To review, I have introduced the theoretical framework that has informed the present study: SCT of mind. From this perspective, one of the goals is to examine the mediational means deployed by individuals during language-related activities. I then presented current advances in TALA and identified an important gap: the exploration of L3 development from an SCT
perspective. One important empirical question is, what symbolic tools do multilinguals rely on to mediate the development of higher mental functions? In the present study, I investigated the roles and functions of native and nonnative languages and examined the impact of pedagogical tasks. In the field of SLA, there is growing consensus that pedagogical tasks provide learners a context for using language which could impact language development. Next, I introduce the construct of pedagogical tasks and major areas of study.
Since the mid 1980s, a number of definitions of tasks have become available. One influential definition, proposed by Ellis (2003), is:
A task is a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose them to choose
particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use that bears a
resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage production or reception, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes (p.16)
Samuda and Bygate (2008) discuss some of the limitations of this definition which are relevant to the present study. They maintain that the analogy of tasks as a workplan considers the teachers’ pedagogical goals and tends to overlook learner agency. van Lier (2008) argues that
learning is contingent upon the activity and learner initiative. From this perspective, tasks are behavioral blueprints and are thus secondary because learners may interpret these in their own idiosyncratic ways. van Lier (2008) characterizes agency by three features: (1) self-regulation, (2) interdependency (i.e., agency mediates and is mediated by the context), and (3) awareness and accountability of one’s actions. Coughlan and Duff (1994) maintain that learners and
teachers may thus not be guided by the same goals. Another limitation identified by Samuda and Bygate (2008) is that the term ‘holistic’ is needed in the operationalization of pedagogical tasks as the term ‘holistic’ conveys the notion that tasks involve real language use and the use of the four language skills. In this study, pedagogical tasks are operationalized following Samuda and Bygate’s (2008) definition:
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 of both (p.69).
SLA researchers have used tasks extensively to elicit learner production; however, tasks are also the object of inquiry (Samuda & Bygate, 2008; Skehan, 1996). One of the aims of earlier SLA research was to identify task features that were hypothesized to impact the type of input and the negotiation of meaning that emerges during teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions. Results show that negotiation of meaning (e.g., comprehension checks, clarification requests) provides learners with (1) comprehensible input, (2) feedback, and (3) opportunities to modify the output to meet the interactional demands (Long, 1981, 1983; Pica, 1994). Ancillary benefits are that negotiation of meaning (i.e., comprehensible input) segments and simplifies language that can aid language development. The provision of feedback can push learners to notice
language features, again hypothesized to facilitate language development. And finally, output, as stipulated by the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985), pushes learners to move from semantic
processing (passive knowledge) to syntactic processing. The benefits of tasks are also recognized in language teaching pedagogy. Tasks have been used in a number of classrooms. In their
simplest forms, tasks are used to supplement structure-based syllabi, also known as Task-
Supported Language Teaching (Samuda & Bygate, 2008). A stronger view of tasks, Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), places tasks at the center of the syllabus (Ellis, 2003).
With growing interest in the use of tasks, there is increasing pressure for the development of empirically grounded task difficulty classifications (Ellis, 2003; Robinson, 2001a; Skehan & Foster, 2001). Skehan (Skehan, 1996, 1998; Skehan & Foster, 2001) proposes a cognitive classification of task difficulty that can impact the degree of attentional demands on
interlanguage development. Skehan and Foster (2001) have developed a three-part classification of task difficulty: (1) code complexity, (2) cognitive complexity, and (3) communicative stress. The first of these, code complexity, includes vocabulary load and linguistic complexity and variety. The second, cognitive complexity, is subdivided into two dimensions, namely, cognitive familiarity (e.g., topic familiarity, discourse, genre, and task familiarity) and cognitive
processing (e.g., content and organization of the task, processing load, and quantity of
information). The third dimension, communicative stress, includes time pressure (e.g., number of participants), length of text, modality, stakes, and opportunities of control.
A second cognitive complexity classification is the Triadic Componential Framework proposed by Robinson (2001b, 2003, 2007a, 2007b). This three-part classificatory system categorizes both tasks and learner variables. This framework includes: (1) task complexity- cognitive factors (i.e., variables relating to the design of the task), (2) task conditions-interactive factors (i.e., variables relating to interactional demands of a task), and (3) task difficulty (i.e., learner variables).
Proponents of TBLT are currently testing several aspects of tasks. Samuda and Bygate (2008) discuss eight areas that have received some attention but warrant further attention. These include (1) teachers’ procedures and processes (Samuda, 2001), (2) learners’ procedures and processes, (3) task design (e.g., task complexity, roles required by task) (Baralt, 2010; Gilabert, 2005; Kim, 2009; Nuevo, 2006; Robinson, 1995, 2001b, 2011), (4) conditions of implementation (e.g., task familiarity, planning time, task repetition) (Bygate, 2001; Foster, 2001; Kim, in press; Lynch & Maclean, 2000; Yuan & Ellis, 2003), (5) dynamics around the tasks (e.g., negotiation of meaning) (Gass & Varonis, 1985; Long, 1981, 1983; Swain & Lapkin, 2000, 2001), (6) construal of tasks by learners and teachers (Murphy, 1993), (7) individual differences (Dornyei & Skehan, 2003), and (8) the relationship between tasks and curriculum. Although the
relationship between these features continues to form the basis of much empirical research, there is positive evidence that tasks are important tools and vehicles that foster language development (see e.g., Robinson, 2011).
With tasks then, learners are afforded multiple opportunities to use language in
meaningful interactions with their peers. By participating in meaningful interactions, in line with an SCT perspective, learners can use language to mediate their thoughts and actions and – with the guidance of their peers and/or teacher – may be able to achieve higher levels of language. As such, researchers from an SCT perspective have also examined the role of tasks in language pedagogy, the topic of the following section.