Session 3E

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) has been gaining momentum as a teaching methodology in different contexts (Ellis, 2018). However, teacher concerns about the incompatibility of TBLT and summative assessments may be an obstacle to the implementation TBLT in the classroom (East, 2019). Similarly, the use of Task-Based Language Assessment (TBLA) for summative assessment purposes such as testing to student achievement in a course is limited (Ellis et al., 2020; Long, 2016). This study aims to address these two gaps. First, it describes the design, trial and partial validation process of summative, integrated task-based language assessment tasks, in the A1 to B2 range, for adults learning French in Canada for immigration purposes. Secondly, it assesses the impacts (washback) on teacher practices.
Adopting a mixed-method approach, data from the trialing phase for the assessment tasks are reported within a validity argument and adapted to the specific context at-hand.The discussions and negotiations between the scientific team designing the tasks (mandated by the ministry of Immigration) and the expert-team delegated from the ministry itself resulted in the adaptation of the theorical basis of TBLA features into twelve (12) consensual, accessible and practical tasks. The tasks are situated between "real" task-based language assessment as described by authorities in the field (Long, 2016; Norris, 2016) and interactive ability (Bachman & Palmer, 2010) based on a national communicative language benchmarks (MELS, & MIFI, 2011). The tasks were piloted in authentic classrooms and followed by focus groups with teachers (n = 24) and students (n = 72)
Preliminary results from data collected and analyzed seem to indicate the tasks meet the requirements of the validity argument in terms of evaluation, generalization, explanation, extrapolation and utilization (Chapelle et al, 2008; Jun, 2021). Furthermore, data collected during focus groups hint at evidence of mid- to long-term positive washback. The implications and limits of the design and trial processes are discussed.
References
Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language Testing in Practice, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chapelle, C., Enright, M., Jamieson, J. (Eds.). (2008). Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language. New York: Routledge. 
East, M. (2019). Sustaining innovation in school modern foreign language programmes: teachers' reflections on task-based language teaching three years after initial teacher education. The Language Learning Journal, 47(1), 105-115.
Ellis, R. (2018). Reflections on task-based language teaching. Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N. et Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108643689
Jun, H. 10 Justifying the Interpretation and Use of an ESL Writing Final Examination in Chapelle, C. A., & Voss, E. (Eds.). (2021). Validity Argument in Language Testing: Case Studies of Validation Research. Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. (2016). In defence of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 5–33.
Norris, J. M. (2016). Current uses for task-based language assessment. Annual review of applied linguistics, 36, 230-244. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190516000027

Much of the Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) literature is informed by the world of research rather than by the real world of practice (Bygate, 2020; Van den Branden et al., 2009). There is a need for TBLT to deal with issues and concerns relevant to stakeholders, if this disconnect between theory and practice is to be bridged. Samuda et al. (2018) call for bottom-up approaches to research where the pedagogical realities of implementing TBLT are investigated. They suggest that the challenges involved in implementing TBLT in the classroom are greater than the literature tends to acknowledge.
This presentation documents the practices and perspectives of teachers as they implemented and/or adapted TBLT to meet the characteristics and needs of their students in real classrooms (Ellis et al., 2019). The contexts presented tend to be under-represented in the TBLT literature; the emphasis is on the beginner language learner, on the foreign language learning context and on the teaching and learning of languages other than English.
The presentation first explores to what extent eight teachers were implementing TBLT and using tasks as pedagogical tools in their classroom practice several years after completing a professional development programme where they learnt about tasks/TBLT. Observation data is presented from 15 lessons and interview data documents teacher responses to TBLT, the role they saw for tasks and the extent to which they believed that they used tasks in their practice.
The subsequent focus is on how six of the eight teachers who were observed to be working with tasks in their lessons, used them to open up opportunities for language learning. This investigation is informed by a data set that consists of transcripts of the teacher and student discourse and data from questionnaires where the students report on their learning.
In examining how TBLT is both understood and implemented, it is possible to draw some practical implications for teacher professional development. Findings also show that teachers incorporated TBLT/tasks into their practice in combination with instructional and learning processes that are not normally associated with TBLT. In so doing, some of the dichotomies that have differentiated TBLT from other approaches to language teaching and learning were blurred. One conclusion is that TBLT theory needs to continue to engage with the realities of actual classroom practice.

Data-Driven Learning (DDL) research is an area of academic inquiry "into the effectiveness of using the tools and techniques of corpus linguistics for second language learning or use" (Boulton & Cobb, 2017). This is a rapidly growing field that has been regularly represented at major SLA conferences (including the Language Learning Round Table scheduled at EuroSLA 2022). Boulton and Vyatkina's (2021) comprehensive scoping review identified 489 empirical DDL studies published in English through 2019. One of their findings (see also Jablonkai et al., 2020) was the scarcity of DDL research on Languages Other Than English (LOTEs) with almost 90% of the studies exploring DDL applications in English as a Second/Foreign Language (ESL/EFL) contexts. The present paper explores this topic further by answering the following research question: What is the scope of empirical DDL research on LOTEs and how did it change over time?
Methodologically, this is a scoping review, i.e., a systematic mapping of the research landscape of a given domain (Chong & Plonsky, 2021). First, the near-exhaustive DDL database from Boulton and Vyatkina (2021, available in the IRIS repository) is sorted by the target language, and the coded methodological aspects (e.g., L1, region, L2 proficiency, discipline, corpus and software type, instructional focus, instruments) of the ca. 60 LOTEs studies are analyzed and reported in frequencies and percentages. Second, we zoom in on articles published in ranked journals (Web of Science) and analyze their distinctive characteristics while also adding the latest publications (2020-2021). Third, treating the articles as a corpus in its own right, we conduct an in-depth analysis of the keywords using AntConc 4.0 (Anthony, 2021), thus identifying themes more frequently addressed in LOTEs articles in comparison to the ESL/EFL articles. 
Our results show that LOTEs remain woefully underrepresented in empirical DDL research, including the latest period. This presents an untapped potential for expanding the field as well as exploring new challenges and opportunities for DDL when applied to LOTEs that may have remained masked until now due to the specifics of English (its nature as a lingua franca, scarcity of inflectional morphology). We will conclude with a discussion of implications for future research, including an invitation to more cross-pollination between DDL and the broader SLA field.


References
Anthony, L. (2021). AntConc, v4.0. Tokyo: Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software 
Boulton, A., & Cobb, T. (2017). Corpus use in language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 67(2), 348–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12224
Boulton, A., & Vyatkina, N. (2021). Thirty years of data-driven learning: Taking stock and charting new directions. Language Learning & Technology, 25(3), 66-89. https://doi.org/10125/73450
Chong, S. W., & Plonsky, L. (2021, June 15). A typology of secondary research in Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/msjrh 
Jablonkai, R., Forti, L., Abad Castelló, M., Salengros Iguenane, I., Schaeffer‐Lacroix, E., & Vyatkina, N. (2020). Data‐driven learning for languages other than English: The cases of French, German, Italian, and Spanish. In K.‐M. Frederiksen, S. Larsen, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL for widening participation: Short papers from EUROCALL 2020 (pp. 132‐137). https://research-publishing.net/manuscript?10.14705/rpnet.2020.48.1177