A holistic approach to task‐based interaction

Abstract

This paper proposes that interaction generated by tasks has previously been very difficult to analyse because of its highly indexical nature. Task-related actions and non-verbal communication could not be related easily to talk. A technological solution to this problem is presented, using a combination of task-tracking hardware and software, video recording and transcription. This enables a holistic approach, i.e. one in which all elements of behaviour can be integrated in analysis. Micro-analyses of multimodal data are undertaken, which provide revealing insights into the processes of task-based learning. A framework for describing and analysing task-based interaction from a holistic perspective is outlined. Keywords: task-based learning and teaching (TBLT), spoken interaction, Conversation Analysis (CA), task-based interaction, non-verbal communication Conceptions of 'task' and 'task-based interaction'There are well-known conceptual problems involved in the numerous different definitions of what is (and is not) a 'task', summarized in Ellis (2003: 2-9). In this section, however, we do not consider these definitions, but rather the different ways of conceptualizing a task as it evolves in time. We employ Breen's (1989) conception of the three phases of a task: task-as-workplan, task-in-process, and task-as-outcomes. The task-as-workplan is the intended pedagogy, the plan made prior to classroom implementation of what the Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Terms and Conditions set out at

Task‐based language learning research: expecting too much or too little?

“…No matter how the task designer thinks learners will do a task, they will interpret and transact it in their own particular way. This is what Breen (1989) points out, and what Seedhouse (2005a, b) and Seedhouse and Almutairi (2009) take up very effectively in the task‐as‐workplan/task‐as‐process distinction. What researchers carefully plan to happen is the ‘task‐as‐workplan’, but what they are analysing when they look at the recorded task performance is ‘task‐as‐process’.…”

Local Contingencies in L2 Tasks: A Comparison of Context-Sensitive Interactional Achievements across Two Different Task Types

“…In line with the scope of the current paper, taskoriented interactional settings were investigated by a number of CA-for-SLA researchers (Hellerman, 2008;Hellerman & Pekarek Doehler, 2010;Markee & Kunitz, 2013;Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004;Mori, 2002;Seedhouse, 1999Seedhouse, , 2005Seedhouse & Almutairi, 2009;Kunitz & Skogmyr-Marian, 2017). All of these studies present descriptions of contextspecific interactional achievements oriented to pedagogical tasks at hand.…”

Complementary Theoretical Perspectives on Task‐Based Classroom Realities

“…Shifts of this nature were already under way during the 1990s, as seen in publications which drew on sociocultural theory (SCT) to account for collaborative activity within tasks, including Swain's influential contributions (e.g., 1995). This trend has continued into the present era, with a number of approaches to SLA shedding light on various aspects of learning through tasks, including further contributions based on Vygotskian perspectives (e.g., Storch, ), as well as conversation analysis (e.g., Hellermann, ; Seedhouse & Almutairi, ), complex systems theory (e.g., Dörnyei, ; Poupore, ), language socialization (e.g., Duff & Kobayashi, ), and systemic functional linguistics (e.g., Byrnes, ). Importantly, the new directions in which this theoretical expansion are leading can no longer be aptly described in terms of an incommensurable cognitive versus social divide; rather, the emerging visions for the wider SLA field are those of complementarity, integrativeness, and transdisciplinarity (e.g., Atkinson, ; Cadierno & Eskildsen, ; Douglas Fir Group, ; Ortega, ).…”