Challenges of Task-based Language Teaching in Online and Blended
Learning Contexts
John Iveson
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Sheridan College, Trafalgar Road, Oakville, ON, Canada
Keywords: Task-based Language Teaching, TBLT, Task-based Learning.
Abstract: Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is a widely applied approach in second language education. The
benefits and challenges of TBLT have been debated over the past thirty years. The advent of technology
enhanced learning (TEL) and the use of TBLT in online and blended contexts have revealed further benefits
and challenges with this approach. This study briefly summarises the historical background of TBLT,
common approaches to TBLT and definitions of tasks. The paper then reviews recent literature relating to
TBLT and TEL with specific reference to challenges involving student participation, negotiated meaning
and focus on form. The study argues for a comprehensive reassessment of TBLT frameworks in order to
address technology related challenges of the TBLT approach.
1 INTRODUCTION
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been a
prominent approach to language teaching for over
thirty years. Growing awareness of the limitations of
more traditional second language teaching
approaches such as Presentation, Practice and
Performance (PPP), fostered an interest in the TBLT
approach (Ellis, 2003). TBLT itself has its
foundations in a range of learning theories
(Hişmanoğlu and Hişmanoğlu, 2011) including
information processing (Levelt, 1989), input
processing (vanPatten, 1996), neo-Vygotskian
sociocultural theory (Lantolf, 2000) and the
interactionist approach (Mackey, Gass and
McDonough, 2006). The approach has strong
affiliations with constructivist theories of learning
and advocates a teaching methodology that aligns
with communicative language teaching. Rather than
seeing language acquisition as the internal
processing of structural forms and lexical items (e.g.
vocabulary words and phrases), TBLT emphasises
the need to work through tasks with others in order
to achieve outcomes with perceived real-world
relevance and application. A primary focus is on
meaning making, which again links to knowledge
being socially constructed through meaningful
engagement with others.
Generally not considered as a defined teaching
method (Ellis, 2009), TBLT is a staged process in
which communicative tasks provide the foundation
of lesson and curricular aims (Nunan, 2004;
Richards, 2005; Lai and Li, 2011). During tasks, the
primary focus is on meaning making (Skehan,
1998a) as students work towards the completion of
task objectives (Skehan, 1998b) through negotiated
interactions with peers. The fundamental premise is
that the negotiation of meaning within the context of
authentic “real-world” tasks promotes the
acquisition of language (Long, 1985; Samuda and
Bygate, 2008).
In terms of classroom-based TBLT, there have
been debates about TBLT aspects, including the
most effective framework approach, the nature of
tasks and the suitability of TBLT for all contexts.
The rapid growth in technology enhanced
learning (TEL) has created a clear need to reassess
the effectiveness of TBLT frameworks in TEL
contexts with particular reference to overarching
principles of the approach.
2 APPROACHES IN TBLT
Within the overall construct of TBLT, differing
approaches have been put forward. Two of the most
well-known approaches (Long, 1985; Skehan,
1998a) share a focus on authenticity, learner-centred
small-group work and a marked contrast with
traditional approaches such as grammar-translation
277
Iveson J..
Challenges of Task-based Language Teaching in Online and Blended Learning Contexts.
DOI: 10.5220/0005474802770282
In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2015), pages 277-282
ISBN: 978-989-758-108-3
Copyright
c
2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
and audio-lingualism. There are several variations in
these two approaches including in the treatment of
grammatical structures, whereby firstly Long
favours a corrective feedback stage and Skehan
advocates pre-task structural input. Secondly, in
terms of the type of task employed, Long uses both
focussed and unfocussed tasks (i.e. tasks designed to
promote the use of specific language features and
structures and those designed to tap into learners’
general linguistic resources) and Skehan uses
unfocused tasks only. A third widely-acknowledged
approach, that of Ellis (2003), can include teacher-
centred elements and aspects of more traditional
approaches, as well as the option of form-focused
stages at any point in a TBLT lesson.
Regarding the nature of tasks, considerable
debate has taken place on the definition of a task in
this context. A task has been variously defined as
“an activity or action which is carried out as a result
of processing or understanding language” (Richards,
Platt and Weber, 1985), “any structured language
learning endeavour which has a particular objective,
appropriate content, a specified working procedure”
(Breen, 1987, p. 23), “an activity which required
learners to arrive at an outcome from given
information” (Prabhu, 1987, p. 24), “activities where
the target language is used by the learner for a
communicative purpose” (Willis, 1996, p. 23) and “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 prepositional content has been
conveyed” (Ellis, 2003, p.13). Common themes
emphasised across task definitions include the
primacy of meaning (Van den Branden, 2006 p. 6),
the need to involve both linguistic and cognitive
resources (Van den Branden, 2006 p. 8),
nonlinguistic goals (Samuda and Bygate, 2008) and
a clearly perceived relevance to ‘real-world’
activities (Long, 1985; Skehan, 1998a).
In the researcher’s professional context, namely
adult ESL learning in Canadian higher education
institutions, the predominant language learning
frameworks that underpin curricular design are the
Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) and the
Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment
(CEFR). The guiding principles of the CLB align
closely with those of TBLT in several ways. These
include descriptors of language proficiency in terms
of ‘can-do’ statements, whereby competence in the
four language skills (listening, speaking, reading and
writing) is assessed according to performance in
“communication tasks learners will likely encounter
in the real world” (Canadian Language Benchmarks,
2012, p.16). In this Canadian context, given the
close links of the two predominant language
frameworks with TBLT plus the increasing use in
ESL learning of TEL in classroom, blended and
fully-online contexts, the need to investigate benefits
and challenges of TBLT is growing.
When new teaching approaches emerge and
challenge dominant paradigms, a degree of
resistance is expected (Woodward, 1996). TBLT has
been challenged on a number of fronts in both
classroom and online contexts. This study sets out to
examine recent views on the challenges of delivering
effective TBLT practices in online contexts. The
following research questions were formulated to
inform this literature review: How do learner-related
challenges with skills and knowledge affect the use
of TBLT frameworks in online second language
learning? What gaps exist in the literature relating to
studies of perceived TBLT challenges in online
second language learning contexts?
3 METHODOLOGY
This review of literature includes books, peer-
reviewed journal articles and conference papers.
Databases searched were ERIC, Google Scholar,
The Digital Library for Education and Information
Technology (EditLib), Science Direct and databases
in the Onesearch catalogue of Lancaster University.
Keyword searches were conducted using
combinations of the following: task-based, task-
based learning, TBL, TBLT, ESL, EFL, ELT,
CALL, computer-assisted language learning, CMC,
computer-mediated communication, language
acquisition, online and blended. Following this,
searches of reference lists and bibliographical
material were completed for further material.
4 BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES
OF TBLT
Identified benefits of TBLT in classroom contexts
include a range of positives such as increased learner
autonomy (Demir, 2008), increased learning skills
(Leaver and Kaplan, 2004), higher fluency and
complexity levels in students following a TBLT
curriculum (Rahimpour, 2008), higher degrees of
participation and student-teacher rapport (Ruso,
2007), and enhanced creativity and improved self-
esteem and social skills (McDonough and
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
278
Chaikitmongkol, 2007). Ellis (2009) details several
TBLT benefits, including ‘natural’ learning, focus
on meaning over form, motivational factors, learner
focus and improved fluency.
A range of challenges have also been identified
in classroom-based TBLT, including the need for
teacher creativity and adaptability (Carless, 2007),
student uncertainty concerning TBLT aims (Lopes,
2004), participation issues (Burrows, 2008), and
learner progress in fluency rather than accuracy
(Hatip, 2005).
4.1 Challenges in TEL-based TBLT
Following the advent of TEL in language teaching
with its consequences for the design and delivery of
TEL-based TBLT, a number of challenges have
been identified. Key areas that relate directly to
TBLT principles include participation and group
dynamics, negotiation of meaning during interaction
and questions regarding focus on form components.
All of these challenges can negatively affect online
collaborative tasks in TBLT, and the need for a
comprehensive framework for TEL in TBLT has
been put forward (Lai and Li, 2011).
4.1.1 Participation
Hampel and Hauck (2004) conducted a TBLT study
as a component of an advanced German course. The
TBLT items consisted of two 75-minute tutorials.
Fifteen voluntary participants took part. Surveys
revealed that the students were satisfied with the
tasks, but teachers also identified reluctance to
participate and decreasing task engagement. Given
that the TBLT components involved only a small
proportion of the course, this raises questions about
teacher familiarity with maintaining interest in
online contexts.
Similarly, Lai, Zhao and Wang (2011) carried
out a larger scale TBLT study on thirty eight
volunteer American high school students in an
online Chinese language course for complete
beginners. Students and instructors completed
surveys and interviews. Several concerns with
student participation were identified as tasks were
dominated by small numbers of students and rapport
was poorly established between geographically
dispersed students. These factors relate to core
principles of the social constructivist approach
behind TBLT, thereby raising important questions
about the need to maintain learner engagement and
meaningful contributions to task completion
throughout the TBLT cycle in TEL contexts. Key
recommendations from the study regarding student
participation include a familiarisation process with
TBLT principles and key linguistic features in text-
based interactions in online environments.
The need for such far reaching strategies
indicates that a fundamental shift in the learner
approach to TBLT is often required when TEL is
involved. This shift has clear implications for the
overall framework that is used in the design and
delivery of TBLT.
4.1.2 Negotiated Meaning and Interaction
In an exploratory study of sixteen Chinese EFL
learners, Yu and Zeng (2011) investigated
collaboration and relationship building in a task-
based synchronous environment. From these tasks,
online chats were analysed using quantitative and
qualitative methods. The researchers argue that
many studies of synchronous computer-mediated
communication (SCMC) are situated in frameworks
of interactionist theory (Blake, 2000) with the result
that negotiated meaning is overemphasised to the
detriment of the “collaborative dimension of peer
interaction” (Yu and Zeng, 2011). The researchers
draw a distinction between language acquisition
through negotiated meaning and a more dynamic
interaction situated in social communication. It is
argued that negotiated meanings represent a
reductionist view that simplifies the complexities of
peer-interaction and fails to account fully for
sociocultural theory (SCT) factors such as the joint
ownership of collaboratively constructed interaction
and language output (Ohta, 2000, p. 51).
The researchers also argue for task parameters to
be extended in order to focus on the agency of the
learners in constructing their own learning
objectives through their interpretation and
interactional adaptations of task boundaries
(Roebuck, 2000). This proposed extension to TBLT
adds weight to the need for framework adaptation in
online contexts. In this way, teachers and learners
should focus less on the controlling of task variables
and difficulty by the instructor or designer, but
instead should focus more on the collaborative
interactions between learners that shape and mediate
task procedures and objectives in the process of
language development.
In the study, the learners, all of whom were
familiar with online chatting and technology,
completed a text reconstruction task, involving the
addition and adaptation of function words and
lexical items to produce a meaningful text. Findings
from the study include the suggestion that off-task
ChallengesofTask-basedLanguageTeachinginOnlineandBlendedLearningContexts
279
talk may inadvertently contribute to successful task
completion through its relationship building aspect.
From a TBLT perspective, it could be argued that
off-task communication has always been
acknowledged as part of the approach given its roots
in constructivist theory.
This study does highlight the potential of task-
related talk to facilitate control over the task, but
does not explain how the language generated in the
task process may drive forward long-term language
proficiency in spoken contexts. This transferability
of communicative skills from a text-based context of
acquisition to authentic fully synchronous ‘real-life’
oral proficiency has been called into question with
many studies opting for the cautious view that such
transferability may take place only incrementally
(Chun, 1994; Hampel and Hauck, 2004). This
cautiously optimistic view also points to the need for
a reassessment of the claims for TBLT benefits in
online or blended environments.
Additionally, the literature has so far shown little
evidence that learners focus on metalinguistic
factors during the TBLT cycle (Lee, 2002). This
factor may be especially evident in SCMC
(Collentine, 2009), possibly due to the additional
task demands of synchronous communication with a
depletion of paralinguistic features to facilitate the
communication process. This aspect may relate
especially to task demands in online contexts
(Collentine, 2009). However, in Collentine’s study,
the thirty university student participants may not
have been familiar with principles and expectations
of TBLT regarding focus on form, since their normal
programme is described as traditional and F2F. This
may point to another common limitation of TBLT
studies in TEL, as studies with online task-based
curricula are often new and unfamiliar to learners.
However, the lack of learner focus on available
metalinguistic factors during the task cycle points to
another challenge for effective TBLT use in TEL.
4.1.3 Focus on Form
The main TBLT frameworks all include a focus on
form component. The general principles of TBLT
include the premise that learners will notice errors
and scaffold learning based on a combination of
input, noticing, feedback and scaffolding.
Interestingly, the Yu and Zeng (2011) study used
a traditional task of text reconstruction, from which
the usual aim is a “meaningful and grammatically
correct text” (Storch, 2002, p.125). The researchers
claimed that their adaptations of the task meant that
it meets the TBLT criteria of working in pairs;
producing a final product; and involving form and
content (Swain, 2001). This type of focussed
grammar task does have a place in TBLT
frameworks (Ellis, 2009), but it may lack some
authenticity in terms of relevance to real world tasks
and in relation to focus on form (Long, 1991),
because although students are aiming to create a
grammatically correct text, the language deployed
by learners is not subjected to any kind of form
focus either by learners or instructors. However,
later studies have found general evidence that
SCMC in TBLT has the potential to induce learners
to focus on form (Yilmaz and Granena, 2010), and
therefore to address previous claims that a focus on
form element is necessary for second language
acquisition (Long, 1991).
Another study by Lai and Zhao (2006) focussed
on noticing in text-based online chat communication
relating to spot-the-difference tasks. As a
comparison, participants also undertook a similar
task face-to-face. The Noticing Hypothesis
(Schmidt, 1990) states that in language acquisition
learners must first consciously notice incongruities
between their own language production and input of
the target forms. Noticing relates to TBLT in that
there are elements of the task cycle during which it
is expected that learners will identify salient features
of language involving, for example, grammatical
structure, lexical items and collocations, thereby
helping learners to “systemise what they have
observed about certain features of language, to
clarify concepts and to notice new things” (Willis,
1996, p. 58).
In the study, English language learners were
paired in dyads of mixed low-high language
proficiency, a format intended to stimulate
negotiated interactions. Results found that there
were significantly more instances of self-correction
in the online chat format. Also, learners indicated
that they focussed more on self-correction methods
in the online chat mode. However, there were more
examples of negotiation of meaning between
learners in the face-to-face tasks, whereas actual
noticing by learners of these instances of negotiation
of meaning was higher in the online environment.
Various factors may account for these differences in
the two modes including cognitive processing time,
text permanency, paralinguistic clues and saliency of
errors in the online environment.
More specifically in the study, noticing of
recasts (an error correction technique designed to
draw attention to errors of form, directly or
indirectly, without interrupting communicative flow)
by interlocutors was low in both online and face-to-
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
280
face contexts suggesting that learners are often
unaware of this type of less explicit negotiation of
meaning. This finding indicates that learners may
benefit from explicit instruction about the types of
feedback likely to be given by interlocutors. Also, it
adds weight to the argument that teacher feedback
on pertinent areas of form following tasks may be
beneficial at this stage of the TBLT cycle in TEL
contexts. For this study, it should also be noted that
a third of the participants in the study had no
previous experience of online chatting and none of
the participants had previously used the chat
software. The study indicates that a TBLT
methodology using online chat may promote the
noticing of learners’ own mistakes, a finding also
put forward in other studies (Abrams, 2003; Smith
2004).
However, as noted previously, the question
remains as to whether the noticing of errors in online
chat is an effective means of promoting error
identification and correction in face-to-face
communication. Some studies have shown evidence
of successful uptake, (generally defined either as
learner reports of a lesson [Slimani, 1989] or as a
reaction to feedback where language output may be
modified [Lyster and Ranta, 1997]). For example, a
study of English language learners by Shekary and
Tahririan (2006) found evidence that uptake based in
online text interactions was a strong indicator of
successful responses in subsequent testing, although
again this should not be viewed as clear evidence of
long-term language acquisition.
5 CONCLUSIONS
A number of challenges to the use of a TBLT
approach in online environments have been
identified. Some of the main areas include factors
concerning student participation, familiarity and
acceptance with TBLT principles and related
methodologies, and the position of grammar
teaching and a focus on form in the task cycle.
Concerns about participation and the role of
grammar may often relate to a lack of familiarity
with the overarching principles of TBLT. This
suggests that some challenges surrounding
participation and grammar may be alleviated by
greater awareness and familiarity with TBLT
principles. Also, studies of TBLT in which learners
and instructors are already familiar with the
approach would likely benefit from having these
limitations reduced. Similarly, ensuring that learners
are equipped with basic linguistic resources to
participate in online communication environments
would also offset some participation challenges. For
TBLT principles, this remains an area that is
unfamiliar to many students and instructors. Given
that the TBLT approach already has several
variations, further options afforded by TEL
environments may increase the range of frameworks.
In either case, there is a clear need for a general
framework that integrates TBLT with TEL.
Likewise, given the growth of TBLT as the adopted
approach in second language learning and the
ongoing spread of TEL in all areas of education,
there is a clear need for TBLT and TEL to be
included in the curricula of initial language teacher
training programmes. This study indicated the strong
affiliations of TBLT with social constructivism;
connections which are also mentioned in relation to
several studies in the literature. For future research,
applying social constructivism as a theoretical lens
through which to examine the use of TBLT in TEL
contexts may provide further insights into
addressing the challenges of TBLT frameworks in
second language learning using technology.
REFERENCES
Abrams, ZI. (2003) The effect of synchronous and
asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German.
The Modern Language Journal. 87 (2). pp. 157-167.
Blake, R. (2000) Computer mediated communication: A
window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language
Learning and Technology. 4 (1). pp. 120-136.
Breen, M. (1987) Learner contributions to task design.
Language learning tasks. 7. pp. 23-46.
Burrows, C. (2008) An evaluation of task-based learning
(TBL) in the Japanese classroom. English Today. 24
(4). pp. 11-16.
Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. (2012) CLB
support kit. Ottawa, ON.
Carless, D. (2007) The suitability of task-based
approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from
Hong Kong. System. 35, (4) pp. 595-608.
Chun, DM. (1994) Using computer networking to
facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence.
System. 22 (1). pp. 17-31.
Collentine K. (2009) Learner use of holistic language units
in multimodal, task-based synchronous computer-
mediated communication. Language Learning and
Technology. 13 (2). pp. 68-87.
Demir, A. (2008) The influence of task-based reading
activities on EFL learners' attitude and learning
outcomes from the students' perspective (Unpublished
master’s thesis). Adana, Cukurova University.
Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based language learning and
teaching. Oxford University Press, pp. 5-16.
Ellis, R. (2009) Taskbased language teaching: sorting
ChallengesofTask-basedLanguageTeachinginOnlineandBlendedLearningContexts
281
out the misunderstandings. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics. 19 (3). pp. 221-246.
Hampel, R. and Hauck, M. (2004) Towards an effective
use of audio conferencing in distance language
courses. Language Learning and Technology. 8 (1).
pp. 66-82.
Hatip, F. (2005) Task-based language learning. [Online]
Available from:
http://www.yde.yildiz.edu.tr/uddo/belgeler/inca-Funda
Hatip-TBL.htm. [Accessed: November 19
th
, 2014].
Hişmanoğlu, M. and Hişmanoğlu S. (2011) Task-based
language teaching: What every EFL teacher should do.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 15. pp. 46-
52.
Lai, C. and Li, G. (2011) Technology and task-based
language teaching: A critical review. CALICO
Journal. 28 (2). pp. 498-521.
Lai, C. and Zhao, Y. 2006 Noticing and text-based chat.
Language Learning and Technology. 10 (3). pp. 102-
120.
Lai, C., Zhao, Y. and Wang, J. (2011) TaskBased
Language Teaching in Online Ab Initio Foreign
Language Classrooms. The Modern Language
Journal. 95(Supplement 1). pp. 81-103.
Lantolf, JP. (2000) Second language learning as a
mediated process. Language teaching. 33 (2). pp. 79-
96.
Leaver, BL., and Kaplan, MA. (2004) Task-based
instruction in US government Slavic language
programs. Task-based instruction in foreign language
education: Practices and programs. pp. 47-66.
Lee, L. (2002) Enhancing Learners' Communication Skills
through Synchronous Electronic Interaction and
TaskBased Instruction. Foreign Language Annals.
35 (1). pp. 16-24.
Levelt, WJM. (1989) Speaking: From intention to
articulation. Bradford, Cambridge, MA.
Long, MH. (1985) A role for instruction in second
language acquisition: Task-based language teaching.
Modelling and assessing second language acquisition.
18. pp. 77-99.
Long, MH. (1991) Focus on form: A design feature in
language teaching methodology. Foreign language
research in cross-cultural perspective. 2. pp. 39-52.
Lopes, J. (2004) Introducing TBI for teaching English in
Brazil: Learning how to leap the hurdles. Task-based
instruction in foreign language education. Practices
and programs. pp.83-95.
Lyster, R., and Ranta, L. (1997) Corrective feedback and
learner uptake. Studies in second language
acquisition. 19 (1). pp. 37-66.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., and McDonough, K. (2000) How do
learners perceive interactional feedback?. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition. 22 (4). pp. 471-497.
McDonough, K., and Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007)
Teachers' and Learners' Reactions to a TaskBased
EFL Course in Thailand. Tesol Quarterly. 41(1). pp.
107-132.
Nunan, D. (2004) An introduction to Task Based
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ohta, AS. (2000) Rethinking interaction in SLA:
Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of
proximal development and the acquisition of L2
grammar. Sociocultural theory and second language
learning. 4. pp. 51-78.
Prabhu, NS. (1987) Second language pedagogy. 20.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rahimpour, M. (2008) Implementation of task-based
approaches to language teaching. Pazhuhesh-e-
Zabanha-ye Khareji Journal. pp. 45-61.
Richards, JC. (2005) Communicative language teaching
today (RELC portfolio Series 13). Singapore:
SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Richards, J., Platt, J. and Weber, H. (1985) Longman
Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. London: Longman.
Roebuck, R. (2000) Subjects speak out: How learners
position themselves in a psycholinguistic task.
Sociocultural theory and second language learning.
pp.79-95.
Ruso, N. (2007) The influence of task based learning on
EFL Classrooms, EFL Journal.18. pp. 1-23.
Samuda, V., and Bygate, M. (2008) Tasks in second
language learning. Palgrave Macmillan.
Schmidt, RW. (1990) The Role of Consciousness in
Second Language Learning. Applied linguistics. 11
(2).pp. 129-158.
Shekary, M., and Tahririan, MH. (2006) Negotiation of
meaning and noticing in textbased online chat. The
Modern Language Journal. 90 (4). pp. 557-573.
Skehan, P. (1998a) A Cognitive Approach to Language
Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998b) Task-based instruction. Annual review
of applied linguistics. 18. pp. 268-286.
Slimani, A. (1989) The role of topicalization in classroom
language learning. System. 17 (2). pp. 223-234.
Smith, B. (2004) Computer-mediated negotiated
interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition. 26 (3). pp. 365-398.
Storch, N. (2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work.
Language learning. 52 (1).pp. 119-158.
Swain, M. (2001) Examining dialogue: Another approach
to content specification and to validating inferences
drawn from test scores. Language testing. 18 (3). pp.
275-302.
Van den Branden, K. (2006) Task-based language
education: from theory to practice. Cambridge
University Press.
VanPatten, B. (1996) Input processing and grammar
instruction in second language acquisition.
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Willis, B. (1996) A framework for task-based learning.
Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
Woodward, T. (1996) Paradigm shift and the language
teaching profession. In WILLIS, J. and WILLIS, D.
(eds.). Challenge and change in language teaching.
Yilmaz, Y., and Granena, G. (2010) The effects of task
type in synchronous computer-mediated
communication. ReCALL. 22 (1). pp. 20-38.
Yu, L., and Zeng, G. (2011) Managing CMC-based Task
through Text-based Dialogue: An Exploratory Study
in a Chinese EFL Context. English Language
Teaching. 4 (4). pp. 221-223.
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
282
