CC BY
4
Вестник Томского государственного университета. 2024. № 505. С. 209-216 Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta - Tomsk State University Journal. 2024. 505. рр. 209-216
Original article
UDC 372.881.111.1
doi: 10.17223/15617793/505/23
Effective task input strategies as an alternative to form-based task instruction
Anna A. Powell1
1 Novosibirsk State Technical University, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, [email protected]
Abstract. The article is concerned with certain aspects of second language acquisition which define a number of contradictions that language teaching faces today. The article provides theoretical observation of the key findings in the field of second language acquisition, foreign language teaching and task-based learning followed by a detailed description of the results of the research conducted by the author. Based on the data and aspects discussed, the author suggests task input strategies which can serve as an effective alternative to form-based instruction.
Keywords: target language, form-based instruction, meaning-based instruction, explicit knowledge, implicit knowledge
For citation: Powell, A.A. (2024) Effective task input strategies as an alternative to form-based task instruction. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta - Tomsk State University Journal. 505. pp. 209-216. doi: 10.17223/15617793/505/23
Introduction
There is no disagreement today regarding the fact that language teaching has developed immensely over the past decades. A modern teacher of foreign languages is equipped with a wide repertoire of tools, methods and approaches all of which continuously evolve along with the ongoing change that takes place in all spheres of our lives. It must be noted that the terms methods and approaches are not quite synonymous. "Method" is used to refer to a set of clearly defined techniques and procedures for teaching a language. In contrast, the term "approach" refers to a set of general principles that can guide the choice of specific techniques and procedures [1. P. 31]. However, despite a certain degree of disagreement regarding the definitions and in some cases the relation of existing practices to either "methods" or "approaches", there is a general consensus that none of these practices can be defined as being the one exemplary choice that would be equally effective in all learning environments and all learning objectives. On the contrary, it is much more likely that an experienced teacher of a foreign language uses a wide range of methods and approaches to suit each particular case.
As learning objectives differ greatly, the work in the classroom may also be conducted in various forms. Whether the instructions given to the students are inductive or deductive; whether they are to work on some task or tasks in a controlled, semi-controlled or a free of the teacher's control manner; whether there is a desirable predetermined outcome or not, a lesson structure can be generalised as to traditionally include a certain number of stages. The initial stage is often set to engage the students and lead them into further work. This stage can be built around the presentation of the target language; the instruction for the further tasks or the presentation of the materials that further work will be built upon. The following stage is often built around one specific task or a sequence of tasks aimed at the production of the target language and/or the
development of certain skills. The final stage of a lesson is often concerned with some form of feedback. There can of course be major variation within this suggested sequence and outside of it. The first stage may be preceded by testing activities that would, for instance, identify the learner's current knowledge of the target language, while the last one may or may not include assessment. The assessment itself, if included, may or may not be based on a predetermined desirable outcome. There certainly could be many more or fewer stages in the sequence.
Theoretical background
Referencing earlier research, M. Long states that over the centuries there have been ongoing changes in language teaching trends between interventionist and non-interventionist positions; between focus on form and focus on meaning. Outlining the drawbacks of synthetic and analytic approaches, M. Long claims that the main issue of the synthetic approach and focus on form lies with the fact that language learning in this case is primarily seen as skill building where target units are learnt one after another in a certain sequence, unified for all learners. Then, once learnt, the units should comprise a native-like repertoire [2. P. 21]. A long time before that P. Skehan had stated that teachers can be sure that learners will make use of the language they experience, but however carefully the language exposure may be orchestrated by the teacher, there cannot be any certainty regarding the exact ways they will make use of it as these processes are not amenable to teacher control. In other words, he insisted that acquiring a language is not simply a matter of converting input into output [3]. M. Paradis clearly distinguishes explicit and implicit knowledge, he states that while the first one is acquired consciously and therefore it enables learners to represent it to themselves and verbalise it on demand, the second type of knowledge is learnt incidentally, at the moment when a learner is focusing on something else [4. P. 8]. Developing this idea
© Powell A.A., 2024
and referencing R. Schmidt and S. Krashen, R. Ellis points out that learning takes place both intentionally when learners make a deliberate attempt to learn something or incidentally through exposure to input. However, having distinguished consciousness as "intentionality" and "attention", he argued that irrespective of whether learning is intentional or incidental it involves consciousness at the level of attention. [1, p. 10] M. Long also points out that explicit instruction in a particular structure, even a complex one, can produce measurable learning [2. P. 22]. Thus, presented together, these statements bring a certain level of controversy to the synthetic approach to language teaching.
Further in his research M. Long also outlines the drawbacks of the analytical approach which are the assumption that the capacity for implicit learning remains strong in adults; the time that implicit learning requires may not always be available, as well as the interference of the native language that may cause complications. He says that some of these drawbacks may easily be fixed following a synthetic approach [2, p. 25-26]. J. Harmer says that the instinctual ability to absorb language and context and to transform them into an ability to understand and speak "perfectly" does not last forever, that around puberty people develop certain abilities that make them better learners but may also make them less able to respond to language on a purely instinctive level [5, p. 50]. These statements suggest that even those linguists who support an implicit, natural, non-interventionist approach to language learning see certain complications that an explicit, interventionist approach, though having its own drawbacks, may address more successfully.
Promoting the benefits of TBLT (Task-based language teaching), R. Ellis admits the importance of focus on form but advises against synthetic approaches to language learning and controlled practice activities. He points out that it is not possible to learn everything intentionally and that there has to be opportunity for incidental learning. Thus, he supports the alternative facilitation of attention to form through interaction when learners experience problems; by providing opportunities for planning before they start a task or highlighting features in the input of an input-based task. It is important to say that by "task" he suggests a specific classroom activity which has its primary focus on communication; contains a gap; allows the learners to use their own linguistic resources and is defined successful when its non-linguistic meaning-focused outcome is achieved [6]. M. Long supports this vision when he states that the analytic approach to language learning combined with focus on form captures the advantages of focus-on-meaning approaches while simultaneously avoiding their shortcomings. [2, p. 29] However, it is important to note that the reality often challenges the opportunity to opt for an analytic, meaning-focused approach to syllabus design when it comes to language teaching in a public school or even more so when it comes to a state university. In terms of university education, a wide number of factors mentioned above make strictly analytic approaches impossible to implement within the course. Thus, a foreign language program within any university course is always limited in time and implies a set degree of measurable skill building, the assessment of which is often understandably form-based.
It must also be noted that following J. Harmer statement mentioned above, the university students are at the age when their natural capacity for language acquisition is lower than that in children and is shaped by their learning experience while simultaneously confronted by their increasing learning ability. This is not to mention the constant interference of the native language and its predominance in the life of the students when the university is located outside of the target-language environment.
Following Ellis [7]; Housen and Pierrard [8] and Nas-saji [9] S. Loewen speaks about instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) as a subfield discipline of second language acquisition (SLA) which he defines as a theoretically and empirically based field of academic inquiry that aims to understand how the systematic manipulation of the mechanism of learning and/or the conditions under which they occur enable or facilitate the development and acquisition of an additional language [10]. This is based on the earlier work where he and M. Sato referencing explicit and implicit knowledge as well as differences in learners' objectives, instruction goals and targets of manipulation, highlighted that over the last several decades it became clear that meaning-focused instruction alone would not bring about the level of accuracy in a second language that the learner might desire. Focus on form must be considered in order to develop both fluency and accuracy [11, p. 5]. Additionally, J. Harmer and I. Nation speak of the importance of repetition in terms of repetition of encounters with language which are spaced out - that is, language which students come back to again and again, with time lapses in between [5] and rich instruction of frequent vocabulary items that suggest the importance of several meetings with the word and focus on many aspects of what is involved in knowing a word [12]. These statements, however, should be expanded further when looking at the language learning within a state university foreign language course, where the meaning-focused approach alone may not be sufficient enough to bring about the levels of fluency and accuracy not only desired by the learner but also predetermined as satisfactory by the university program. In this reality ISLA seems to provide a certain degree of benefit to language learning when it comes to education within a state university foreign language course as it considers both the importance of focus on form and focus on meaning.
However, setting unified form-based instructions also has its own complications that must be considered as there is another important factor that influences the process of language learning and language application. Students' individual differences, their cognitive skills and language aptitudes as well as the differences in their learning experiences and objectives influence the strategies they apply and the language they choose to use. R.L. Sparks conducted research aimed at defining the extent to which individual differences in cognitive skills and first language achievement would predict individual differences in second language achievement and proficiency. According to their findings, individual differences in first language skills accounted for 27-44% of the variance for second language writing proficiency; that students' literacy skills in their first language largely affect their second language writing literacy skills.
Therefore proving that SLA variability though often attributed to contextual factors - such as classroom versus immersion learning and typological distance between the first and the second language is also widely defined by students' cognitive skills and native language proficiency [13, p. 501]. Moreover, M. F. Cam and O.A. Obdalova in their recent research on intercultural communication highlight the modern reality in which the teaching process is not only affected by the factors stated above but also by international and intercultural communication [14]. Thus, as Jeremy Harmer pointed out, the moment we realise that a class is composed of individuals and not a unified whole, we have to start thinking about how to respond to these students individually so that while we may frequently teach the group as a whole, we will also address the different identities we are faced with [5, p. 85]. Indeed, it is true to say that in most cases in a situation when the target language input and the task instructions were the same for all students, the output they produce often differs greatly.
In our earlier research which was conducted among a few groups of students (CEFR B1-B2) studying at Novosibirsk State Technical University the students showed a clear lack of consensus regarding the role that form-based instruction to a meaning-based task plays (meaning setting obligatory application of certain target units when completing a communicative task). Just under a half of the participants opted in favour of having grammatical or lexical units that are required to be used in a task as they found them to be supporting and helpful; while the other half of the students opted against having predetermined structures, though stating different reasoning (20% found it confusing and stated that it is difficult for them to think about the form and the meaning at the same time, whereas 31,4% were against predetermined units since they found them limiting in terms of free expression) [15]. Thus, form-based instruction to a task would serve as a limiting factor for just over a half of the students, while the other half would choose to rely on it when experiencing difficulties. P. Lightbown and N. Spada say that there can be little doubt that an expectation that a single way of teaching all students and an expectation that all students can learn in the same way will deprive some students of learning opportunities [16]. However, while the effect of instruction is said to be affected by the teacher's characteristics, it is not possible for a teacher to customize instruction to suit the abilities or preferences of all students [17]. Stating the importance of consideration of individual differences, interests and abilities of foreign language learners, I. Kazachkhina conducted research aimed at examination of the future teachers' of English professional skills in adapting teaching materials for a differentiated foreign language classroom. The results of the research showed that there are a number of difficulties that teachers face when adapting student book materials to the individual needs of the students [18]. Moreover, in their research into individual differences and the problem of er-godicity W. M. Lowie and M. H. Verspoor, challenge the traditional view on research into individual differences in second language learning which is commonly based on group studies with the implicit assumption that findings can be generalised to the individual. They empirically proved that such research findings cannot predict much
about any individual's behaviour at any point in time [19].
Thus, there are a number of contradictions to the way we understand the process of language acquisition and the way that it is often implemented or required within a state university foreign language program. Students vary greatly in terms of their cognitive skills, language aptitudes, personalities, learning objectives, experiences and strategies, therefore, the choices they make when interacting or completing a task are often different and out of the teacher's control, yet they are predominantly the ultimate focus of most syllabuses and are a part of either the task or the course assessment. Finally, the teacher's actions may affect learners' performance but for a number of reasons stated above it seems impossible for a foreign language teacher to quickly identify all of their learner' differences within the group in order not to make unnecessary generalisations about the group as a whole and then effectively respond to all these factors at once when teaching a group of individual learners especially within a set course syllabus setting.
This controversial reality defines the need for thorough consideration regarding the lesson models teachers choose to follow as well as the design of the tasks and their instructions. Working in the field of instructional design R.E. Mayer discusses the promise of example-based instruction and the need for evidence-based principles for how to design effective instruction based on examples. He further claims that procedural tasks that can be presented as step-by-step examples appear to be the types of learning tasks that are best taught by example-based instruction [20, p. 914]. Therefore, the present research is aimed at receiving clear and objective data in order to conclude whether task instruction form influences the target language output within a meaning-based task and if so, the way different forms of task instruction (including example-based instruction) affect students' performance in terms of the students' application of the target units while allows their self-expression.
The research question is: What unified for all students task input forms within the TBLT approach can simultaneously consider the students ' individual differences and ensure target language application?
Research
1. Research model and methods. The work within the current research was done in the form of task-supported teaching [6]. Being a language teaching approach, it allows major variation regarding the forms in which the work on the tasks can be shaped which defined the novelty in the methodology of the present research.
Over a period of six months the students were working with units 1-4 of the "Road map" B2 set. The research work was done for unit sections 1C, 2 A, 2C, 4B specifically, each containing new lexical and grammatical target structures and various practice activities. All lessons held for the purposes of the current research had a similar lesson structure. The lesson traditionally started with a lead-in stage, followed by the presentation of the target language conducted in various inductive forms. The work then continued with the practice activities provided in the book which engaged the students in writing, speaking, listening or reading based on what is set by the book's syllabus. To avoid
any confusion, the book practice activities will from now on be always referred to as "book practice activities". Once the input of the target language of the unit and its controlled practice activities were completed, the students were given a "final practice task" which had only meaning-based instruction. This task was designed either additionally to the book materials or was built as a major expansion to one of the final activities provided in the book. The students completed four such "final practice tasks" in total, one for each unit section stated above. Each of these tasks had different input form and task format and will be described in detail further in the article.
The present research is mixed-methods-based; once the tasks were completed the research continued in the form of quantitative assessment of the application of the lexical target units by the students in their task output followed by further multiple-choice questioning in order to interpret the results received. After that the participants were additionally asked a series of open-ended questions to understand their reasoning behind the application of the target units for the tasks they had completed as well as their learning experience in terms of task forms and their instructions. It is important to state that the quantitative analysis of the target language output was done strictly for the aims of the research and within the research question; the participants did not know that there would be further form-based task output assessment. The findings discovered by the present research will be provided in the next section of the article, followed by their interpretation in the final part of the article.
2. Participants. The participants of the research were first-year students studying at the Faculty of Humanities at Novosibirsk State Technical University. The total number of participants was 24, CEFR level B1-B2. It is important to highlight that within the present research all of the participants worked on four different final practice tasks designed within the task-supported syllabus in the same order. This enabled us to look at the impacts of the task design and the task input forms more objectively due to the lack of the interference of many linguistic and extra linguistic factors among different heterogeneous groups of participants which could have compromised the findings.
3. Experimental work. Now we would like to outline the four "final practice tasks" that were designed and given to the students at the end of each unit section. We will not, however, describe in detail the "book practice activities" the students worked with prior to the "final practice task" as they can be found in the Road Map B2 set. The final conclusions will be given at the end of this article.
Task 1 was introduced when the students were working with unit 1C: "Personalities". This unit section is concerned with certain personality traits as well as set phrases and verb + noun collocations that can also be used when talking about a person's character. After completing the practice tasks provided in the book, the students were presented with 12 short descriptions of the zodiac signs and they were to choose one of them to work with. The target vocabulary of the unit was built by us into the zodiac sign descriptions. The objective of the task was for the students to conduct brief research discovering whether or not people who were born under one zodiac sign possess the personality traits listed in the description. The students studied the
materials, formulated a list of questions, conducted their interviews, summarised the data and finally presented the results of their work in front of the class. Including the target structures into the materials would ensure many opportunities for the target language practice through reading, listening, writing and speaking as the students were to create questions, interview people, summarise the data and present the results.
For Task 2 the students were working with Unit 2A: "What is the truth?". The target vocabulary of the unit was phrases with the verb "get" and the language used to write a personal informal email to a friend, asking for, reacting to and sharing news. The initial controlled practice of the target language was once again based on the tasks provided in the book and then the students were given the final practice task. At first, the students were to write a "social media post" sharing some news with their followers before they were to exchange them with one another in order to write a short email responding to the news in their friend's post and sharing some news of their own. Unlike the final practice Task 1 of the experimental work, this time the students were provided with an example email. The structure of the email was discussed briefly and there was not much attention drawn to the specific language used in the email. Once the work was completed, the results were assessed as to including or not including the target structures.
Task 3 was designed for Unit 2C: "It is so annoying!", which is concerned with different common complaints that people have, -ed/-ing adjectives, as well as certain vocabulary which can be used to give advice and to respond to these complaints. After the standard initial work with the unit tasks the students were given the final practice task. They were put in pairs and each pair was given a printout sheet imitating a messenger application interface, where the students were to "chat". The instructions to the task were as follows: student 1 needed to "text" their friend to ask for advice on some problem they face. They were to write short texts on different sides of the printout for it to look like a real chat in a messenger. The role of student 2 was to reply to the message, support the conversation and give some advice. At this stage of the experiment it was decided not to provide the students with any examples of how the task should be completed or any specific materials that include the target vocabulary. The work was conducted this way in order to check how often the lexical target units would be used by the students in the final practice task if they had only been exposed to traditional controlled activities provided by the book which are built around the target language.
Task 4 for unit 4B: "Job skills" was rather different from the first three tasks as it was the only one containing formal and more complex language. Once again, at first the students completed all of the book practice activities concerning vocabulary to describe job requirements and the language that can be used to write a covering email responding to a job advert. The job adverts' structures as well as the example emails had been studied and discussed. The students compared the information stated in the example covering email with the requirements provided by the job advert; they discussed its relevance to the job advert and the specifics of the language the person used as well as the
purpose of each paragraph. The students tried to come up with potential alternatives, creating other ways the same ideas may be phrased.
After that the students started their work on the final practice task. This time the students were first to write a job advert for one of the jobs suggested to them that they could in the future apply for, being students of linguistics. Once again, there was no instruction as to the language that must be used but there was instruction as to what kind of information should be included in the advert. The language used by the teacher for the instruction included some of the target units. Once the job adverts were written, the students were to exchange the adverts with their partners and proceed to work on the covering email.
Results
The results of the students' work on Task 1 "Zodiac sign research" provided the outcome that had been expected. In the majority of the cases (15 out of 24) students applied multiple target units given in the task materials. 7 students out of 24 chose to include only one or two units and there were only two exceptional cases when the students did not include any of the target language structures. However, it is necessary to make two noteworthy points regarding these findings. First of all, those students who did not apply any of the target units and those participants who used only one or two units chose synonyms for the wording of their questions which suggests that the target units were considered and understood correctly when the students were dealing with the task materials. Second of all, because of the way the task was built, all of the students were exposed to the target language: first, when reading the descriptions and, second, when all of the students gave their presentations orally in front of the class. This means that those who chose not to include any target language into their personal work were still additionally exposed to this language through reading and then listening.
The results of Task 2 "Informal email" showed that the absolute majority of the students (21 out of 24) used some of the structures that were provided in the example email. Those were phrases like "It has been ages since we have been in touch", "get in touch when you have got time", etc. There was a lot of variation to the language the students used and the news they shared with one another. There was also a lot of variation regarding the language they used to write the social media posts. However, the target language application frequency was not very high and the structure of the email was poor in most cases (20 emails out 24 had inaccuracies in the email structure and paragraphing; and or did not have proper opening or closing remarks). This was undoubtedly due to the intentional lack of thorough work on the task example during the pre-task stage. Such firm conclusion was made based on the later results of Task 4 completion that was similar in its nature and will be expanded at the end of this section of the article. Also, interestingly, the students did not use any of the "get + verb" structures when writing their social media posts. This fact mirrors the findings that were received after the completion of Task 3 and led us to develop further open-ended questions where the students were asked to reflect on the lack
of the application of these units and provide their reasoning. Thus, students spoke of having their own ideas for the posts; some students additionally stated that this is simpler than incorporating book's vocabulary into the text as the connection between the task discourse and the vocabulary context was not obvious. Another repeated answer was that the thought of using the vocabulary given in the book simply did not come to their mind and they found it difficult to explain why.
The results of Task 3 "Giving advice to a friend" were as follows: almost all of the students (19) used one or in some cases two phrases provided in the book which they applied correctly to start their messages containing advice. Interestingly, those students who also used some of the -ed/-ing target adjectives provided in the unit, used only those that are clearly related to the context of experiencing problems, such as "annoying, frustrating, and irritating"; none of the students chose such units as "encouraged/encouraging"; "entertained/entertaining", "tempted/tempting", etc. Additionally, none of the students chose to use any of the vocabulary provided in the book that describes the types of complaints that people might have. Following the structure of Task 2 assessment, the students were asked as to why they did not think to use any of the examples from the book when creating their complaints. Most frequently the students spoke about having their own ideas as well as the desire to express creativity when possible, since there were no instructions to use the lexical units from the book. The other answers mirrored those for Task 2 - meaning that the students simply did not think of it or they did not like the ideas given in the book.
In Task 4 "Covering email" all of the students used the target units and the target structures to write both their job adverts and the covering emails. The absolute majority of the students (20 out of 24) copied numerous sentences presented in the task example. According to the answers the students provided when asked about the reasons behind this decision, such major success can be attributed to the facts that the students find formal language more challenging; using units provided by the example helped them deliver the expected task result; and most frequently students spoke about the fact that they had no prior experience in writing job adverts or covering emails, therefore following the example provided seemed most logical to them.
All of the results of the survey are presented in Table.
Additionally, the students were asked a series of questions related to their learning experiences and form-based task instruction. When asked a multiple-choice question regarding the reasons that would make the participants borrow some words/collocations/ sentences from the example provided for the writing task (the participants could choose 1-3 variants), the most popular answers were: "I will do so if it is obligatory" (12 students); "I will do so if the task is difficult for me" (11 students) and "I will do so if I am not familiar with the task topic/discourse/have no prior experience in writing this kind of text" (12 students). Eight students also chose the option "I will do so if the vocabulary necessary for the task is difficult for me". And only five students said "I will do so if I have no ideas of my own".
The effects of various meaning-based task input strategies on the form-based task outcome
Task 1 Task 2 Informal email Task 3 Task 4
Task instruction aspect Zodiac sign research Giving advice to a friend Covering email
The target language (TL) is included in the materials neces- + +
sary for the task completion
The TL is included in the ex- + +
ample
The example is thoroughly discussed - - - +
The students engage in:
Writing/reading + + + +
Listening/Speaking + - - +
Results
Frequent application of the TL 15 stu- 20 stu-
in the task outcome dents dents
Application of 1-2 TL units in 7 stu- 21 stu- 19 stu- 4 stu-
the task outcome dents dents dents dents
Lack of TL units application in 2 stu- 3 stu- 5 stu-
the task outcome dents dents dents
Interestingly, when asked an opposite question: "Having an example, I will NOT borrow any words/ colloca-tions/ sentences used in it if...", 14 students said "I will not do so if I have plenty of my own ideas"; 12 times the students said "I will not do so if the topic of the task is simple and clear"; 10 times the students chose "I will not do so if the vocabulary that I need to produce this kind of writing is simple for me"; while 8 times the students chose both: "I have written this kind of texts many times before" and "It is not obligatory".
The possible implications of these results are provided in the following section of this article.
Discussion and conclusion
Thus, the research has confirmed a number of statements made in the theoretical part of the present article.
The application of the target units was much lower in those tasks when the students did not have any materials or examples to build their work on and the choice to turn to the book materials was entirely theirs. This empirically proves that doing controlled course book activities increases the application of the target language but is not as sufficient as developing further work within a task-supported teaching approach that would include complex work with materials and examples containing target language. This confirms the statement made by R.E. Mayer regarding the potential of example-based task instruction and is possibly mirrored in the findings of the questioning that the students took part in. The students frequently choose to turn to the example and rely on the language provided in the materials for the task not only when they are told to do so but even when there is no direct instruction to do so, but rather, because they are facing difficulties and they personally find it helpful either because of the formal register of the work they are producing or the context / type of writing they are not very familiar with. It is also important to note, that based on the answers given, in this kind of context the students considered new lexical units to be an important part of the task format, therefore, applying them, in their
opinion, would bring the desirable meaning-based outcome. The second claim, made by R. E. Mayer that procedural tasks appear to be the types of tasks that are best taught by example-based instruction has been partially confirmed by the present research. Students did apply target lexical units in Tasks 2 and 4, both of which implied writing emails, though the task discourse seems to play an important role in the frequency of the target units' application. Thus, when experiencing difficulties with the task format itself, the register of the language or having no prior real-life experience they are more likely to turn to the example provided than when working with neutral, informal language / context or a familiar kind of procedural task which they do not find overall challenging.
In this case, providing the students with materials that they would have to use in order to complete the task may be a better solution to providing an example work, as it was done for Task 1. The findings regarding the assessment of Task 1 also speak to the struggles outlined by W.M. Lowie, M.H. Verspoor and R.L. Sparks. The task design implied much variation within it and allowed space for individual differences, therefore, not only the students had a lot of freedom to choose the lexical units they wanted to continue their work with, but also the forms for the presentation of their task results. The application of the target units was lower than that for Task 4, but higher than that for Tasks 2 and 3 (also with non-formal register). Moreover, since the presentation of the task output was built in the form of public speaking, the students in the classroom were additionally exposed to the target language while they were listening to each other's presentations which allowed consideration of their general cognitive differences as well as repetition and rich instruction mentioned above as researched by J. Harmer and I. Nation.
There also seems to be an interesting incompatibility in the answers that the students gave which suggest that the focus of the question shapes the way they think of their reasoning, thus: when asked about the act of copying lexical units from the examples, the participants predominantly associated it with difficulties they experience and only few of them spoke about having no ideas of their own; while when speaking of not copying the lexical units from the examples, the majority of them put having personal ideas in focus of their reasoning. This made us pay more attention to the open-ended questions that the participants answered regarding their experiences on completing specific tasks.
There seems to be a clear trend regarding the lack of application of those target units that can be used to create a piece of writing concerning students' personal life experiences whether real or imaginable. Based on the answers the students gave, when they are asked to tell or create a short story that has indeed or has supposedly happened to them, the variety of potential scenarios is so big that they simply do not think of turning to the book's target language unless they are strictly told to do so. They do, however, still turn to the book materials and examples when they are facing difficulties wording certain more complex sentences within the same context, like those that could start the conversation, e.g., "It has been ages since we have been in
touch" in Task 2 and "you must feel overwhelmed" in Task 3.
Another important deduction must be made regarding the comparability between the task discourse and the context in which the target units are likely to be applied. Thus, when completing Task 2 where the students described personal complaints, none of them applied the units "encouraged/encouraging", "entertained/entertaining", "tempted/tempting", and, as further questioning showed, this could have happened due to the fact that they did not think these units matched the task discourse.
To conclude, it is clear from the research results presented above that some of the strategies do not seem to produce the desirable result in all of the cases, but as it is known from teaching experience, form-based instructions do not always produce such results either. What is more, about a half of the students see such instructions as limiting [15], as they do not speak to their individual differences. Meanwhile, the importance of consideration of students' individual and cultural differences, cognitive skills, their learning experiences and the findings in the field of SLA and ISLA are regularly confronted with the need of objective holistic assessment of the students' language ability and skill development throughout and at the end of a state university foreign language course. The present research has confirmed that there are a number of alternative to form-based instruction task input forms which seem to possess capability to respond to the linguistic and extra linguistic factors stated above.
Based on the quantitative and qualitative findings of the work conducted within the research question that had been set, there is a number of guidelines that can be outlined:
1. Providing the students with form-based instruction regarding the completion of the task they are to work on is not the only way to ensure form-based performance of the task;
2. Students seem to refer to the book practice activities and task input materials when they are challenged either by the complexity of the task or the complexity of the topic even when the application of the target language is not a part of the task instruction. However, such application seems to be inconsistent and rather limited and may not appear in all of the students' works;
3. If the objective of the task is to maximise the probability of the target language application, it seems more effective to follow one or a few of the following strategies:
• When designing the task, fair attention should be drawn to its context and the context of the target units in order to avoid any potential clash in their discourses that could lead to some of the units being overlooked or left out;
• If the target language is represented by various separate lexical units related to one topic, especially if the task has informal register and/or familiar discourse, it seems to be most effective to include these units into the materials the students will have to actively use during their work on the final practice task;
• If the target language is represented by phrases or full sentences, especially when they have formal register and or the task's discourse is challenging or unfamiliar, it is more advisable to consider providing the students with a clear example that would include these target phrases;
• In the cases outlined above, the target language does not need to be regarded as such, but the examples and materials provided should be worked with thoroughly prior to the work on the final practice task. This work could be done through analysis, discussion, work with synonyms and antonyms, paraphrasing, etc. This ensures that the learners engage not only in writing and reading when completing the task, but also in listening and speaking;
• Including the target language into the wording of the instruction that the teacher gives in speaking or in writing also positively affects target-language application;
4. In order to guarantee the maximum exposure to and the application of target language and consider students' individual differences, it is important to design a complex task structure:
• Once the students have been provided with the materials and/or an example; once it has been thoroughly discussed and analysed and once the students have been given the final meaning-based instructions, they should naturally encounter the target language numerous times and in numerous forms (in writing, speaking, reading and listening);
• Delivering the task outcome presentation in a public or a group format ensures that those students who did not apply the target structures still get additional exposure to them while reading/listening to their peers' work;
• Finally, it is important to build a complex post-task stage, where after the presentation of the task results the students engage in some follow-up activities in the form of asking questions, taking part in a discussion, participating in quizzes or voting etc.
The research findings have empirically proved that following one or more than one strategy described above ensures target language application in the task output which is often implied by a set course syllabus. Moreover, unlike form-based instruction, the strategies examined within the research simultaneously provide the students with the freedom of choice and expression in terms of their language abilities, their individual and learning differences. Indeed, following the task input strategies provided in the article would not create any negative connotation among the students but on the contrary a positive one being "helpful" rather than "limiting" as the application of the target language becomes the product of the students' free will. The task input and task forms described in the present article, allow the teachers not to over-generalise the group of students but also not to alter their instructions to suit each individual learner in the group while simultaneously ensure form-based outcome which can be measured and assessed if it is required by the course format.
All of the findings described above create objective grounds for further research that, without a doubt, needs to be done on a greater scale.
References
1. Ellis, R. & Shintani, N. (2014) Exploring language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research. Oxon: Routledge.
2. Long, M. (2015) Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. UK: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
3. Skehan P. (1996) Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In: Jane Willis & Dave Willis (eds) Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Heinemann. pp. 17-30.
4. Paradis, M.A. (2004) Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
5. Harmer, J. (2007) The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Longman.
6. Ellis, R. (2020) Cambridge. Live Experience. [Online] Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsBTQgE8uhw&list= PLpmCHL8PnXq_DRcvJpaXIaPs4nFqtrgSl (Accessed: 20.08.2023).
7. Ellis, R. (2005) Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
8. Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (2005) Investigations in instructed second language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
9. Nassaji, H. (2016) Research timeline: Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. Language Teaching. 49. pp. 35-62.
10. Loewen, S. (2020) Introduction to Instructed Second Language Acquisition. UK: Taylor & Francis.
11. Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (2019) The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition. UK: Routledge.
12. Nation I.S.P. (2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
13. Sparks, R., Dale, P. & Patton, J. (2023) Individual differences in L1 attainment and language aptitude predict L2 achievement in instructed language learners. The Modern Language Journal. 107. pp. 479-508.
14. Cam, M.F. & Obdalova, O.A. (2023) The technology of communicative training as a means of developing skills of foreign language intercultural communication of students. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta — Tomsk State University Journal. 488. pp. 5-13. doi: doi: 10.17223/15617793/488/1
15. Powell, A.A. (2023) Teaching new vocabulary through TBLT tasks. In: Urgent problems of modern society. Development through integration. Novosibirsk: NSTU NETI. pp. 15-19.
16. Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2021) How Languages Are Learned. 5th Edition. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
17. Borg, S. & Sanchez, H. (eds) (2015) International perspectives on teacher research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
18. Kazachkhina, I.A. (2022) Material Adaptation Applying Differentiated Approach to Teaching Foreign Languages. Sibirskiy uchitel. 5(144). pp. 39-45.
19. Lowie, W.M. & Verspoor, M.H. (2019) Individual differences and the Ergodicity problem. Language learning. March. pp. 184-206.
20. Mayer, R.E. (2020) Advances in designing instruction based on examples. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 34. pp. 912-915.
Information about the author:
A.A. Powell, lecturer, Novosibirsk State Technical University (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation). E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID: 0000-0001-6741-6615
The author declares no conflicts of interests.
Информация об авторе:
Повелл А.А - преподаватель кафедры иностранных языков Новосибирского государственного технического университета (Новосибирск, Россия). E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID: 0000-0001-6741-6615
Автор заявляет об отсутствии конфликта интересов.
Статья поступила в редакцию 13.01.2024; одобрена после рецензирования 09.05.2024; принята к публикации 30.08.2024.
The article was submitted 13.01.2024; approved after reviewing 09.05.2024; accepted for publication 30.08.2024.
