A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In AtkinsonJ.M.HeritageJ.C. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
HeritageJ. (1987). Ethnomethodology. In GiddensA.TurnerJ. (Eds.), Social theory today (pp. 224–272). Cambridge: Polity Press.
44.
HeritageJ. (2004). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing data. In SilvermanD. (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 222–245). New York: Sage.
45.
JeffersonG. (1984). On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In AtkinsonJ.M.HeritageJ.C. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 346–369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
JenksC.J. (2009). Exchanging missing information in tasks: Old and new interpretations. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 185–194.
47.
KasperG.KimY. (2015). Conversation-for-learning: Institutional talk beyond the classroom. In MarkeeN. (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 390–408). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
48.
KasperG.WagnerJ. (2014). Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 171–212.
49.
KimY.JungY.Tracy-VenturaN. (2017). Implementation of a localized task-based course in an EFL context: A study of students’ evolving perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 632–660.
50.
KoshikI. (2002). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1851–1877.
51.
LaiC. (2015). Task-based language teaching in the Asian context: Where are we now and where are we going? In: ThomasM.ReindersH. (Eds.), Contemporary task-based language teaching in Asia. London/New York: Bloomsbury.
52.
LambertC.PhilipJ.NakamuraS. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21, 665–680.
53.
LeeY. (2006). Respecifying display questions: Interactional resources for language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 691–713.
54.
LeeY. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 180–206.
55.
LeeserM.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
56.
LiaoH.C. (2015). EFL learner perceptions of differentiated speaking assessment tasks. English Teaching & Learning, 39, 29–68.
57.
LittlewoodW. (2011). Communicative language teaching: An expanding concept for a changing world. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning: Volume II (pp. 541–557). London: Routledge.
58.
LongM.H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley.
59.
LongM.H.InagakiS.OrtegaL. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–370.
60.
MarkeeN. (Ed.) (2015). The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
61.
MehanH. (1985). The structure of classroom discourse. In DijkT.A. (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis: Volume 3 (pp. 120–131). New York: Academic Press.
62.
MondadaL.Pekarek DoehlerS. (2005). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 461–490.
63.
MooreP. (2018). Task-based language teaching. In LiontasJ.I. (Eds.), TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
64.
MoriJ. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 88, 536–550.
65.
NewtonJ.BuiT. (2017). Teaching with tasks in primary school EFL classrooms in Vietnam. In MohammadA.MayoM. (Eds.), Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
66.
OhtaA. (2001). Second language acquisition process in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
67.
ParkY. (2013). The roles of third-turn repeats in two L2 classroom interactional contexts. Applied Linguistics, 35, 145–167.
68.
ParkY. (2018). Task-in-process during information-gap activities in Koran middle school English classrooms. English Teaching, 73, 59–86.
69.
Pekarek DoehlerS. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On language, learning and documenting learning in conversation analytic SLA research. In SeedhouseP.WalshS.JenksC. (Eds.), Conceptualising learning in applied linguistics (pp. 105–127). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
70.
Pekarek DoehlerS. (2013). Conversation analysis and second language acquisition. In MortensenK.WagnerJ. (Eds.), Conversation analysis and applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
71.
PicaT.KangH.SauroS. (2006). Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 301–338.
72.
PomerantzA. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In AtkinsonJ.M.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
73.
RoE.-S. (2018). Facilitating an L2 book club: A conversation-analytic study of task management. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 181–198.
74.
RobinsonP. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive load, and syllabus design. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 211–266), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
75.
RobinsonP. (2011). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
76.
SamudaV. (2015). Tasks, design, and the architecture of pedagogical spaces. In BygateM. (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 271–301). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
77.
SchegloffE.A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075–1095.
78.
SchegloffE.A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of conversation: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 101–114.
79.
SchegloffE. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of ‘coherence’ in talk-in-interaction. In DorvalB. (Ed.) Conversational organization and its development (pp. 51–77). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
80.
SchegloffE.A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the stud of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 99–128.
81.
SchegloffE.A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SeedhouseP. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
84.
SeedhouseP. (2005). Task as research construct. Language Learning, 55, 533–570.
85.
SeedhouseP. (2011). Conversation analytic research into language teaching and learning. In HinkelE. (Ed.), (pp. 345–370). The handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Abingdon: Routledge.
86.
SeedhouseP.AlmutairiS. (2009). A holistic approach to task-based interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 311–338.
87.
SeedhouseP.HeslopP.KharrufaA. (2020). Cooking as a language learning task. TESL-EJ, 24, 1–13.
88.
ShintaniN. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
89.
SidnellJ. (2013). Basic conversation analysis methods. In SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77–99). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
90.
SkehanP. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14.
91.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120.
92.
StiversT. (2015). Coding social interaction: A heretical approach in conversation analysis?Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48, 1–19.
93.
SwainM. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
94.
TavakoliP.SkehanP. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–276). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
95.
ten HaveP. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. London: Sage.
96.
Van LierL. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
97.
WatanabeY.SwainM. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142.
98.
WigglesworthG. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85–106.
99.
WillisJ. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.
100.
WongJ.WaringH. (2020). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. London: Routledge.
101.
ZhengX.BorgS. (2014). Task-based learning and teaching in China: Secondary school teachers’ belief and practices. Language Teaching Journal, 18, 205–221.
