<?page no="0"?> Giessener Beiträge zur Fremdsprachendidaktik Joannis Kaliampos EFL Learners’ Task Perceptions and Agency in Blended Learning An Exploratory Mixed-Methods Study on the ‘U.S. Embassy School Election Project’ <?page no="1"?> EFL Learners’ Task Perceptions and Agency in Blended Learning <?page no="2"?> GIESSENER BEITRÄGE ZUR FREMDSPRACHENDIDAKTIK Herausgegeben von Eva Burwitz-Melzer, Wolfgang Hallet, Jürgen Kurtz, Michael Legutke, Hélène Martinez, Franz-Joseph Meißner und Dietmar Rösler Begründet von Lothar Bredella, Herbert Christ und Hans-Eberhard Piepho <?page no="3"?> Joannis Kaliampos EFL Learners’ Task Perceptions and Agency in Blended Learning An Exploratory Mixed-Methods Study on the ‘U.S. Embassy School Election Project’ <?page no="4"?> Lüneburg, Universität, Dissertation, 2021 DOI: https: / / doi.org/ 10.24053/ 9783823395676 © 2022 · Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG Dischingerweg 5 · D-72070 Tübingen Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Überset‐ zungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Alle Informationen in diesem Buch wurden mit großer Sorgfalt erstellt. Fehler können dennoch nicht völlig ausgeschlossen werden. Weder Verlag noch Autor: innen oder Herausgeber: innen übernehmen deshalb eine Gewährleistung für die Korrektheit des Inhaltes und haften nicht für fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen. Diese Publikation enthält gegebenenfalls Links zu externen Inhalten Dritter, auf die weder Verlag noch Autor: innen oder Herausgeber: innen Einfluss haben. Für die Inhalte der verlinkten Seiten sind stets die jeweiligen Anbieter oder Betreibenden der Seiten verantwortlich. Internet: www.narr.de eMail: info@narr.de CPI books GmbH, Leck ISSN 0175-7776 ISBN 978-3-8233-8567-7 (Print) ISBN 978-3-8233-9567-6 (ePDF) ISBN 978-3-8233-0384-8 (ePub) Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http: / / dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. www.fsc.org MIX Papier aus verantwortungsvollen Quellen FSC ® C083411 ® www.fsc.org MIX Papier aus verantwortungsvollen Quellen FSC ® C083411 ® <?page no="5"?> 13 1 15 2 21 2.1 22 2.1.1 22 2.1.2 27 2.1.2.1 28 2.1.2.2 31 2.2 36 2.2.1 37 2.2.2 46 2.2.2.1 47 2.2.2.2 49 2.2.2.3 52 2.2.3 55 2.3 58 2.3.1 58 2.3.2 61 2.3.3 67 2.4 69 2.4.1 71 2.4.2 73 2.4.3 74 2.4.4 75 2.5 78 Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task-based language learning and teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pedagogical and empirical origins of TBLT . . . . . . . . . . . . Pedagogical antecedents of TBLT . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical and empirical underpinnings: The role of interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interaction in cognitivist SLA research . . . . . . . . Interaction in sociocultural theory-informed SLA Language learning tasks in research and pedagogy . . . . . ‘Task’ as a research construct and pedagogical tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task-based language pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task sequencing and syllabus design . . . . . . . . . . Task structure: Within-task sequencing . . . . . . . Task types and exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From workplan to process: Learner reinterpretations of tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptual foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for task-based research . . . . . . . . . . A wider understanding of learner perceptions of tasks . . Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <?page no="6"?> 3 79 3.1 79 3.1.1 79 3.1.2 81 3.2 85 3.2.1 85 3.2.2 88 3.2.3 92 3.3 95 3.3.1 96 3.3.2 101 3.3.2.1 102 3.3.2.2 104 3.3.2.3 105 3.3.3 107 3.4 109 3.4.1 110 3.4.2 114 3.4.2.1 116 3.4.2.2 117 3.4.2.3 119 3.5 122 3.5.1 122 3.5.2 125 3.6 128 3.7 136 4 139 4.1 140 4.2 143 4.2.1 143 4.2.2 144 4.2.3 145 Tasks and task perception in CALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computer-assisted language learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition and conceptual overview . . . . . . . . . . Technology, teachers, and learners in CALL . . . . Blended language learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition and conceptual overview . . . . . . . . . . Research on blended (language) learning . . . . . . Learning management systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Web 2.0 technologies and foreign language learning . . . . Definition and conceptual overview . . . . . . . . . . Research on Web 2.0 in language learning . . . . . Blogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wikis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social networking sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Formal and informal language learning with Web 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synergies: Technology-mediated TBLT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology-mediated TBLT: Research review . . Conceptualizing technology-enhanced tasks . . . Chapelle’s (2001) SLA-informed CALL task framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pedagogically-oriented CALL task models . . . . . Kurek and Müller-Hartmann (2017) . . . . . . . . . . . Affordances and learner perceptions of technology-enhanced tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Affordance theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Affordances in TMTBLT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task-as-workplan and task-in-process in TMTBLT . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research methodological framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research interest and questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Towards mixed-methods classroom research . . . . . . . . . . A pragmatist rationale of mixed-methods research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inquiry logic: Defining mixed-methods research Purposes of mixing different paradigms . . . . . . . 6 Contents <?page no="7"?> 4.3 147 4.4 150 4.5 155 4.5.1 155 4.5.2 158 4.5.3 159 4.5.4 161 4.5.5 164 4.5.6 166 4.5.7 167 4.6 169 4.6.1 169 4.6.2 171 4.6.2.1 171 4.6.2.2 173 4.6.2.3 176 4.6.2.4 181 4.7 183 4.8 187 4.9 189 5 191 5.1 191 5.2 193 5.2.1 193 5.2.2 194 5.2.3 197 5.2.4 199 5.2.5 201 5.3 205 5.4 207 5.4.1 208 Research design: Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online questionnaire surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classroom-based data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The EFL classroom as research site and context Sample selection and access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classroom observation, field notes, and videography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tracking data: Video screen capture and LMS meta-data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interviews and verbal self-reports . . . . . . . . . . . . Learning journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classroom artifacts: Learner texts and teaching materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data preparation, analysis, and interpretation . . . . . . . . . Quantitative procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qualitative procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qualitative data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data preparation and transcription . . . . . . . . . . . Coding procedures and codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Focus on cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reflecting on the role of the researcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research quality and ethical safeguards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project . . . . . . . . Project idea and structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Goals and objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task-based language learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project-based learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interand transcultural learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . Digital literacies and digital media competence . Curricular implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participation statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Moodle platform: Functions and features . . . . . . . The LMS Moodle: Structure, user interface, navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Contents <?page no="8"?> 5.4.2 212 5.4.3 218 5.5 221 5.5.1 222 5.5.2 224 5.5.3 225 5.5.4 226 5.5.5 226 5.5.6 228 5.6 229 6 231 6.1 231 6.1.1 232 6.1.2 236 6.2 244 6.2.1 244 6.2.2 245 6.3 249 6.3.1 249 6.3.2 253 6.3.3 254 6.4 260 7 263 8 267 8.1 267 8.2 268 8.2.1 268 8.2.2 271 8.2.3 273 8.2.4 275 8.3 280 8.3.1 280 LMS course content: Project curriculum . . . . . . . Tasks and activity formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Underlying blended learning approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Model of integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of learning content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Language teaching methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Involvement of learning subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students’ pre-survey QS 1-L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learner expectations and interest . . . . . . . . . . . . ICT: Attitudes, experiences, self-confidence . . . . Teachers’ pre-survey QS 1-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher expectations and interest . . . . . . . . . . . . ICT: Attitudes and experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Post-project surveys QS 2-L and QS 2-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learner experiences and perceived learning outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LMS use and changes to classroom procedures . Perception of LMS curriculum and learner contributions to tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro-perspective: Critical case analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Cartoon analysis and discussion’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Formal task analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ms. Konig’s task perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learner perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Formal task analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Contents <?page no="9"?> 8.3.2 283 8.3.3 286 8.3.4 289 8.3.5 291 8.3.6 294 8.3.7 299 8.4 301 9 309 9.1 309 9.2 310 9.2.1 310 9.2.2 314 9.2.3 315 9.2.4 320 9.2.5 327 9.2.6 332 9.3 336 10 343 10.1 343 10.2 344 10.3 346 10.3.1 347 10.3.2 351 10.3.3 355 10.3.4 359 10.4 363 10.4.1 364 10.4.2 367 10.4.3 370 10.4.4 375 10.5 377 Ms. Konig’s task perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task implementation: Initiation phase . . . . . . . . Task implementation: Task phase . . . . . . . . . . . . Focal student: Alexander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Focal students: Melanie and Leonie . . . . . . . . . . . Task implementation: Report phase . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Role-play: The candidates and their spouses’ . . . . . . . . . . Formal task analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task implementation: Teacher’s perspective . . . Focal student: Jan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Focal student: Francesca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Focal student: Niklas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task performance: Role-play . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Focus on the teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Analyze the word cloud’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Formal task analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task implementation: Teacher’s perspective . . . Focal student: Emma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task outcomes: Glossary entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘The electoral system—individual steps’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Formal task analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task implementation: Teacher’s perspective . . . Focal student: Justus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task report phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Contents <?page no="10"?> 11 383 11.1 383 11.1.1 384 11.1.1.1 385 11.1.1.2 387 11.1.1.3 388 11.1.2 390 11.1.3 393 11.1.4 398 11.1.4.1 399 11.1.4.2 402 11.1.4.3 406 11.2 408 11.2.1 409 11.2.2 412 11.2.3 416 11.3 422 12 429 475 477 481 485 487 Synthesis and implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synthesis of emerging themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology-induced challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hardware problems and Internet connectivity . . Software problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Usability: navigational and didactic interaction . Integration of online and face-to-face modes . . . Teacher role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learner agency in technology-enhanced tasks . . Learner agency is technologically mediated . . . . Learner agency is socially mediated . . . . . . . . . . Learner agency is psychologically mediated . . . . Implications, relevance, and limitations of the study . . . . Research implications for technology-mediated TBLT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research methodological implications . . . . . . . . Pedagogical implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of data excerpts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Contents <?page no="11"?> Στους γονείς μου, Αθανάσιο και Παρασκευή <?page no="13"?> Acknowledgments Agency is never just a property of the individual—it hinges on social and interactional relationships with one’s environment. Consequently, bringing this study to fruition would have been impossible without the support provided by many different people. First and foremost, I wish to thank the students and teachers who welcomed me into their classrooms and allowed me to learn from their engagement in the ‘U.S. Embassy School Election Project.’ Prof. Dr. Torben Schmidt supervised this study at Leuphana University and has helped to introduce my work to the research community. I am indebted to Prof. em. Dr. Michael K. Legutke, whose critical thought and genuine passion for teaching motivated me to conduct this study in the first place, and who served as a co-examiner. I sincerely thank Prof. Dr. Christiane Lütge, who always asked the right questions during our encounters and, without hesitation, agreed to join the committee as a co-examiner. Many thanks are also due to Prof. Dr. Anne Barron for chairing the doctoral defense. I am grateful for the financial support I received through a doctoral schol‐ arship and multiple travel grants by the Leuphana Graduate School. This monograph is the slightly revised version of my dissertation thesis I submitted to the Faculty of Education at Leuphana University in September 2020 in partial fulfilment of the of the requirements for the degree of Doctor philosophiae (Dr. phil.). I am grateful to the editorial board of the Gießener Beiträge zur Fremdsprachendidaktik, especially Prof. Dr. Jürgen Kurtz, for accepting this study for inclusion in the series. It is thanks to Kathrin Heyng at Narr Francke Attempto Verlag and her colleagues’ patient support that this book finally could go into print. Likewise, I would like to thank the U.S. Embassy Berlin and the U.S. De‐ partment of State for funding the school project at the center of this study and providing the conditions for a stimulating exchange between researchers, educators, and classroom practitioners. This provided the fertile ground for the inception of Teach About U.S.—a hub for transatlantic project work, which has facilitated pedagogical innovation across hundreds of classrooms on both sides of the Atlantic. Many thanks are also due to the colleagues I have had the pleasure to work with at the Institute of English Studies at Leuphana University, LIFE e. V. Berlin, the U.S. Embassy and consulates in Germany, the Transatlantic Outreach Program at the Goethe-Institut in Washington, D.C., and our project partners and teacher network in Germany and the United States. They are <?page no="14"?> too many to name individually. I thank Mallory L. King for proofreading this study’s manuscript and Jana-Luise Bimkiewicz for helping me with the video transcription. Dr. Karin Ernst and Katja Krüger allowed me to profit from their wealth of experience in digital and exploratory pedagogy. Dr. Martina Kohl encouraged me to do things I never knew I could achieve and rooted for me ever since we started working together. This study was made possible by all of you. I especially thank my friends, who constantly reminded me that life beyond academia exists and provided me the necessary balance to complete this study. Most important of all, I am grateful to my parents and my family for their unwavering moral support and trust in me. Thank you for everything you have taught me, σας ευχαριστώ από καρδιάς! 14 Acknowledgments <?page no="15"?> 1 Introduction Digital technology increasingly penetrates and transforms virtually all aspects of life. Young people today are increasingly socialized into a dizzying array of digitally mediated practices ranging from leisure and entertainment to learning and professional purposes. The annual JIM survey (Jugend, Information, Medien [Youth, Information, Media], MPFS, 2019) of German teenagers’ digital practices paints the image of an ever more connected and digitally adept generation, always online, with nearly universal access to digital devices. They habitually communicate and engage with friends, family, and wider peer communities by using multimodal tools, streaming foreign language music, films, and TV series for entertainment, reading the news on web-based media outlets, shopping online, and engaging in online gaming, amongst other practices—for a daily average of 205 minutes. At the same time, this generation, more than in previous years, employs their informally gained digital literacies, social relationships, and foreign language skills to advance causes they are passionate about, such as matters of social and environmental justice. A sociological study on the life-world of young people aged 12 to 25 in Germany, entitled ‘A generation speaks up,’ recently concluded, “[a]s part of their personal search for a secure and autonomous place in society, they [i.e., young people] adapt to prevailing circumstances so that they can seize opportunities that open up to the best degree possible” (Hurrelmann et al., 2019, p. 13). With this, the authors capture critical tenets of what is subsequently investigated as learner agency: the desire for self-actualization, the skillful realization and exploitation of affordances in a given environment towards personally meaningful objectives, individual action and responsibility vis-à-vis the social environment, and reflective awareness of one’s actions. These developments fundamentally impact what it takes to learn a foreign language and to be proficient in it. Today, language learning is not confined to the physical classroom but occurs intentionally or in passing, informally, in practices as diverse as streaming a video, engaging in civic action, or playing online games. Being proficient in a language, similarly, involves using multimodal semiotic resources, such as GIFs, emojis, non-linear texts, hashtags, and more, besides merely understanding and producing spoken and written language. There is no doubt, current English as a foreign language (EFL) practices in schools poorly reflect this extramural reality of adolescent foreign language <?page no="16"?> learners. What is more, when EFL classroom practice does incorporate the use of digital technology, too little is known about how learners handle digital tools and exploit their affordances to attain learning objectives. The motivation for this study on learners’ task perceptions and agency in blended learning (BL) projects stems from the desire to understand how participants implement such projects and the accompanying use of digital tools and learning manage‐ ment systems (LMS) in the context of their EFL classrooms. The study shows how learners’ task perceptions are highly individualistic and influenced by a complex configuration of variables, ranging from contextual features to those of the learning community and the learners themselves, to the task’s design and implementation. Crucially, learner agency in technology-mediated tasks emerges from the subsequent analysis as being technologically, socially, and psychologically mediated, next to other potential means of mediation, such as cultural and linguistic. This exploratory research focus thus responds to several interconnected desiderata in foreign language pedagogy and research: In the same way that task-based research has suffered from a dearth of non-laboratory, process-oriented research examining the learners’ concrete perceptions and handling of tasks under the contingencies of the intact classroom (Samuda et al., 2018), research on the use of digital technology has yet to address the implementation of BL approaches in EFL classrooms adequately (Healey, 2016; B. Smith & González-Lloret, 2020). Curriculum writers, materials designers, and teachers may falsely assume a position of ‘availability = use’ of digital tools in tasks. However, theoretical perspectives rooted in affordance theory (Blin, 2016a, 2016b; Kirschner et al., 2004; Liu & Chao, 2018; Norman, 1988) and sociocultural theory (Breen, 1987; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Legutke & Thomas, 1991), as well as empirical research based on user tracking (Chun, 2013; Fischer, 2012) and classroom-based methods (Nunan & Bailey, 2009) strongly suggest that learners’ use of technology in EFL is idiosyncratic and creative, yet frequently unsystematic. The goal of foreign language education is commonly conceptualized as discourse competence (Hallet, 2008), which entails sociocultural participation in personally relevant discourses for advancing one’s own objectives, from a local to an increasingly international and global scale (Lütge, 2015), using English as a lingua franca. Digital platforms of the social and semantic Web, as well as LMS, extend and qualitatively transform the opportunities for meaningful foreign language discourse participation and learner agency (Redecker, 2009; Reinhardt, 2018; Vandergriff, 2016). In a world ever more connected through digital practices for communication, collaboration, and self-expression in pro‐ fessional, entertainment, and play contexts, learners’ access to as well as their 16 1 Introduction <?page no="17"?> participation and proficiency in these technology-mediated discursive genres represent opportunities for personal development and well-being (Hargittai, 2002; van Dijk & van Deursen, 2014). To exploit such opportunities, EFL learners need agency, meaning they must be willing and able to regulate their behavior but also, in cooperation with their peers, seek and create learning opportunities spanning formal and increasingly informal learning contexts by employing foreign language and digital literacy skills in multimodal, multiuser, and multilingual contexts (Dudeney et al., 2014). This study focuses on a school project which set out to achieve these goals in the context of the U.S. presidential election and, at the time of writing this study, continues to attract several thousand participants in Germany and other countries. The U.S. Embassy School Election Project—the context of this study— was designed as an innovative learning scenario by a partnership of public (U.S. Embassy Berlin, Leuphana University) and non-profit (LIFE e. V.) partners and curricular agencies (LISUM Berlin-Brandenburg) to connect the methodological principles of computer-assisted and task-based language learning as well as interand transcultural learning in a nationwide project context (Kaliampos & Schmidt, 2014; Kohl & Schmidt, 2014). With the increasing relevance of participatory Web-tools and social media in the field of political discourse and news reporting—examples of discourses which many of the targeted students already followed in their foreign language, English—the U.S. election was considered to provide an enormous linguistic, discursive, motivational, and intercultural learning potential and an authentic context for modeling and experimenting with digitally-mediated English-language discourses. Following the methodological rationale of task-based language teaching (TBLT), the project’s target task asked learners to adopt the perspective of the U.S. voters, predict one assigned state’s vote, and present it in the format of a digital artifact as part of a school competition—“this was no easy task” as the organizers concluded (Kohl & Schmidt, 2014, n.p.). More specifically, this study is interested in the implementation of this large-scale project in the local context of the EFL classroom under the conditions of the participants’ daily school practice. To this end, it seeks to illuminate learners’ perception of and engagement in technology-mediated tasks and the moment-by-moment emergence of digital practices and EFL learning within this context. The focus, thus, is on the ‘how’ of task enactment in the socioculturally bounded classroom context. By adopting an exploratory orientation, the study asks how learners engage in blended learning EFL tasks, exploit their affordances and, crucially, how learners develop and exercise their agency during the enactment of technology-mediated tasks. To tackle 17 1 Introduction <?page no="18"?> these questions from complementary perspectives, the investigation relies on a mixed-methods rationale. A nationwide quantitative participant survey offers a macro-perspective on the project and generates research foci for the subsequent qualitative classroom-based research in three focal 11 th -grade EFL courses. Despite the purported affordances of the tools associated with Web 2.0 for foreign language learning (T. Schmidt, 2009, 2011; T. Schmidt & Strasser, 2018), projects like these still cannot be considered standard practice in German EFL classrooms. The reasons are varied, ranging from issues of access and availability of devices to curricular frameworks, as well as teacher beliefs and teacher training. Indeed, the implementation of technology-enhanced language learning seems far from being ‘normalized’ (Bax, 2003) as the state of emergency remote teaching and learning (Gacs et al., 2020) revealed during the COVID-19 pandemic and related school closures across Germany in the spring and summer of 2020 (Huber et al., 2020; Initiative D21 & Technical University of Munich, 2020). Therefore, this study aims to elicit insights into the implementation of EFL projects and the participation in authentic discourses with digital technologies from the learners’ perspective, and outline a theoretical framework rooted in affordance and agency, which can guide future investigations into technology use within and beyond the classroom: Although the temptation to investigate the newest and shiniest new technology is hard to resist, we believe […] investigation that closely and incrementally builds on the pillars of previous research is the best way to grow our knowledge. Also, as our world changes with and because of technology, we need to keep examining our theoretical frames of learning and adjusting them to how people actually learn language in brick-and-mortar classrooms, online platforms, and in the physical world. (González‐Lloret, 2020, p. 15) * * * The following two chapters serve to situate this study theoretically, conceptu‐ ally, and empirically in the fields of TBLT and computer-assisted language learning (CALL), which are increasingly overlapping and recently have been considered together as the converging field of ‘technology-mediated task-based language teaching’ (TMTBLT) (B. Smith & González-Lloret, 2020). Chapter 2 will introduce the theoretical and empirical roots of TBLT and delineate the construct of the task as a tool for eliciting interaction data and as a pedagogical instrument to engage students in language learning processes. The discussion then closes in on learners’ perceptions and reinterpretations of tasks, which represent this study’s central focus. 18 1 Introduction <?page no="19"?> From there, chapter 3 will approach this study’s second theoretical pillar, CALL, by placing special emphasis on the pedagogical principle of blended language learning, the role of LMS, and research on the use of Web 2.0 and social media for language learning. Adopting insights from affordance and activity theory frameworks, the discussion seeks to establish theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical synergies between CALL and TBLT, and explore how learners transform theoretical task workplans into concrete processes and outcomes in the foreign language classroom. The subsequent chapters will introduce the research study on learner per‐ ceptions and engagement in technology-mediated tasks. Chapter 4 will outline the research methodological framework of the study, which involves a qualita‐ tive-dominant quan→QUAL→quan mixed-methods approach consisting of a questionnaire survey among project participants and an orchestration of mul‐ tiple observational and introspective classroom-based research methods. This discussion will touch upon issues of research quality and ethical safeguarding, in addition to the role of the researcher during the data gathering, analysis, and interpretation phases. Next, chapter 5 establishes the research context—the U.S. Embassy School Election Project, which was implemented in the fall of 2012 in EFL classrooms across Germany. The discussion addresses the overlapping curricular goals of intercultural learning, sociocultural discourse participation, as well as devel‐ oping digital literacy skills, and provides an in-depth analysis of the project’s LMS, its online curriculum, and the underlying blended learning approach, which seeks to introduce technology-mediated EFL practices in the participants’ classrooms. In the scope of the study’s mixed-methods design, chapter 6, which presents findings from the preand post-questionnaire surveys among students and teachers in the school project, reflects the macro-perspective on the research question. Findings from these surveys paint an image of highly motivated project participants, equally attracted by the project’s subject matter and un‐ derlying technology-mediated approach, yet often lacking concrete experience with the use of educational technology. Their evaluations of the project imple‐ mentation reveal intricate modifications of classroom processes and multiple layers of challenges effected by their project participation. Complementing this bird’s-eye view on the participants’ project experience, the subsequent chapters introduce the micro-perspective of three focal cases— selected task cycles in three 11 th -grade EFL classrooms—informed by the trian‐ gulation of qualitative research procedures. Chapter 7 delineates a series of pragmatic and research methodological sampling criteria guiding the selection 19 1 Introduction <?page no="20"?> of these cases. The three following cases trace the trajectory of focal task cycles through the stages of task-as-workplan, task-in-process, and task-as-outcomes, thereby allowing for an insight into the moment-by-moment enactment of task-based activity and capturing the focal learners’ agency at work. Chapter 8 takes the reader to Ms. Konig’s class, where learners engage in the task ‘Find titles for the cartoons,’ a collaborative writing task on editorial cartoons about the election. Chapter 9 invites us into Ms. Pfeifer’s implementation of ‘An interview with the candidates and their spouses,’ a combined web-research and role-playing task, which dynamically illustrates three focal learners’ differential enactment of the same task. Chapter 10 offers insights into Mr. Linnebeer’s lesson on the U.S. electoral system and a collaborative glossary task on defining thematic vocabulary. Ultimately, insights drawn from both the questionnaire surveys and the three focal cases converge in chapter 11, which reiterates and discusses the emergent themes of the data analysis conceptually. In particular, this discussion includes an appraisal of the technology-induced challenges, the integration of face-to-face and online modes, and modifications to the teacher role, in addition to the main focus, a discussion of learner agency in technology-enhanced language learning tasks. Based on this study’s data, it is concluded that learner agency is technologically, socially, and psychologically mediated. The study closes with a discussion of implications and limitations as well as future research directions. 20 1 Introduction <?page no="21"?> 2 Task-based language learning and teaching Language learning tasks play a central role in this study in various forms. Dis‐ entangling the different understandings and functions of tasks, illuminating the conceptual rationales on which these understandings are based, and delineating their effects, therefore, is essential for advancing the study’s research interest. Specifically, tasks appear in this study as: - pedagogical tasks ‘on-screen’ designed as part of the investigated school project and distributed via the project’s LMS; - planned and instructed tasks from the perspective of the teachers who routinely adapt published tasks to their teaching approaches and their students’ perceived needs; - reinterpreted, reconfigured, and enacted tasks, or more accurately, pro‐ cesses from the learners’ perspectives, who interpret and enact tasks interactionally according to their perception of the classroom situation, the task demands and affordances, and their own histories, knowledge, and capabilities; - researched tasks, although primarily implemented out of pedagogical considerations, to elicit procedural data of learner perceptions and the enactment of tasks and to serve as the point of departure for introspection and reflection. As this study’s empirical part shows (esp. chapters 8-10), these different guises of language learning tasks do not always coexist without tension, thus demanding transparency regarding the underlying understandings of the task as a pedagogical tool and research construct (Bygate et al., 2001). This chapter will first introduce the approach of TBLT by situating it histor‐ ically and conceptually in the language pedagogical movement of Communica‐ tive Language Teaching (CLT) and empirically in applied linguistic research on interaction (section 2.1). Subsequently, the construct of language learning tasks will be discussed conceptually, as the centerpiece of task-based pedagogy, and with reference to various task types (section 2.2). The discussion then closes in on this study’s research focus, learner reinterpretations of tasks, which involves the central notions of task-as-workplan, task-in-process, and task-as-outcomes (Breen, 1987), as well as concomitant implications for task-based research (section 2.3). The final part (section 2.4) will sketch a broader understanding of learners’ task perceptions, which—borrowing language from activity theory—is <?page no="22"?> centered around learners’ agency at the interconnected levels of activity, actions, and operations during task enactment. 2.1 Pedagogical and empirical origins of TBLT TBLT is an approach built on broader pedagogical notions of learner-centered‐ ness, experiential and democratic education, humanistic language teaching, and cultural psychology (Legutke & Thomas, 1991). While the origins of this approach are commonly identified in the Communicative Language Teaching movement beginning in the 1970s and second language acquisition (SLA) research on interaction in the 1980s (Ellis et al., 2020, p. 5), TBLT’s pedagogical antecedents go further back (Long, 2015; Samuda & Bygate, 2008). In order to contextualize the critical concepts of TBLT relevant to the investigated school project, the following two sections will first introduce the pedagogical antecedents of TBLT (section 2.1.1) and then summarize the empirical basis in research on language learner interaction in the field of SLA (section 2.1.2) as a foundation for the subsequent discussion of TBLT principles and learner perceptions of tasks. 2.1.1 Pedagogical antecedents of TBLT Although task-based language pedagogies represent a relatively recent exem‐ plar in a succession of approaches and methods of foreign language teaching (cf. Richards & Rodgers, 2001), their conceptual, pedagogical, and philosophical antecedents can be traced back decades, even centuries. Researchers have placed the approach in the tradition of holistic and reform pedagogies associated with the works of Pestalozzi and Montessori, democratic and experiential education advanced by Dewey and later Freinet and Kolb, Kilpatrick’s project approach, emancipatory pedagogies of Freire, Bruner’s ideas on situated learning, Vygot‐ sky’s approach to sociocultural mediation as well as humanistic education and Gestalt therapy (cf. Legutke & Thomas, 1991; Long, 2015; Nunan, 2004; Samuda & Bygate, 2008). Long (2015) recently argued that TBLT is underpinned by broader philosophical concepts of Éducation Intégrale, learning by doing, indi‐ vidual freedom, rationality, emancipation, learner-centeredness, egalitarianism, participatory democracy, and mutual aid and cooperation. There is no room to discuss these principles here. Nevertheless, they share a rationale of direct and mediated experience as a catalyst for learning. They also collectively emphasize personal relevance of learning materials and the learning situation as well 22 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="23"?> as purposeful activity to mediate the learners’ life-world and the classroom, in addition to foregrounding the role of skill and competency building and positioning the learner as an active agent in their learning environment, thus highlighting the importance of learner centeredness in pedagogy (Samuda & Bygate, 2008, p. 18). These aspects are briefly outlined in the subsequent paragraphs and then connected to the approach of CLT as the foundation for TBLT. In their book-length survey of TBLT, Samuda and Bygate (2008) foreground the significance of Dewey’s criticism on the disconnect between learners’ experience and their schooling, resulting from the transmission of isolated knowledge instead of enabling students to acquire competencies for sociocul‐ tural and democratic participation in society. In response, Dewey demanded teaching content to be more accessible, useful, and relevant concerning the learners’ levels of experience, allowing them to holistically engage in experi‐ ences of problem-solving, decision-making, negotiating, and skill performance. Consequently, learning should be situated and facilitate functional relevance by linking school-based learning to purposeful activity and the outside world, for instance, by participating in projects, thus helping students to perceive learning not as schoolwork, but as social human activity. Adapting these notions to foreign language pedagogy, there needs to be a relationship between activity and learning. In second language education, this entails the creation of opportunities for learners to associate the target language with action and the need to achieve some goal, and through this, thought about how to accomplish it and reflection on the outcomes. (Samuda & Bygate, 2008, p. 36) Influenced by Dewey’s work, experiential learning is commonly conceptualized as a cyclical process of concrete experience, subsequent reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation in new contexts, acting together as a springboard for new experience and reflective cycles (Kolb, 1984). These ideas of experiential learning and learning by doing have entered the discourse of language pedagogy and applied linguistics articulately in the work of Kohonen (1992), which Nunan (2004) describes as a “theoretical blueprint” for TBLT (p. 12). According to this view, pedagogy should encourage the transformation of knowledge within the learner rather than the transmission from teacher to learner. It should encourage collaborative engagement in small groups and pairs, embrace a holistic attitude towards the subject matter instead of a static, compartmentalized, and hierarchic attitude. It should further emphasize the process rather than the product of learning by calling attention 23 2.1 Pedagogical and empirical origins of TBLT <?page no="24"?> to skill development, self-inquiry, social and communication skills, and finally encourage self-directed, intrinsically motivated learning (Kohonen, 1992, ctd. in Nunan, 2004, p. 12). Consequently, experiential learning positions learners as active agents who co-construct knowledge during joint activity in situated contexts and in direct interaction with the real world, creating connections between prior knowledge and new input—between abstract generalizations and concrete and complex experiences in the field. In essence, learners are not merely conceptualized in their institutional role as students, but more broadly as practitioners and participants in communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), whose situated and purposeful activity, in Bruner’s (1960/ 1977, p. 14, ctd. in Samuda & Bygate, 2008, pp. 29-30) view, does not differ from that of professionals in principle but in degree. As Long (2015) aptly concludes, Actually doing a task, or, initially, a simple version thereof, is more relevant, comprehensible, and memorable than reading about someone else doing it. The basic, time-tested idea reflected in such contemporary slogans as “learning by doing,” “child-centered,” and “educating the whole person” is that practical hands-on experience with real-world tasks brings abstract concepts and theories to life and, because fully contextualized, makes the language involved more understandable and memorable. New knowledge is better integrated into long-term memory and more easily retrieved for use if tied to real-world events and activities. (pp. 68-9) Although emphasizing the learner’s experience and point of view, this under‐ standing of pedagogy also foregrounds the responsibility of the teacher in creating, facilitating, and scaffolding situated learning opportunities, which systematically mediate concrete individual and situated experience with more abstract generalizations of the learning content. * * * Informed by these educational principles, CLT emerged from parallel develop‐ ments in Europe and North America as an innovative, yet loosely delineated approach to language education, based on functional-notional concepts of language use (Savignon, 2000). In Europe, for instance, increases in work-related migration and so-called ‘guest worker’ programs in the 1970s prompted the Council of Europe to develop a language syllabus consisting of functional-no‐ tional concepts of language use, based on an assessment of learners’ needs, and the definition of threshold levels of language ability in terms of can-do statements describing learners’ expected competencies (ibid., p. 125). Such an approach was highly relevant to the new field of language for specific purposes, which focused on the particular needs of adult language learners for their 24 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="25"?> respective professional fields and daily activities (e.g., communicating with co-workers, being interviewed for a job, presenting themselves at agencies, or shopping for groceries). While this approach focused on the product of language education (i.e., communicative competence in specific work and leisure fields), a different argument was made in West Germany, influenced by the social-dem‐ ocratic reform movement for learner empowerment and the work of philosopher Jürgen Habermas, to reform the process of classroom-based (language) learning (cf. Legutke, 2008). In a radical departure from the predominance of synthetic syllabi, Piepho (1974), an influential contributor to this debate, stipulated in CLT, successful language acquisition requires a flexible and differentiated learning environment, which facilitates communication, sparks communicative intentions, provides linguistic resources and practice opportunities, as well as adamantly refuses to prescribe uniform learning paths (Piepho, 1974, p. 141). In essence, this impetus was a reaction to then predominant foreign language classroom practices that viewed language as a grammatical and linguistic rule system, not a communicative tool for sociocultural mediation. These classrooms criticized by Piepho were notorious for their lack of creativity, communication opportunities, learner autonomy, and cultural awareness (Legutke & Thomas, 1991). By contrast, communicative competence for Piepho (1974) essentially included linguistic competence (i.e., the ability to produce and understand lan‐ guage by using linguistic means and strategies appropriate to topic, interlocu‐ tors, and situation) as well as discourse competence (i.e., the meta-cognitive and reflective ability to evaluate the appropriateness of linguistic means and justify their use). Likewise, Hymes (1971) focused on language as social behavior and put forth an understanding of communicative competence, which necessarily combined knowledge of linguistic forms with an awareness of sociolinguistic appropriacy in concrete situations of use. In the German context, the emergence of CLT and task-based approaches were closely interconnected as educators and teacher trainers grew increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of published instructional materials addressing the sociolinguistic, pragmatic, and intercultural notions of communicative compe‐ tence and took it upon themselves to develop task and exercise compendiums (Candlin, 1978; cf. Hallet & Legutke, 2013). These publications advanced four critical arguments regarding the communicative foreign language classroom (Hallet & Legutke, 2013, pp. 140-1): 1. Classroom activities need to be differentiated or adjusted to the communi‐ cative needs of learners to support them in developing their communicative abilities in the foreign language. 25 2.1 Pedagogical and empirical origins of TBLT <?page no="26"?> 2. Thus, it is not the individual activity that matters, but their sequential integration and interdependence in curricula to create opportunities for individual development in the foreign language. 3. Themes and contents need to be relevant, relate to learners’ experiences, and engage learners in meaningful interaction. 4. Systematic integration of various text types and media is called for, highlighting the interconnection of communicative tasks, relevant topics, and media. In its historical context, this approach had to be seen as a radical shift from teacher-controlled transmission approaches to student-centered classrooms, from formal practice of linguistic structures to the enactment of personally relevant communication in the foreign language, from synthetic, a priori determined to a negotiated curriculum addressing specific learning needs of a given student population. In the U.K., this development was paralleled by a reconceptualization of communicative competence by introducing notions of strategic, grammatical, and sociolinguistic competences as its constituent parts (Canale & Swain, 1980). If learners are to learn to communicate through communication, it was argued, they should develop the interactional tools necessary to ask for clarification, seek feedback, engage all communicative resources available to them, take risks, and apply coping strategies in order to stick to the communicative task (cf. Savignon, 2000, p. 125). Likewise, for communication inside the classroom to be authentic of real-world communicative tasks and relevant to the learners’ life-worlds, language curricula had to respond to learners’ needs and accommodate their psycholinguistic readiness to learn. The focus shifted from a proactive, interventionist approach to a more reactive one, emphasizing learner-initiated discourse and learners as active agents, capable of negotiating curricular processes and objectives (Breen & Candlin, 1980; cf. Long, 2015, p. 70). Teachers, hence, increasingly began to conceptualize the foreign language classroom as a social, cultural, and communicative resource, from which authentic communication could emerge: The classroom is understood as a unique social environment with its own activities and conventions. If it is the goal of the classroom activities to enable learners to communicate in the target language outside of the classroom, then communication needs to be experienced, practiced, and analyzed in the classroom itself, realized in the L2. This radical turn towards the classroom as the location where the ability to communicate had to be fostered raised a number of crucial questions, such as: What are the appropriate topics for learners to engage with? What are the appropriate texts 26 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="27"?> 1 Task-based language teaching has also recently been addressed from other perspectives, e.g. Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (cf. Ahmadian & García-Mayo, 2018). Further‐ for learners to be exposed to? What are the conditions in terms of task management that would help learners invest their energy into finding ways of expressing their world views, their feelings and beliefs, while trying to use the L2? In short, the key question was: What conditions would help authenticate L2 practice and use as a way to foster communication in the classroom? (Hallet & Legutke, 2013, p. 141) Hallet and Legutke (2013) pose a number of thorny questions, which address the very essence of what would later develop into the programmatic approach of TBLT. Although various versions of strong and weak CLT emerged in this discourse (Howatt, 1984), which are in many ways paralleled by task-based, task-supported, and task-referenced approaches today, this brief review shows that TBLT’s antecedents were primarily pedagogical, conceptual, and philo‐ sophical in nature. Only subsequently did SLA research on the role of interaction begin to support the practices of TBLT empirically (Robinson, 2011). Thus, the next sub-chapter will outline the empirical basis of TBLT in interaction research. The questions raised by Hallet and Legutke will be addressed later in the discussion task concepts (2.2). 2.1.2 Theoretical and empirical underpinnings: The role of interaction The potential of CLT, and particularly TBLT, for the teaching and learning of language is supported by theoretical and empirical evidence on the role of interaction. Interaction generally refers to “mutual or reciprocal action or influ‐ ence” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.) and, with language learning in view, may include “any type of two-way exchanges […] enacted through the use of linguistic or nonlinguistic means” (Chapelle, 2005, p. 54) to achieve a desired outcome, such as making a reservation, asking for directions, or engaging in small talk. Besides interpersonal activity between two or more speakers, interaction can be intrapersonal, thus referring to the mental activity of processing language and other information (Edmondson, 1998, p. 82; Ellis, 1999, p. 3). A third dimension of interaction, between a person and computer applications—referred to as ‘interactivity’ in popular discourse—is relevant to this study, though not subsumed under the SLA construct of interaction (Chapelle, 2005). Interaction has occupied a central place in different research programs uti‐ lizing tasks to investigate language learning: psycholinguistic and sociocultural perspectives (Ellis, 2000). 1 Psycholinguistic approaches adopt a computational 27 2.1 Pedagogical and empirical origins of TBLT <?page no="28"?> more, Samuda et al. (2018) conclude “there is no single overarching theory propelling TBLT, and no single research paradigm, despite a predominant, but by no means exclusive, emphasis on cognitive, interactionist perspectives” (p. 4). model of SLA and employ tasks to provide learners with language data necessary for learning, and engage learners in cognitive processes believed to be conducive to learning, including attention, rehearsal, and restructuring of existing knowl‐ edge. As is discussed below (section 2.1.2.1), interaction in this view provides input, generates interactional feedback from interlocutors, offers opportunities for output modification, and activates and directs learner attention to linguistic elements of the discourse (Ellis, 2012, p. 238). This approach is interested in learners’ cognitive operations during task performance under ‘ideal’ (i.e., laboratory) conditions to infer generalizable features of tasks and task-based in‐ teraction, which potentially lead to learning. Psycholinguistic research assumes that tasks can determine learners’ language use and the learning opportunities arising during performance (Ellis, 2000, p. 193). Interaction, in sum, is a source of learning, but not necessarily the site of acquisition itself (Ellis, 2012, p. 240). So‐ ciocultural approaches, on the other hand, assume that participants co-construct activity during task performance as well as knowledge and that skills originate from interaction with the social and cultural environment. Learning, from this perspective, emerges during participation in social interaction and subsequent internalization of social mediation. This approach emphasizes collaborative dialog as the process and site of acquisition, claiming that language learning occurs during interaction, not as a result of it. Thus, it adopts a procedural perspective and refrains from deterministic understandings of the relationship between tasks and language use (Ellis, 2000). 2.1.2.1 Interaction in cognitivist SLA research CLT posits that spontaneous learner interaction, often through talk, about contents of immediate and personal relevance, is both the product and process of learning a foreign language and necessary for competency development in a democratic and emancipatory pedagogy. The discourse analytical work on learner interaction by Hatch (1978) was among the first to fill the void of empirical evidence for CLT. She claimed participation in conversational interaction is a vehicle for acquisition, providing learners with opportunities to process and produce the target language, concluding that “language learning evolves out of learning how to carry on conversations” (p. 404). According to the understanding of learner discourse emerging from studies by Hatch and others (e.g., Widdowson, 1978), the analysis of language use could not only inform conceptions of language acquisition but as well teaching and learning 28 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="29"?> practices. Krashen’s influential Monitor Model (Krashen, 1981, 1982, 1985; cf. Shehadeh, 2013) derived insights from infant L1 acquisition, speculating adult L2 acquisition is a mostly subconscious process which occurs incidentally and builds on the acquisition of implicit L2 knowledge through the processing of comprehensible input. He argued, “people acquire second languages only if they obtain comprehensible input and if their affective filters are low enough to allow the input in” (Krashen, 1985, p. 4). Yet, Krashen’s claim that input predominantly accounts for the process of language learning was questioned. Long (1981, 1983a, 1983b), studying the discourse structure in conversations between native and non-native speakers, observed how interlocutors repair communication breakdowns by making adjustments of linguistic form, conversational structure, and message content. While input modifications refer to adjustments to linguistic forms directed at language learners, interactional modifications are subsumed under the rubric negotiation of meaning, which includes the “modification and restructuring of interaction that occurs when learners and their interlocutors anticipate, perceive, or experience difficulties in message comprehensibility” (Pica, 1994, p. 494). This was subsequently operationalized in studies on learner discourse as comprehension checks, clarification requests, and confirmation checks (cf. Long, 1983a, pp. 136-7; Philp, 2013a, p. 459). Comparing interaction sequences among language learners and between language learners and native speakers, Long (1983a) showed how interactional modifications were drastically more useful in ensuring conversation continues and is comprehensible. Input modifi‐ cations, by contrast, only satisfy immediate communicative needs while inter‐ actional modifications, in line with the concept of communicative competence, allow learners to keep up the flow of communication. Comprehensible input and interactional modification by themselves were not found to facilitate learning. Swain (1985, 1991) observed that Canadian secondary immersion learners of French, despite extended exposure to com‐ prehensible input, showed a plateauing effect in their productive skills while achieving native-like proficiency in listening and reading. She concluded, while input comprehension primarily involves semantic use of language, output production urges learners to move beyond mere syntactic use of language. Producing comprehensible output in conversational interaction was thus seen as necessary to achieve higher levels of linguistic accuracy. Learners not only need ample opportunities for output but must be sufficiently pushed for grammatical accuracy (cf. Izumi, 2013). Swain furthermore demonstrated how, through output, learners were able to notice the gap between their communicative intentions and current ability; they test hypotheses by taking risks and experi‐ 29 2.1 Pedagogical and empirical origins of TBLT <?page no="30"?> menting with language, make it subject to feedback from interaction partners, and susceptible to reflection and self-assessment. Consequently, output itself is an essential aspect of language learning, not just the product or outcome (Izumi, 2013). These claims associated with the Interaction and Output Hypotheses are only provisional, however, as they only describe potential learning outcomes hinging on learners’ cognitive variables, particularly conscious attention and noticing of linguistic form and form-meaning connections: “Overall, we can safely say that negotiation provides learners with opportunities to attend to L2 form and relationships of form and meaning. Whether they indeed do cannot be observed, or even inferred, most of the time” (Pica, 1994, p. 520). Investigating this very aspect of learner attention, R. W. Schmidt (1990) found that L2 learners failed to acquire common linguistic forms despite ample input and opportunities for interaction. For input to enter working and long-term memory and become intake, it is assumed, a minimal level of consciousness at the level of attention is necessary, which leads learners to notice linguistic features in the input (cf. Philp, 2013b). The Noticing Hypothesis, which is based on findings in psychology, acknowledges learners’ attention is limited both in scope and capacity, but partly subject to voluntary control and may thus be used selectively by learners to attend to formal elements of language. Noticing relies on prior knowledge and schemata as learners require some element of awareness of what to look out for in interaction. Attention rests on several learner-internal and external variables, and noticing does not directly lead to learning. Their relationship is incremental and recursive. Nevertheless, noticing can be supported by manipulation of the task materials (i.e., input enhancement, input flooding) or procedures of the task (i.e., increased planning time, teacheror learner-initiated focus on form) (Philp, 2013b, p. 465). These insights on the roles of input, output, and noticing during conversa‐ tional interaction, often elicited in the context of tasks, were summarized in the updated Interaction Hypothesis, stating, negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS [i.e., native speaker] or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways. (Long, 1996, pp. 451-2) This approach has established itself as a widely accepted framework in SLA research and theory (cf. García-Mayo, 2013, p. 332; Mackey, 2007). These contributions have sparked concerted empirical research on language learner interaction, as visible by multiple meta-analyses on the effectiveness of interac‐ 30 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="31"?> tion (Keck et al., 2006; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Russel & Spada, 2006), which corroborate its conducive effects on language learning. However, this research has a validity problem due to most studies having been conducted in tightly controlled experimental settings with limited representativeness of the complex reality of the foreign language classroom. 2.1.2.2 Interaction in sociocultural theory-informed SLA A different line of research into interaction and tasks adopts sociocultural theory (SCT) as a framework, which will be introduced first before discussing the relevant interaction-based research it has informed. SCT is largely based on cultural psychologist Lev S. Vygotsky’s work, which was rediscovered by proponents of CLT decades after his passing. Rejecting the dualism between nature and nurture, between mind and culture, SCT views human behavior and cognition neither as exclusively mentalistic nor as a function of the social and cultural environment but emphasizes the interconnectedness of both planes (Atkinson, 2013, p. 586). According to this view, development of the individual originates in social interaction. SCT posits that higher-order thinking presupposes adequate neurobiological resources, yet important forms of human cognition develop through constant interaction with the social, cultural, and material environment (Lantolf & Thorne, 2007, pp. 201-2). Hence, Vygotsky proposed what he called the ‘genetic law of cultural development: ’ Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological), and then inside the child (intrapsychological). (…) All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between human individuals. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57) Learners thus gain access to historically formed semiotic and cultural tools of the environment through interaction with other human beings. These tools become available for future activity through the processes of imitation, understood as the voluntary and intentional reconstruction of models in the environment, and internalization, whereby learners traverse through the stages of other-regula‐ tion, object-regulation, and eventually self-regulation (Lantolf, 2006; Lantolf & Thorne, 2007). At this latter stage, higher mental functions are either mediated by verbal thought, visual or other forms of mental representation, or completely automatized. Language, as the most pervasive cultural tool, is incorporated to regulate the mental activity of the individual. It introduces historically formed mediating artifacts into thought processes and transforms communicative language into inner speech and verbal thought ( John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996, p. 196; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 153). 31 2.1 Pedagogical and empirical origins of TBLT <?page no="32"?> Regulation, internalization, and imitation occur within the zone of proximal development (ZPD), which Vygotsky (1978) defined as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). The ZPD thus facilitates a dual focus on what learners have achieved and can currently do by themselves, and their potential for learning in the future (Mahn, 2015; Thorne & Hellermann, 2015). In this sense, the ZPD “gives researchers a window into the future” (Negueruela-Azarola et al., 2015, p. 234) by capturing learners’ functions as they are still in an “embryonic state” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). Vygotsky argued that two children may solve the same standardized task designed for their chronological age, but may produce different results when offered skilled help, thus revealing developmental differences between them, despite otherwise similar results on individual non-scaffolded test formats (cf. van Lier, 1996). The ZPD can also differ within a learner doing the same task at different times or engaging in different areas or subjects (cf. section 2.3). These processes are most commonly researched adopting some type of genetic analysis, which is interested in uncovering the genetic origins of competencies rather than their external appearance (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 29). The sociocultural approach has informed task-based interaction research and theory in multiple ways, most notably concerning the role of scaffolding at the ZPD, languaging, collaborative dialog, and private speech. While psycho‐ linguistic approaches (cf. section 2.1.2.1) view interaction as a source of input, feedback, and opportunity for output modification as well as activating cog‐ nitive processes conducive to acquisition, sociocultural research understands interaction as the site and process where learning takes place through ‘acquis‐ ition-as-participation.’ Where interactionists conceive of language acquisition as the product of interaction, sociocultural researchers describe the very act of participation in social discourse as the process of learning (Ellis, 2012, p. 238). These notions are subsequently introduced and exemplified with reference to research on the role of interaction in tasks from the perspective of SCT. A growing research body has investigated the role of the ZPD in language learning contexts. For instance, studying tutor-tutee exchanges on grammatical errors, Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) provided evidence of how scaffolding within the ZPD must be graduated and contingent to support learning within the ZPD and facilitate increasing self-regulation. Feedback, furthermore, must be dynamic and carefully adjusted to the individual learner, especially since different learners were shown to have different ZPDs during the same task context. As a consequence, learner development is traceable in the quantity and 32 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="33"?> quality of the mediation necessary for successful task completion, in addition to overt task outcomes. Poehner (2007, 2008) describes how dynamic assessment, based on Vygotsky’s critique of non-scaffolded testing tasks, is carried out with instructors actively mediating learners’ performance of progressively more complex tasks (‘transcendence activities’) rather than merely observing individual assessment tasks. He concludes, interactional mediation fosters learner development if it is sensitive to learners’ changing needs, coheres around their ZPD, and addresses linguistic concepts so they can be internalized. The amount and quality of support provided to learners during these tasks can indicate learner development and make visible differences among learners, even if their overt task performance is similar. Closely related to these studies are investigations that conceptualize interac‐ tion as collaborative dialog or peer and teacher scaffolding, thereby contributing to language learning in the ZPD. In contrast to expert-novice interactions, Donato (1994) explored how peers provide scaffolding to each other through interaction, contending that knowledge building can occur in these interactions, although both learners may not be able to solve a task individually by them‐ selves. While engaging in collaborative dialog, “the speakers are at the same time individually novices and collectively experts, sources of new orientations for each other and guides through this complex linguistic problem solving” (ibid., p. 42). Learners, for instance, collaboratively constructed verb forms neither partner had known before the task and were even able to reproduce these forms in a post-test, providing evidence of a transition from other to self-regulation through internalization of previously interpersonal scaffolding. Research informed by SCT reveals that interaction and especially output carries more functions than assumed by cognitivists. Swain (2000), revisiting the functions of output, writes how interaction serves more purposes than merely providing comprehensible input or feedback to the learner and does not neces‐ sarily arise from communicative breakdowns, as is the case in negotiation of meaning. Specifically, collaborative dialog on tasks is a semiotic tool mediating physical and mental activities and a cognitive tool regulating others and the self. The two L2 French learners in Swain’s study verbalize alternative gender forms of a noun. This output can be looked at as ‘saying’—a process in which the speakers are engaged in collaborative meaning construction, and as ‘what is said’—an externalized product that both learners can now respond to and reflect upon (Swain, 2000, p. 102). Both learners’ collaborative performance, like in Donato’s study above, outstrips what either can do alone and may entail subsequent internalization. These functions, collective knowledge construction and cognitive mediation, and the fact that language learning occurs during 33 2.1 Pedagogical and empirical origins of TBLT <?page no="34"?> interaction rather than as a result of it are not sufficiently captured by the Interaction Hypothesis. One particular branch of sociocultural interaction research investigates the occurrence and functions of meta-linguistic dialog during task performance. When learners incidentally shift their attention to linguistic form during task performance and ‘talk it through’ by explicating L2 rules and hypotheses, this may mediate cognitive activity and facilitate the internalization of higher-order thought from the interto the intrapersonal plane (Swain & Lapkin, 2002, p. 286). This meta-talk, referred to as ‘languaging,’ is defined as “the use of language to mediate cognitively demanding/ complex activities (e.g., solving problems about language)” (Swain & Suzuki, 2010, p. 565). It can involve paraphrasing, inferencing, analyzing self-assessment, and re-reading, which can be stimulated with external feedback within the learners’ ZPD (Knouzi et al., 2010), and is associated with noticing and accurate, more in-depth understanding of language forms (Swain et al., 2009). In a series of studies, Swain and colleagues (Brooks et al., 2010; Brooks & Swain, 2009; Knouzi et al., 2010; Lapkin et al., 2008; Swain et al., 2009) could show that learners engage in languaging to externalize mental processes by verbalizing their thoughts, which helps them to notice the gap between current and potential proficiency, facilitate self-monitoring, seek feedback, and subsequently internalize these semiotic tools: by externalizing their thoughts (i.e., by using language to mediate their cognitive processes), students came to understand what they did and did not know, what information they had to seek out to complete their understanding and what inferences they needed to make to have a coherent conceptual understanding. (Swain et al., 2009, p. 21) In verbalizing their thoughts, learners essentially ‘self-scaffold’ their language learning through language use (Knouzi et al., 2010). Moreover, languaging helps students restructure what they already know about language, to develop a more systematic understanding of previously spontaneous concepts of language, and it indicates to teachers and researchers where “the long, twisting path of internalization was started” (Brooks et al., 2010, p. 107). Finally, sociocultural interaction research has investigated private speech, which refers to “speech that is social in origin but which is cognitive in function. That is, it is used by individuals to organize and regulate their own mental behavior” (Lantolf & Beckett, 2009, p. 460) and subsequently is internalized as inner speech, essentially a form of self-regulation. Private speech thus may support learners in mediating their thought processes (Gánem-Gutiérrez & Roehr, 2011; Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000; H. J. Smith, 2007), facilitate text 34 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="35"?> comprehension (Appel & Lantolf, 1994; Roebuck, 2000), and be employed to produce oral narratives (Frawley & Lantolf, 1985). Studying the acquisition of language learning strategies, Donato and McCormick (1994) demonstrated that learning strategies could be seen as by-products of socialization into language learning communities through dialog with the self and the teacher. Ohta (2001) recorded private speech of language learners in a classroom setting and noticed that they engaged in self-dialog in support of internalization, for instance, by making ‘vicarious responses’ (pp. 39-54) to questions directed at others. Besides serving as a source of language acquisition, private speech in this study revealed learners’ attention to incidental learning opportunities not originally planned by the teacher (cf. section 2.3.2). Studies have also focused on the role of gesture in mediating internal cognitive activity and thus functioning as a non-verbal form of private speech, besides its obvious communicative function (Choi & Lantolf, 2008; McCafferty, 1992). * * * What do these different understandings of interaction mean in the context of task-based pedagogies? On the one hand, the review of psycholinguistic and sociocultural approaches reveals sweeping differences between both views. Firth and Wagner (1997) captured this rift in their programmatic critique on the psycholinguistic SLA project as overly “individualistic,” “mechanistic,” and unable to “account in a satisfactory way for an interactional and sociolinguistic dimension of language” (p. 285), while calling for enhanced awareness of con‐ textual and interactional dimensions of language use, increased emic sensitivity in research, and a broadening of the traditional SLA database. And yet, despite conceptualizing the construct of interaction differentially, points of contact can be discerned, especially concerning the role of tasks in both views, as Ellis (2012) pointedly concludes: Both [i.e., psycholinguistic and sociocultural theories] have explored the role played by interaction through research based on tasks. Both perspectives emphasize the importance of attention to linguistic features in the course of performing tasks. Both also recognize the value of talk directed at developing awareness at the level of understanding. Both acknowledge that both expert and novice interlocutors can help shape the kinds of interactions that promote learning. Both acknowledge the important role played by feedback (although they differ in how they see feedback contributing to learning). Both research traditions have explored the contribution to learning made by consciousness-raising tasks. (p. 267) 35 2.1 Pedagogical and empirical origins of TBLT <?page no="36"?> 2.2 Language learning tasks in research and pedagogy The previous section approached TBLT from the historical and conceptual perspectives of CLT and foreign and second language interaction research. The terms CLT and TBLT are not synonymous, and we are reminded that “CLT cannot be found in any one textbook or set of curricular materials” (Savignon, 2000, p. 128). Instead, as can be inferred from the cursory discus‐ sion of pedagogical antecedents (cf. section 2.1.1), CLT represents a broader philosophical approach resting on research in applied linguistics, pedagogy, education, psychology, and sociology. TBLT can be seen as a realization of CLT at the levels of methodology and syllabus design (Nunan, 2004, p. 10). Likewise, while tasks have been central to different branches of interaction research, the link between the research reviewed above and pedagogical tasks and task-based syllabi is not a direct one. A reductionist understanding of TBLT as a principled, top-down application of insights derived from SLA would be simplistic, if not utterly misconceiving the complexity and situatedness of task-based classroom practices (Samuda et al., 2018, p. 7). According to van den Branden (2015), the applicability of this research at the classroom level can be described as follows: From a task-based perspective, learners are believed to learn to use a second language for functional purposes most efficiently when they get repeated chances in the classroom to try and use the target language for functional purposes. In addition, for the learner, these “tasks” should be challenging (inviting the learner to process new input and meet new output demands), motivating (because this will add to the mental energy the student will invest in performing the task), and interactive. Interaction is claimed to serve many purposes: besides adding to the ‘naturalness’ of the activity and strengthening the link with target task performance in the real world, it may support the learner in comprehending unknown input and producing output slightly above their current level of proficiency (e.g., through such interactional devices as negotiation for meaning, scaffolding, feedback, and recasting). An explicit focus on particular forms (such as grammar rules or vocabulary) is expected to be particularly effective when it is tightly embedded within the meaning-based communication work that the task elicits, as this provides the learner with optimal chances to weave form-focus into a need to mean (Samuda, 2001), and to mentally link the formal and structural properties of a particular linguistic rule to its social, pragmatic, and semantic properties. (pp. 306-7) Because tasks occupy the central role at all programmatic stages in TBLT—from pedagogical goals (i.e., syllabus), to educational activities (i.e., methodology), to assessment (Eckerth, 2007, p. 93; van den Branden, 2006, p. 12)—this approach’s 36 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="37"?> 2 However, the TBLT approach is not without criticism (cf. Ellis, 2013). Critiques on TBLT have been advanced from proponents of more traditional approaches to language pedagogy who challenge TBLT’s evidence base as ‘legislation by hypothesis’ (Sheen, 1994; Swan, 2005); from SLA researchers on the grounds of theoretical and empirical threats to the construct validity of the ‘task’ construct (Seedhouse, 2005; Widdowson, 2003); and from teachers and researchers questioning the compatibility of TBLT with non-western cultural norms (Littlewood, 2007), institutionalized classroom settings (Carless, 2004), and heterogenous learner groups or learners with special educational needs (Blume et al., 2018). discussion starts from the definition of the task construct and the pedagogical principles which are commonly associated with it (section 2.2.1). The next sections will then approach issues of task-based pedagogy (section 2.2.2) and distinguish different types of tasks as well as language exercises (section 2.2.3). 2.2.1 ‘Task’ as a research construct and pedagogical tool While the centrality of tasks in both research and pedagogy is now considered a mainstream position across the field of second and foreign language pedagogy, 2 different task definitions have proliferated since the first calls for a task-based approach some four decades ago (Bygate et al., 2001; Crookes, 1986; Ellis, 2003; Long, 2015; Nunan, 2004; Samuda & Bygate, 2008; van den Branden, 2006; D. Willis & Willis, 2007). Unsurprisingly, Ellis (2003) notes “in neither research nor language pedagogy is there complete agreement as to what constitutes a task, making definition problematic […], nor is there consistency in the terms employed to describe the different devices for eliciting learner language” (p. 2). Likewise, Samuda and Bygate (2008) argue “the sheer volume of resulting [task] definitions, re-definitions and counter-definitions” (p. 62) surfacing in TBLT must appear confusing to colleagues in other fields. Robinson (2007), another prominent voice in the field, confirms that “[c]urrently, no classificatory system is accepted as a shared basis for research or educational decision-making by task-based language learning researchers, programme designers and teachers” (p. 14), and Hallet and Legutke (2013) refer to the task construct as “fuzzy” (p. 142). Different task understandings may stem from differences in theoretical orientation, as demonstrated in relation to psycholinguistic and sociocultural interaction research (cf. section 2.1.2); different purposes for which tasks are employed, such as learning, teaching, research, or assessment (cf. Bygate et al., 2001); differences in the underlying pedagogical approach reflecting ‘strong’ or ‘weak’ versions of CLT (Howatt, 1984, p. 279); differences between task-based (Long, 2015), task-supported (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011; Samuda & Bygate, 2008), and task-referenced (Prabhu, 1987) 37 2.2 Language learning tasks in research and pedagogy <?page no="38"?> language learning and teaching (cf. Samuda & Bygate, 2008, pp. 58-60); or differences in syllabus design (cf. Long & Crookes, 1991), including notions of procedural (Prabhu, 1987), process (Breen, 1987; Breen & Candlin, 1980; Candlin, 1987), and task-based syllabi (Long, 1985). Many of these issues will be revisited later in this chapter. Before the differences of individual task approaches are addressed along with their underlying understandings of task-based language pedagogy, task concepts can be looked at in terms of what they reveal about TBLT. Reviewing 17 definitions of language learning tasks, van den Branden (2006) deduces these features as emerging across the definitions: - Language learning goals: Tasks are commonly defined as goal-oriented activities in which learners engage to attain a pragmatic objective, which may or may not be linguistic or communicative in nature but necessitates language use. For example, ‘painting a fence’ (Long, 1985) in itself may not be a language task, but it may require people to understand instructions or cooperate using language. Curriculum goals, then, describe the tasks learners are expected to perform and the kind of language they are likely to require. Thus, language is a means to an end, and learners learn to com‐ municate in a foreign language through communication so that processes and outcomes of language learning begin to merge in TBLT (cf. Breen, 1984; Nunan, 2004). - Task-based syllabuses: As a realization of CLT at the level of syllabus design and classroom implementation, task-based syllabuses are in stark contrast to syllabus approaches outside CLT: ‘Synthetic’ (Wilkins, 1976) or ‘Type A’ syllabuses (R. V. White, 1988) are structured based on a progression of discrete language items, which are selected externally without direct con‐ sideration of the learner group. This approach assumes language learning is a linear process where learners gradually acquire language forms and synthesize the limited and artificial language samples they are exposed to, in order to solve tasks and build their language proficiency. The SLA research on interaction presented above (2.1.2) disproves this understanding as simplistic by showing how language learning is a non-linear and recursive process emerging from participation in social discourse and cognitive processes associated with negotiation of meaning. TBLT, on the other hand, is subsumed under the rubrics of ‘analytic’ or ‘Type B’ syllabuses, which take the students’ learning needs as a point of departure and use tasks as a vehicle to introduce authentic language samples to the learners and engage them in negotiation of meaning and collaborative dialog during interaction. The learner analyzes the language emerging in interaction and, in line 38 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="39"?> with the research discussed above, learns to communicate by engaging in communication (cf. Long & Crookes, 1991). - Authentic language use: There should be a connection between the language and discourse functions in the real world and the classroom. Pedagogic tasks, in other words, should be authentic of target tasks occurring outside the classroom, although it is disputed whether pedagogic tasks within the classroom should emulate target tasks (Long, 1985) or whether classroom tasks should simply result in the same kind of language use (Ellis, 2003). As with regard to analytic syllabuses, the concept of authenticity emphasizes an initial needs analysis and the identification of relevant target tasks around which the syllabus is then structured. - Meaningful communication: TBLT engages learners in meaningful interac‐ tion, that is, interaction which is linked to relevant communicative and non-communicative outcomes. Thus, learners’ attention during task-based interaction should be primarily directed towards the pragmatic content of the discourse with opportunities to focus on meaningful input and produce meaningful output. van den Branden (2006) stresses such mean‐ ingful communication invites students to act as language users, rather than language learners, who use language to attain personally relevant goals. Because speakers use language to attain linguistic and non-linguistic goals, meaningful communication rests on complex cognitive skills rather than linguistic skills exclusively. - Focus on form: Despite the primary orientation to meaning, focus on form which is incidental rather than pre-emptive and thus emerges from learners’ interaction is a hallmark of TBLT (cf. section 2.1.2). When and how focus on form should be implemented in tasks is debated. Some research suggests that learners can be influenced to attend to form through purposeful manipulation of task features during design in the form of focused tasks or consciousness-raising tasks (Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004). - Learner-centeredness: The principles of experiential learning, or ‘learning by doing,’ and the focus on socially and culturally situated communicative competence undergirding CLT assign primary significance to the learner in TBLT. Learners, their needs, and realms of experience are the departure point for curricular considerations and classroom practice. According to the sociocultural view, learners are active participants in classroom practice and invest mental activity in tasks, which require them not only to interact with other speakers, but also to negotiate curriculum content and make decisions affecting task procedures and outcomes. It is learners who transform tasks from the state of theoretical workplans into practice through their activity 39 2.2 Language learning tasks in research and pedagogy <?page no="40"?> (Breen, 1987; cf. section 2.3). Consequently, planned task procedures and content are only ‘potential’ until enacted by the learner. This reflects on the role of teachers in TBLT, who motivate learners to engage in tasks, facilitate and scaffold students’ task engagement, and evaluate the outcomes. - Assessment: Since TBLT focuses on communicative competence as an objective, not the isolated knowledge of L2 forms, valid forms of learner assessment must reflect this orientation: “Rather than asking students to demonstrate knowledge of the L2, task-based tests should ascertain whether learners can use the L2 to accomplish target tasks” (van den Branden, 2006, p. 11). In line with the broader educational objectives of TBLT, especially non-linguistic ones, task-based assessment thus should account for all skills involved in performing a task. The most direct approach in this regard is to ask learners to perform a task and evaluate their performance in terms of the outcome or, in a more linguistic perspective, whether key structures have been used (cf. ibid., p. 12). This also implies that task-based assessment may take place in adaptive social configurations rather individually, which is discussed above in terms of dynamic assessment (cf. section 2.1.2.2). Many of these notions will be addressed again in later sections of this chapter. However, despite these common features, TBLT is not a uniform method and can refer to diverse approaches to pedagogical planning, implementation, and assessment. Together with the fuzziness of the task concept mentioned above and the “terminological latitude” (Samuda, 2015, p. 276) with which some researchers treat tasks, this raises the importance of clearly outlining what is, and what is not, meant by ‘task’ in this study. To illustrate this issue, some of the most prominent task definitions in the field are reviewed first. One of the earliest task definitions comes from Long (1985), describing it as a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some reward. Thus examples of tasks include painting a fence, dressing a child, filling out a form […]. In other words, by ‘task’ is meant the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play and in between.” (p. 89) While this definition underlines the understanding of task as activity with an obvious nexus to real-world contexts, it is also non-linguistic and non-pedagog‐ ical in that it makes no mention of communication, classroom implementation, or social settings in which tasks are carried out. Breen (1987), on the other hand, defined tasks as “any structured language learning endeavour which has a particular objective, appropriate content, a specified working procedure, and a range of outcomes for those who undertake the task” (p. 23). In contrast to Long, Breen explicitly focuses on the pedagogical context of tasks, their meaning 40 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="41"?> orientation, and careful procedural planning, yet it is so broad in scope, virtually any activity undertaken in the classroom could qualify as a task. In the so-called Bangalore Project, Prabhu (1987) conceptualized tasks as activities, “which required learners to arrive at an outcome from given information through some process of thought and which allowed teachers to control and regulate that process” (p. 24). His definition thus highlights the cognitive dimension of tasks, usually by expecting learners to perform cognitive processes like listing, sorting, or reasoning in order to close some kind of ‘gap’ posed by the task, as well as the didactic dimension of teachers who are in the position to manipulate or control this process through task design and instructions. Approaching the task concept from a pedagogical perspective, Candlin (1987) specifically addressed questions of task design, sequencing, selection, and implementation as well as the learner’s role in task enactment within the social context of the classroom: One of a set of differentiated, sequencable, problem-posing activities involving learners and teachers in some joint selection from a range of varied cognitive and communicative procedures applied to existing and new knowledge in the collective exploration and pursuance of foreseen or emergent goals within a social milieu. (p. 10) This approach goes further than the aforementioned minimal or non-peda‐ gogical task definitions in referencing the social classroom and pedagogical procedures of task implementation. This distinction between tasks in the real world and the classroom is important in TBLT. Nunan (2004), for instance, echoing Long’s above-cited definition, speaks of real-world tasks as “the hundred and one things we do with language in everyday life” (p. 19), including, for example, writing a poem, making a reservation, or exchanging contact information with acquaintances, thus corresponding to the functions of aesthetic, transactional, or interpersonal language use. If selected as a curricular objective (i.e., what learners are expected to be able to do with language), they are referred to as ‘target tasks.’ These are distinguished from pedagogic tasks, which are pedagogical adaptations of real-world tasks, intended to lead learners to develop the language needed to master communicative tasks outside the classroom. Pedagogic tasks operate on a continuum between a rehearsal rationale (i.e., practicing communicative situations learners will likely encounter outside the classroom) and an activation rationale (i.e., activating language structures and functions learners are likely to require for interaction outside the classroom) (cf. Nunan, 2004, pp. 19-21). Pedagogic tasks should be relevant to learners, respond to or arouse learner interest and attention, and approximate real-world language use as closely as possible (Long, 2015, p. 249). Unless working with very advanced learners, 41 2.2 Language learning tasks in research and pedagogy <?page no="42"?> however, materials and input should be elaborated, rather than unenhanced (i.e., ‘authentic’) or simplified, to support language learning (Yano et al., 1994). Reviewing the literature on language learning tasks, Ellis (2003, pp. 2-16) derives six dimensions in which task definitions differ: - the scope of a task (e.g., limited to meaning-focused activities requiring functional language use or other classroom activities) - the perspective from which a task is viewed (e.g., learner, teacher, or researcher) - the authenticity of a task (i.e., situational authenticity by simulating real-world situations or interactional authenticity by simulating real-world interactional structures) - the linguistic skills necessary to perform a task (e.g., whether tasks engage productive or receptive language skills) - the psychological processes involved in task performance, and - the task outcomes (e.g., from communicative outcomes to educational and curricular aims). This framework is potentially useful for comparing different views on tasks and TBLT. Based on these dimensions, Ellis (2003) establishes criterial features of tasks on which his task definition is based: 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 productive or receptive, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes. (p. 16) Ellis’s task definition is aligned with the language learning potential of inter‐ action and the psychological processes SLA research considers conducive to language acquisition (section 2.1.2.1). The definition also addresses the TBLT features discussed above, such as authenticity, meaningful communication, integrated skills, and focus on form. However, while this ‘all-purpose’ definition is general enough to facilitate the operationalization of tasks across different research and educational contexts, it neglects central notions of CLT, especially regarding the pedagogical implementation of tasks, their educational and emancipatory affordances, the relationship between teacher, learner(s), and 42 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="43"?> tasks, and the sociocultural and historical situatedness of tasks, to name but a few (cf. section 2.1.1). In this sense, Ellis’s approach adopts the perspective of cognitivist SLA rather than the sociocultural perspective. This criticism is shared by Samuda and Bygate (2008, pp. 65-9), who propose a series of modifications to Ellis’s understanding of tasks. Although promoting definitional clarity, Ellis’s focus on the workplan invariably adopts the perspec‐ tive of task designers and teachers. Yet, it is the relation between workplan and process in the context of “holistic types of pedagogical activity” (ibid., p. 66), which is relevant to both educational research and pedagogy. Likewise, rather than separating the notions of meaning orientation and real-life connection (i.e., authenticity), tasks should encompass the notion of language use, a term that emphasizes the social and interpersonal mediation of language. Referring to the emancipatory and transformational objectives associated with CLT, the authors also criticize an overreliance on cognitive processes of problem-solving in Ellis (2003). They demand tasks be conceived as problem-posing in the sense that learners seek their own challenges, promoting language development by attaining non-linguistic outcomes through the use of language. Finally, in keeping with the notion of experiential learning, a definition should reflect that tasks can engage learners in both procedural and content learning. Based on this rationale, Samuda and Bygate (2008) propose this 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 or both. (p. 69) As a blanket definition of language learning tasks in an educational context, this approach does justice to the pedagogical antecedents on which CLT and TBLT rest, especially as they relate to experiential learning, learner centered‐ ness, emancipatory and deliberative education, and notions of sociocultural mediation of higher mental functions. Still, the question remains how such a broad approach can be matched to the specific educational context of German secondary schools, in which this present study was undertaken (cf. chapter 5). Echoing Samuda’s and Bygate’s rejection of exclusively cognitivist task conceptions, Hallet (2006, 2012) levels criticism on the recent standards and outcome orientation in the German and other European education systems, which has led to the adoption of an impoverished translation of communicative competence—one that is stripped of its ideational history (cf. section 2.1.1), reduced to the traditional four language skills and the fifth skill of interlingual and intercultural mediation, and only marginally considers the role of more holistic abilities of handling communicative situations as well as 43 2.2 Language learning tasks in research and pedagogy <?page no="44"?> compelling contents and foreign language aesthetic forms of expression (Hallet, 2012, pp. 8-9; Hallet & Legutke, 2013, p. 147). This is problematic, given the overriding pedagogical and educational goals of schooling, encapsulated in the German concept of ‘Bildung,’ according to which schools serve the purpose of enabling students to lead a self-determined life, participate in a democratic society, and engage in sociocultural discourses. In the 21 st century, this entails competence in a foreign language and, regarding institutionalized EFL learning, Hallet (2008) speaks of foreign language discourse competence, informed by the Foucaultian notion of discourses as dynamic, multivocal, and multimodal ensembles of texts which collectively represent cultural knowledge and emerge along societal spheres and specific issues or topics (Hallet, 2012, p. 9). EFL tasks purporting to facilitate participation in sociocultural discourses must foster concomitant cognitive, socio-interactive, and discursive competencies, skills, and attitudes, which are complex and multidimensional and thus exceed mere communicative skills defined as can-do statements. Furthermore, such tasks are ideally situated within or connected to authentic discourses and not just construed as pedagogical approximations, so learners can act and be perceived as cultural agents in their own right. At the same time, this complexity and openness are met with appropriate instructional design and support structures meant to ensure that the aforementioned forms of problem-solving are initiated and carried out at the learners’ ZPD. Hence, Hallet proposes a model of the complex competence task (‘komplexe Kompetenzaufgabe’) to reconcile the current standards and outcome orientation with the pedagogical rationales of CLT and the broader focus on ‘Bildung.’ Similarly, this task concept attempts to balance learners’ foreign language interactions and pedagogical task work inside the classroom with their role as cultural agents in real-world foreign language discourses outside the classroom (Hallet, 2012, pp. 11-2). This notion is of particular relevance in the context of participatory online and Web 2.0 discourses addressed in this study (cf. section 3.3) as well as for the structure of the investigated school project, which is tied to the real-world discourse on the U.S. presidential election (cf. chapter 5). Accordingly, complex competence tasks can be defined as follows: Competence-oriented tasks thus initiate complex interactions and negotiation pro‐ cesses along the lines of challenging lifeworld situations (hence ‘complex tasks’); in the ideal case, students also participate directly in real cultural discourses and social processes. Competence-oriented tasks are thus necessarily always experien‐ tial, complex and challenging, and, in addition, they are a pedagogical instrument that connects curricular and classroom discourses with extracurricular, real-world discourses. Intertwining school learning with cultural action, they connect the sphere 44 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="45"?> of the classroom with that of the lifeworld, the field of cultural experience with the learning environment, and classroom tasks with the real-world problems on which they are modeled. (Hallet & Legutke, 2013, p. 148) The model of the complex competence task is intended as a competency model to operationalize targeted learning objectives, as a process model mediating the understanding of task procedures and learner (inter-) actions with and within the learning environment, and as a planning model for the instructional design of tasks and task implementation (Hallet, 2012, p. 14). These purposes are achieved through the arrangement of the following constituent components: - the formulation of competence goals and targeted skills; - the selection of meaningful and relevant topics and contents; - the orchestration of multiple forms of input, such as images, texts, and media mirroring the complexity of the addressed real-life problem; - the implementation and modeling of discursive and media genres, in which learners are encouraged to participate; - the identification and scaffolding of instrumental linguistic forms derived from the task’s communicative goal(s); - the provision of sub-competency tasks and learner-centered scaffolding to structure the task into manageable steps and provide a supportive framework for the practice of skills and forms; - the definition of the task’s cognitive, interactional, and discursive processes and their contribution to the overall competency acquisition fostered by the task; - the definition of task outcomes, which in turn determine other task dimen‐ sions like planning, sequencing, materials, and generic forms; - the formulation of task instructions that structure the task process and provide task support for learners (Hallet, 2011, 2012; Hallet & Legutke, 2013). Thus, the complex task concept adequately responds to the notion of holistic tasks and task performance (Samuda & Bygate, 2008), while also considering the demands of the outcome and accountability orientation in the German educational system in which this study is situated. The above parameters of complex competence tasks, furthermore, point to crucial issues to be revisited in subsequent chapters, such as the genres within Web 2.0 (cf. section 3.3), the role of agency and discourse participation in these genres (cf. sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3), the connection of the school project to the topical real-world discourse on the U.S. election (cf. section 5.2), and the sequencing of tasks and task procedures in a blended learning format (cf. sections 3.2 and 5.5). The discussion will return to task concepts in more detail in the context of CALL and the specific criteria for 45 2.2 Language learning tasks in research and pedagogy <?page no="46"?> task appraisal in this particular field of foreign language pedagogy (cf. sections 3.4.2 and 3.6). Finally, however, a word of caution is in place: It is in the nature of models to systematize and reduce the complex realities of the phenomena and processes they seek to represent. What is more, tasks in pedagogical contexts are molded by their participants upon implementation and are subject to the complex array of factors defining EFL classroom settings (cf. section 4.5.1). D. Willis and Willis (2007, p. 13) circumvent this issue by proposing a set of criterial questions for evaluating how ‘task-like’ an activity is rather than referring to a universal task definition. This approach recognizes that a distinction of tasks from other activity types is a matter of degree rather than categorical. Also, Bygate et al. (2001) remind us, ‘task’ can mean different things to different people, not necessarily because of differences in programmatic understandings of TBLT, but because researchers, teachers, and learners may associate different intentions with tasks: Researchers may frequently prefer tasks which are rather static in nature, precisely because this provides them with a dependable unit on which they can hang their research. (…) In contrast, task approaches from a teaching perspective may well be dynamic and extended—qualities that may be most desired by task users. The lack of standardisation that results may cause difficulty for researchers, but the potential that such tasks have for development may be exactly what makes them attractive. (Bygate et al., 2001, p. 12) Since this study investigates the enactment of tasks in the setting of the intact EFL classroom and the socio-institutional secondary school context, the dynamic and extended nature of tasks, as well as the richness of learner interactions therein, is the central focus and thus not considered a compromising factor. The next section addresses in more detail task features discussed in the literature. 2.2.2 Task-based language pedagogy After the preceding section delineated the concept of ‘task’ as a research construct and as a pedagogical tool in the form of holistic and complex competence tasks, this section now discusses more concrete questions of task implementation and task-based pedagogy: task features, task sequencing, and task structure. 46 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="47"?> 2.2.2.1 Task features Task frameworks and features “help translating the abstract notions and de‐ mands proposed by the curriculum into practice” (Dreßler, 2018, p. 86). While SLA theory and research explore what is necessary and sufficient for language learning to occur, teaching methodology concerns itself with facilitative effects to make language teaching maximally effective (Long, 2015, p. 301). There is no room to discuss task-based pedagogical principles here at length, but major principles will be briefly sketched out and related to the investigated school project. Before discussing task sequencing and the three-part task structure (i.e., within-task sequencing), general pedagogical features of tasks are addressed. Considering the multiplicity of purposes and contexts with which TBLT is commonly associated, it is unsurprising that various typologies with different points of emphasis and for different application contexts exist in the literature (L. Cameron, 2001; Estaire & Zanón, 1994; Legutke & Thomas, 1991; Long, 2015; Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011; Nunan, 2004; Piepho, 2003; Willis, 1996). Such frameworks are helpful for teachers as a procedural guide for classroom planning and implementation, as a tool for language learning, and as guidelines for task appraisal. Long (2015) deduces from SLA theory, research, and pedagogy ten methodo‐ logical principles as “universally desirable instructional design features” (p. 301) of what should be done in the classroom. These principles are directly related to the cognitive and communicative processes outlined above in connection to cognitivist research on interaction (cf. section 2.1.2.1), such as the availability of elaborate, rich input and negative feedback as well as opportunities for inductive, experiential, and cooperative learning in the learning environment. While most of these methodological principles are empirically grounded (cf. Long, 2015, pp. 302-3), they share many of the same issues as the research they are based on: They are putative language teaching universals, although some‐ what removed from naturalistic classroom practices. They do focus on language learning through interaction, but only marginally involve non-linguistic areas (e.g., motivation, intercultural learning, learning strategies). Nunan (2004, pp. 35-8) mentions the principles of scaffolding, task depend‐ ency, recycling, active learning, integration (of form, function, and meaning), reproduction to creation, and reflection. Inherent in this TBLT framework is the teacher’s perspective with the broad goals of planning and implementing tasks. The principles related to sequencing the lesson and syllabus—task dependency, recycling, reproduction to creation—are implemented in the overall structure of the election project and described in greater detail in sections 5.1 and 5.2. Suffice it to say the project curriculum is organized in self-contained but 47 2.2 Language learning tasks in research and pedagogy <?page no="48"?> interrelated task cycles where each step represents the foundation for the next. The curriculum pre-structures a logical progression from the U.S. electoral system to a focus on the presidential candidates and election issues and finally to the election in the adopted state. This plan also marks a progression from receptive tasks (e.g., watching a video, researching candidates and issues online) to freer, more creative language use and the production of a creative outcome (e.g., websites, blogs, posters, songs, or videos) about the election outcome in ‘their’ U.S. state (cf. Kaliampos, 2014b; Kaliampos & Schmidt, 2014). Nunan’s principle of reflection, which is conspicuously missing from other frameworks, is an important addition to task-based pedagogy. If the principles of learner centeredness and experiential learning are central in TBLT (cf. section 2.1.1), then learners should be supported in gaining awareness of and evaluating their learning and intentionally implement modifications (Kohonen, 1992; Kolb, 1984). The externalization and documentation of learners’ contributions in the school project through forums, glossaries, and databases within the LMS render these learning processes susceptible to reflection. The optional portfolio approach implemented across the project curriculum encourages participants to collect their work samples and present them to their teacher for formative assessment. Arguing from the perspective of humanistic psychology and Gestalt therapy, Legutke and Thomas (1991, pp. 48-65) argue for developing learners’ self-aware‐ ness through experiential activities and conceiving the learner as both psycho‐ logical and social (cf. section 2.1.2.2). They mention seven critical criteria for using tasks to promote learners’ growth and self-enhancement: context and topicality, awareness (of learning, emotions, and imagination), prior knowledge and prerequisites for learning, self-determination and selective authenticity, motivation and resistance, learners’ language needs and discoursal outcomes, and process relevance. Tasks, accordingly, should facilitate learning experiences which are meaningful and relevant by appealing to learners’ interests: “Without a connection to content areas and representation of the target culture, the stimulation of self-discovery and self-disclosure in the language classroom will remain arbitrary and could further aggravate learner alienation, and thus be counterproductive to its initial intent” (ibid., p. 50). Targeting advanced learners in the German upper secondary Gymnasium, this school project adheres to the principle of content-based instruction (Heine, 2016, p. 189; cf. section 5.2.5). Its thematic orientation to the U.S. election as a historical and current news event was met with overwhelming interest and curiosity by the vast majority of students, as indicated by the participant questionnaire surveys (cf. sections 6.1.1 and 6.3.1). In terms of channeling learners’ perceptions, the project intended 48 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="49"?> 3 These are the national standards for secondary education by the German conference of secretaries of education. to raise their awareness of informal learning opportunities involving Web 2.0 applications (cf. Reinhardt, 2018). The second focal case of the data analysis (cf. chapter 9) shows how one learner, Francesca, is unsure whether she is allowed to use social media in class and, as she begins to understand the affordances of such media, reacts emotionally to the display of aggressive opinions and polemic on Twitter. Through reflection, she later contextualizes her reaction and develops a nuanced understanding of the differences in discourse and media genres between expository texts (e.g., encyclopedia entries) and social media (cf. section 9.2.4). In addition, Müller-Hartmann and Schocker-von Ditfurth (2011, pp. 63-73) derive a typology of task features from a review of TBLT literature and their research on tasks in German EFL textbooks and classrooms. Effective language learning tasks motivate learner involvement through meaningful content, activating learners’ resources, and setting a clear communicative purpose and audience. They reflect complexity by facilitating learner choice, individual focus, rich resources, and process-orientation. In addition, they integrate a focus on form, embed individual and cooperative problem-solving in interactive sce‐ narios, sequence the task process, and balance task demands and task support. As Dreßler (2018, p. 87) rightly points out, this framework is informative because it specifically aligns task features with competency development and standards orientation endorsed by German ministries of education, which in turn is mostly based on the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe, 2001). The usefulness of this orientation cannot be overstated for those who translate curricula into concrete tasks and put task-based principles into practice—teachers. As compelling as task or project designs may be, their implementation can be stifled or entirely impeded if they do not align with curricular demands and institutional policies. Calibrating the investigated school project with relevant competency frameworks, including state-based EFL curricula, the national Bildungsstandards  3 (KMK, 2012) as well as the European Union’s Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp) (Carretero et al., 2017; Ferrari et al., 2013), was prioritized in the design of the school project (cf. sections 5.2 and 5.4). 2.2.2.2 Task sequencing and syllabus design If tasks are to be incorporated into a syllabus systematically, teachers must find ways of grading, sequencing, and implementing them in a principled 49 2.2 Language learning tasks in research and pedagogy <?page no="50"?> manner. Cognitivist approaches to TBLT describe the issue of task sequencing as a function of task difficulty. Two main positions have emerged in the research on this question. Firstly, Robinson’s cognition hypothesis proposes a three-way distinction between task complexity (i.e., cognitive demands of the task), task difficulty (i.e., the learner’s perception of the demands), and task conditions (i.e., the interactive demands of the task). Robinson argues the brain has multiple resource-attentional systems, and depletion in one system has no effect on the capacity of another. The sequencing of tasks should be solely based on the intrinsic cognitive complexity of tasks to elicit accurate and complex language from learners. Skehan’s (1996, 1998) trade-off hypothesis, on the other hand, views learners’ attentional resources as limited and access to them as even more limited when engaging in difficult tasks. Drawing on the work of Candlin (1987), Skehan distinguishes three factors of task difficulty: code complexity, cognitive complexity, and communicative stress. In essence, the distinction made here is between the language and thinking required for the task and the performance conditions (Skehan, 1998, p. 99). While both hypotheses have attracted an impressive volume of empirical research, it should be noted, most of this research has been performed under tightly controlled laboratory conditions seeking evidence in quantitative accounts of accuracy, complexity, and fluency in learner language. This research, however, is not representative of the complexity and emergent character of tasks as investigated in the naturalistic setting of EFL classrooms in this study. Furthermore, the relationship between its components and the sheer complexity of 36 variables in Robinson’s model raises doubts about its practicability for teachers (Long, 2015, p. 236; Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011, pp. 108-10). Pedagogically oriented approaches to task sequencing emphasize further aspects. Long (2015) outlines a framework for grading tasks which, in addition to task difficulty and relative task complexity, rests on the valency or criticality of communicative tasks, their frequency, and developmental sequences and learnability. Yet, these criteria must be applied to pedagogic tasks, not linguistic forms, and even then can be unsatisfactory unless applied to the results of a task-based needs analysis (Long, 2015, p. 246). According to Ellis (2003), tasks should be graded based on input (i.e., the information learners are exposed to, including the medium of the input, linguistic complexity, familiarity with the topic, context-dependency), task conditions (e.g., single vs. multiple operations required), process factors (e.g., what learners will do with the information), and task outcome (e.g., closed vs. open, or simple vs. complex). However, Ellis acknowledges, generalized typologies cannot fully anticipate the particular challenges of learner groups, and it is proposed that teachers 50 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="51"?> 4 Project-based language learning will be revisited in section 5.2.2 in connection to the U.S. Embassy School Election Project. should first appraise the complexity of tasks intuitively and then apply these criteria. Müller-Hartmann and Schocker-von Ditfurth (2011) share this view and develop a model of pedagogical task complexity for grading tasks distinguishing input-level demands and communicative and cognitive processing demands. At the level of input complexity, the authors identify learners’ motivation and familiarity with tasks, prior knowledge, concreteness of information, text mode and structure, and density and redundancy of information, in addition to frequency of vocabulary and complexity of grammar. In terms of cognitive and communicative processing demands, they mention clarity of task instructions, length and structure of the task sequence, type of information processing, mode of task processing, and forms of interaction. Discussing the planning of task sequences in connection to project-based learning (cf. Stoller, 2002) and ‘scenarios’ (cf. Piepho, 2003), Legutke and Thomas (1991) acknowledge the “organizational challenge facing teachers here is to identify the learning tasks and to arrive at a way of putting them together in a causally transparent sequence.” (p. 166). The authors propose the target task, jointly determined by learners and the teacher, be used as the basis for planning the individual phases of the project, their sequence, and relation to one another. Taking the project objective as a point of departure, participating teachers engage in ‘backward planning’ to determine which tasks and activities become necessary to attain the intended outcome. Preparatory tasks may focus on issues like topic information, operational skills, contact with native speakers or interactional partners, practicing language forms and skills, or planning and monitoring the project process (ibid., p. 167). The sequencing of preparatory tasks may, in turn, depend on task-internal factors like the necessary timing of events or the needed time for practicing language skills, as well as contextual factors, such as the availability of media within an institution or opening hours of a venue. Projects, thus structured, can be taken to represent a task-based syllabus in their own right, and the parallels between the role of the target task and backward planning and Long’s (1985, 2015) approach to needs-based selection and sequencing of tasks is apparent. 4 A similar approach is taken by D. Willis and Willis (2007), who advise teachers to begin planning task sequences by identifying a topic, then deciding on one or multiple target tasks, and subsequently plan how they will facilitate tasks, which includes priming learners and preparing them for the task performance. Sequences of tasks can have different characteristics and purposes (e.g., recep‐ 51 2.2 Language learning tasks in research and pedagogy <?page no="52"?> tive or productive, teacher-led or student-driven, group mode or individual), but ideally, there is a focus on meaning at all stages, allowing learners to repeatedly focus on meanings and the language used to express them so they will be able to associate specific meanings with their forms by the time the focus on form is implemented (ibid., p. 21-4). 2.2.2.3 Task structure: Within-task sequencing Task implementation, furthermore, requires teachers to make decisions in terms of within-task sequencing and to plan different phases in a task to ensure the desired learning objectives materialize. In terms of implementation, Ellis (2012) presents a series of variables that reflect the “methodological options available for exploiting tasks in the classroom” (p. 201). These include the social configuration of the task performance, the inclusion of a pre-task phase, the relationship between receptive and productive language skills, the allocation of learner roles, the opportunity for strategic and online planning, task repetition, and potential post-task requirements (cf. chapter 7). Apart from such general teaching methodological decisions, researchers and practitioners in TBLT have proposed a three-part structure for implementing tasks, usually consisting of some type of pre-task, on-task, and post-task element (Ellis et al., 2020; Estaire & Zanón, 1994; Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011; Nunan, 2004; Willis, 1996; D. Willis & Willis, 2007). The most pronounced of these suggestions can be found in Willis (1996) and D. Willis and Willis (2007), whose ‘task cycle’ model provides teachers a template for designing, planning, and implementing tasks. Across these models, the pre-task phase is intended to prepare students for the task they are about to do. This phase ensures the task achieves more than task transaction or obtaining information—namely, learners should learn new language or learn to use language better (Skehan, 2003, p. 395). This phase provides information about the nature and purpose of the task (Bygate, 2016), introduces its topic and conceptual content (e.g., through schema-development), and activates topic-related words or phrases (Ellis & Shintani, 2014, p. 142; Nunan, 2004, pp. 34-5; Willis, 1996, p. 42). This usually includes some indication of what learners will have to do, for example, by presenting them with a description or model of the task outcome. Willis (1996) includes recordings of other learners or native speakers doing the same or a similar task at this stage. Likewise, the input material of the task may be introduced as well as unfamiliar vocabulary, although this should not take the form of explicit pre-teaching of large amounts of language, to avoid jeopardizing the task’s focus on meaning (Bygate, 2016, p. 389; Ellis & Shintani, 2014, p. 142; Willis, 1996, 52 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="53"?> p. 45). Through increased time for strategic planning, learners, furthermore, have been shown to free up attentional resources during performance and enhance the complexity and fluency of their contributions (Ortega, 2005; Skehan & Foster, 2012; Ziegler, 2016). In technology-enhanced tasks, such as in the present study, the pre-task phase is crucial in order to provide opportunities for learner training to ensure learners use technology appropriately (Skehan, 2003, p. 395). The teacher role during the pre-task is crucial for providing task structure and clear instructions. Instructions select the content, determine the focus of the classroom activity, and motivate students to invest time and mental energy in the task (van Avermaet et al., 2006, p. 175; van den Branden, 2016, p. 167). In addition to these traditional teacher roles of monitor, motivator, and language guide, in technology-enhanced tasks, the teacher assumes a social role of creating a friendly social environment, and the role of technical supporter (A. Wang, 2015; cf. section 3.6). During the on-task phase, the students engage in the task, while the teacher monitors and scaffolds the task performance. In Willis’s (1996) task framework, this phase consists of a three-part task cycle: the task proper, a subsequent planning phase, and a concluding report phase. Thus, after performing the task in pairs or small groups, learners are expected to report their experience back to the class, which represents a more public context and creates a need for more accuracy and a dedicated planning phase. During this planning phase, the teacher provides language feedback as students shift their attention from fluency to linguistic accuracy and engage in strategic planning. The report phase then creates a real communicative event for the students’ oral, written, or multimodal reports, which the teacher moderates and appraises with feedback on both meaning and form (Willis, 1996, pp. 52-65). This phase can be modified by varying the available time (e.g., creating time pressure to focus learners’ attention on fluency) and contextual support, interrupting the task performance for additional explicit instructions, or providing a surprise element, such as additional information (Ellis & Shintani, 2014, p. 142). Participant roles may vary according to the social configuration of the task. For instance, teachers may scaffold learners’ participation, encourage negotiation, and provide feedback during input-providing tasks, and monitor and model collaborative behavior, motivate learners, or even participate themselves as conversational partners in group tasks (Ellis & Shintani, 2014, pp. 142-3; van den Branden, 2016, pp. 168- 70). In technology-enhanced tasks, teachers monitor the students’ technology use and provide technical and interactional help if the task faces breakdowns (A. Wang, 2015). Students, ideally, function as communicators or language users rather than learners in this phase. 53 2.2 Language learning tasks in research and pedagogy <?page no="54"?> The post-task phase finally serves the two functions of ensuring the task work leads to clear outcomes in terms of language use and development, which can be appraised by the teacher and re-shaped through feedback or self-correction, and to provide opportunities for form-focused language practice on features which have emerged as critical during the task performance (Bygate, 2016, p. 389). This concluding focus on form is especially pronounced in Willis’s (1996) framework, who proposes a combination of analysis and language practice activities to “draw [students’] attention to the surface forms realizing the meanings they have already become familiar with during the task cycle and so help them to systematize their knowledge and broaden their understanding” (p. 114). Analysis activities should recycle language from task performance or task materials. They may take meaning (i.e., themes, notion, and functions), words or parts of words, categories of meaning or use, or phonology (i.e., intonation, stress, or sounds) as a starting point (ibid., p. 102-14). The language for such an activity can be sourced from a pedagogic corpus or a recording and transcription of the task performance (cf. Skehan, 2003, p. 396). In addition, students could be informed about a post-task requirement before the actual task to induce greater attention to form and support learners in understanding the connection between the task and post-task requirements without compromising the naturalness of the task performance (Skehan, 2016, p. 39). Learners may also be asked to repeat the task (Ellis & Shintani, 2014, p. 143). The teacher in the post-task phase should establish the focus of the analysis, allow learners ample focused thinking time, and function as a language guide during the subsequent review stage (Willis, 1996, p. 114). Teachers are also tasked with initiating and guiding learners’ reflection on their strategy use and assessing their task performance and language development (Estaire & Zanón, 1994; van den Branden, 2016, pp. 171-2). With regard to this study’s focus on learner perceptions of tasks, post-task reflection not only represents an opportunity for learners to gain awareness of their learning approaches but also serves as a diagnostic opportunity for teachers to elicit information about how learners interpret tasks, which feeds back into task planning: “The significance of learner reinterpretations of tasks lies in what we can learn from them for the improvement of tasks” (Breen, 1987, p. 25). Finally, it is important to note that a focus on form can occur during all three stages of a task cycle. While explicit pre-teaching of language is problematic in tasks, as indicated above, planning language use and mapping language forms to intended meanings occur throughout the cycle (Willis, 1996, p. 97). Implicit, incidental focus on form, such as implicit feedback or focused task designs, can push learners to direct attentional resources and collaborative discourse 54 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="55"?> towards the forms needed to express communicative functions. The research on the effectiveness of proactive vs. reactive focus on form is inconclusive (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011, pp. 222-3). van Gorp and Bogaert (2006) conclude, the exact moment of the form focus might not be decisive, but rather its occurrence in “close proximity to the functional use of the targeted forms” (p. 102). While SLA research suggests explicit teaching of language form produces greater gains than implicit teaching (Long, 2015, p. 319), a purely explicit approach would risk important objectives of TBLT as outlined above. Long (2015) thus proposes a combination of both, which Willis (1996) also supports, stating focus on form “utilizes the learner’s capacity for incidental learning, which will be necessary, due to the size and complexity of the learning task, while improving on pure incidental learning through systematic recruitment of intentional learning, but doing so reactively” (Long, 2015, pp. 320-1). Explicit language practice, in TBLT, is commonly realized through the activity format of language exercises, which is the focus of the following section. 2.2.3 Task types and exercises Although occupying a central space in foreign language research and pedagogy, the above-reviewed task definitions (cf. section 2.2.1) reflect considerable open‐ ness and room for variation, making a principled approach to task classification necessary. However, many typologies in TBLT to date lack a theoretically mo‐ tivated, principled structure and empirical support, which would be necessary for systematically sequencing tasks (Robinson, 2007, p. 8). From a pedagogical perspective, a task typology is “necessary for any curriculum with differentiated goals,” particularly since in the language classroom, “there can be a variable focus of the participants on different aspects of the curriculum” (Candlin, 1987, p. 14). Indeed, different typologies of tasks have surfaced in the TBLT literature (see reviews in Candlin, 1987; Ellis, 2003; Samuda & Bygate, 2008). Willis (1996) distinguishes task types commonly found in coursebooks based on the operation required by learners, including listing, ordering and sorting, comparing, problem-solving, sharing personal experiences, and creative tasks. For Prabhu (1987), the defining criterion was the type of gap that tasks posed for learners, resulting in information gap tasks, which can be one-way or two-way, opinion gap tasks, and reasoning gap tasks. Reviewing tasks in SLA research and foreign language coursebooks, Pica et al. (1993) deduced five exemplary task types: jigsaw, information gap, problem-solving, decision-making, and opinion exchange tasks. Furthermore, tasks can be classified on a continuum 55 2.2 Language learning tasks in research and pedagogy <?page no="56"?> 5 For a report on the implementation of focused tasks in a foreign language classroom, see Loumbourdi (2005). from unfocused to focused tasks, where unfocused tasks provide learners with opportunities to communicate in general, while focused tasks provide learners with opportunities to communicate using a particular formal structure or consciously notice selected linguistic features (Ellis & Shintani, 2014, pp. 138-9). Whether learners indeed will focus on the intended forms in focused tasks cannot be predicted, and D. Willis and Willis (2007, p. 210) caution against the linguistic focus being made explicit a priori. 5 Based on the language skills needed, tasks can be input-providing or output-prompting (Ellis, 2012, p. 200). Such typologies are based on SLA research typically based on some kind of spoken interaction and are employed to elicit negotiation of meaning and associated mental processes (cf. section 2.1.2.1). They are useful for teachers to provide guidance and orientation about the choice of different task formats and design features. They do not, however, fully reflect the creativity and holistic activity in which advanced EFL learners engage during such projects as in this study. In this regard, Legutke and Thomas (1991) caution, “when tasks are categorized, complex phenomena are sometimes forced into boxes into which they do not fit” (p. 73). Arguing from the perspective of humanistic education, they instead propose a task typology based on the task goals and methodological implementation, resulting in these categories: trust-building and relaxation; awareness and sensitivity training; information-sharing activities; thinking strategies and problem-solving; imagination gap, fantasy and creative expres‐ sion; role-playing and creative dramatics; interaction and interpersonality; values clarification and discussion; and process evaluation. These task types take the learners’ holistic experience as a point of departure rather than exclusively their mental and verbal operations. Indeed, the categories of role-play and creative dramatics, creative expression, information sharing, and others appear again in the three focal cases of this study (cf. chapters 8-10), and several more capture the tasks and activities in the syllabus of the investigated school project (cf. section 5.4.2). A further important distinction in TBLT is made between primarily meaning-focused communicative tasks and linguistic or form-focused exercises for the display and practice of L2 knowledge. Skehan (1996) proposes four criterial features to distinguish tasks from exercises, maintaining, “a task is […] an activity in which meaning is primary, there is some sort of relationship to the real world, task completion has some priority, and the assessment of task performance is in terms of task outcome” (p. 38). Exercises, on the other hand, are 56 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="57"?> 6 See also Estaire and Zanón (1994) for a discussion of ‘enabling tasks’ and ‘communica‐ tive tasks.’ 7 Widdowson (1998) notes that exercises and tasks both focus on meaning, but differ in the type of meaning they address. While tasks focus on pragmatic meaning of com‐ munication in context, exercises rather focus on semantic meaning, i.e. the systematic meaning of linguistic forms independent of context (cf. Ellis, 2003, p. 3). intended to engage learners in practicing specific language items: “Thus, they do not require a primary focus on meaning, there is no ‘gap’, learners manipulate the language provided in the exercise rather than use their own linguistic resources, and there is no other outcome than that of practicing language” (Ellis & Shintani, 2014, p. 136; cf. Ellis, 2000, p. 196, 2003, p. 3). Ellis’s concept of exercise, hence, parallels the notion of ‘enabling skills’ in Nunan (2004), which are developed in the context of ‘language exercises’ and ‘communicative activities.’ The latter is “a kind of ‘half-way house’ between language exercises and pedagogical tasks” (pp. 22-4). Enabling skills are intended to support the acquisition of skills and knowledge necessary to enable the learner to take part in authentic communication. 6 According to Ellis (2000, p. 197), tasks and exercises can be distinguished in their orientation, focus, goal, outcome evaluation, and real-world relationship. Exercises view linguistic skills as prerequisites for learning communicative abilities, their overriding focus is on linguistic form and semantic meaning, 7 they aim at the display of code knowledge, while performance is evaluated in terms of accuracy, and they serve to internalize language forms as an investment into future communicative use. Accordingly, learners function as language learners in exercises by explicitly focusing on language forms and engaging in intentional language learning. Tasks, by contrast, view linguistic skills as the product of engagement in communicative practice. They focus on learning-in-use and achieving communicative goals. Performance in tasks is evaluated by this achievement, and they display a direct relationship between task-based and real-world interaction. In tasks, learners function as language users (cf. sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2), who use language as a means to a communicative end, thus leading to incidental language learning. Despite this clear distinction between both activity types at the theoretical level of the task-as-workplan (cf. section 2.3), it lacks psycholinguistic validity during enactment from the learner’s perspective (Breen, 1987, pp. 28-30; Eckerth, 2008b). This is because the way and the extent to which learners will seize learning opportunities planned for by the teacher is not exclusively determined by task-inherent characteristics, but also rests on the learner and characteristics of the learning environment: 57 2.2 Language learning tasks in research and pedagogy <?page no="58"?> Within a meaning-oriented assignment, a learner may be provided with an authentic text in order to reconstruct and to discuss its main ideas, and may then allocate his [sic.] attention to structural properties of the input. (Eckerth, 2008b, p. 24). Categorizing activities as tasks or exercises, then, might be less salient to learners than teachers and overall, more relevant for teachers, materials writers, and curriculum developers. Furthermore, Littlewood (2000, 2004) and Legutke and Thomas (1991) show how the task/ exercise distinction is a matter of degree rather than principle. In the classroom, the relative focus on form or meaning is mediated by individual learner involvement, so that some learners may act on a task planned as a meaning-focused activity with high involvement, while others may approach the same communicative task with less involvement and therefore choose to focus on the linguistic forms necessary to complete the task rather than its propositional content. Hence, Littlewood suggests, in many cases, it would be more practical to conceive of the task/ exercise distinction as a continuum ranging from focus on form to focus on meaning, including at least five stages: non-communicative learning, pre-communicative language practice, communicative language practice, structured communication, and authentic communication. The next section will address the relationship between the planning and enactment of tasks in the classroom and introduce theoretical and empirical evidence on learners’ reinterpretations of tasks. 2.3 From workplan to process: Learner reinterpretations of tasks 2.3.1 Conceptual foundation So far, this chapter has mostly addressed conceptual and empirical issues of TBLT, task design, and task-based pedagogy and has adopted the perspective of instructional planning and teaching. However, the focus of this study is on learner perceptions of and engagement in language learning tasks in real, situated classroom settings. The research interest thus is not on the design of the task-based blended learning project in isolation, but on how this design creates learning opportunities for participants, or how it provides the space for learners to collaboratively create such opportunities, and how they realize and exploit various affordances in the technology-enhanced learning environment during the task’s enactment. It was outlined above in connection to task-based interaction research (see section 2.1.2) that cognitivist studies assume a deter‐ 58 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="59"?> ministic or predictable nature of task performance where task interaction and task outcomes are traceable to specific variables of the task design or the environment in which it is undertaken. This invariably begs the questions to which extent the aims and intentions by those setting the task—researchers or teachers—and those who act upon them—students—converge, and to which extent the intended task procedures overlap with the actions emerging during its implementation. How this question is answered has significant repercussions for how tasks are conceptualized and investigated empirically in this study. The issue of participants’ perceptions and enactment of research tasks has long occupied human sciences research, argue Samuda and Bygate (2008, pp. 47- 50). The authors draw on Bruner et al. (1956), who expressed criticism on what they called “the skeleton in the psychologist’s closet” (p. 58), namely the observation of how participants in laboratory studies tend to approach tasks differently than intended by researchers, for instance by investing more effort than usual, because their performance is being observed. Pepinsky and Pepinsky (1961) recognize tasks can be conceptualized as the ‘official task’ from the perspective of the task setter, and as ‘private task’ from the point of view of the agent, who may modify the task according to personally desired outcomes. Hackman (1969) elaborated on this by referring to the ‘official’ and the ‘redefined task.’ He called the process of task redefinition “inevitable” and ignoring behavioral variance during task enactment “indefensible” (p. 102). According to Hackman, then, tasks can be conceptualized as a self-contained construct (i.e., ‘task qua task’), as the demands imposed on learners (i.e., task as behavior requirement), as the activity emerging from it (i.e., task qua behavior description), and as the learner abilities required to solve it (i.e., task qua ability requirement) (ibid., p. 103-13). However, Hackman’s perspective is grounded in psychology and thus seeks to explain human behavior primarily on the basis of mental processes and dispositions. Yet language learning in schools is both a personal and interpersonal endeavor. Breen (1985) spoke of the language classroom as a culture, arguing “a teacher or a learner is not either individual mind or social actor when participating in lessons. Each is at once cognitive and social, and so are the classroom realities which each perceives” (p. 150; cf. section 4.5.1). Following Allwright and Hanks (2009, pp. 4-7), language learners within this context are unique individuals, who learn in their own idiosyncratic ways, but also social beings who develop best in mutually supportive environments. They are capable of taking learning seriously, making decisions independently, and developing as practitioners of learning. Assuming a deterministic relationship between task, enactment, and outcomes would neglect the learners’ agency in these phases (cf. Duff, 2012). 59 2.3 From workplan to process: Learner reinterpretations of tasks <?page no="60"?> 8 The second phase, task-in-process, is sometimes referred to as ‘task-as-action’, e.g. by Samuda and Bygate (2008). Adopting this framework, Berben et al. (2007) derive four ‘existential guises’ of a task during the phase of syllabus design, lesson planning, class‐ room implementation and enactment, and assessment: intended, expected, performed, and assessed task. Referring to processes of retrospective reflection and appraisal of tasks, Dreßler (2018) speaks of ‘task-in-reflection,’ which exists psychologically in the minds of task participants. In two seminal contributions, Breen (1987, 1989) made a case for conceiving of negotiation work in the classroom as “learner contributions to task design” (Breen, 1987), arguing for treating tasks as emergent, fluid, and negotiated between learners, teacher, and the task situation. Tasks accordingly assume three distinct temporal realities as: - the task-as-workplan (i.e., the intended pedagogy, often in the form of a lesson plan or the teacher’s implicit intention for classroom action, both representing a proposal for language learning work), - the task-in-process (i.e., what actually happens during the task enactment as both teacher and learners redraw the original plan according to personal goals, knowledge, and experience), - and the task-as-outcomes (i.e., whatever is achieved or produced during the task, including concrete products and psychological changes) (Breen, 1989, p. 188). 8 The stance taken here is that the task-as-workplan can only provide general conditions for learning opportunities to emerge. However, the task-in-process involves an intricate interaction between characteristics of the task, contribu‐ tions by the learner and in-process modifications by the teacher, affordances in the learning environment and situation, and—crucially—the learners’ percep‐ tions and reconstructions of all these factors. It is thus assumed, the same workplan must result in differential processes and outcomes when enacted by different students or at different times, or the same outcome can emerge from different task processes. An evaluation of a task, therefore, must involve an appraisal of all three phases. The task-in-process, arguably the most significant of these phases since this is where learners’ activity and ultimately learning occurs, involves learners in reinterpreting the workplan—they will: i. Locate and define a task within a specific learning context such as a classroom group. This context is deduced by learners from their definition of situation and the rights and responsibilities they attribute to themselves and others—including 60 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="61"?> a teacher—in that situation. Their context also entails particular values and functions assigned to all non-human resources, including any task. ii. Superimpose their purposes upon possible task objectives. iii. Change potential content of a task into learnable content, identified through what is already familiar in task content, and specified by the learner in terms of the problems of that content. iv. Selectively apply their own procedural capacities to a task so that they actually complete it on the basis of a preferred way of working, regardless of explicit task instructions. (Breen, 1987, p. 38) The task-in-process thus comprises the dimensions of task context and situation, objectives, content or subject matter, and procedures. In terms of the context and situation, the task is not only enacted within the social milieu of the classroom, but learners define particular roles for themselves and others and influence this context through their actions. This dimension is crucial in CALL, where learners utilize digital tools within their ZPD and create personal learning environments with unique affordances for language learning (cf. section 3.5). Regarding the task objectives, according to Breen, learners will adopt either a survival or achievement orientation—they may simply go through the motions or partici‐ pate fully engaged in accordance with their motivation, attitudes, and general beliefs about language learning. Again, in CALL, this dimension is crucial as it corresponds with learners’ agency in informal learning environments facilitated by Web 2.0 (cf. section 3.3.3). Learners will evaluate the dimension of content and subject matter through their ideational, sociocultural, and linguistic-textual knowledge. Proposed content in the workplan is, therefore, only potential con‐ tent from the learner’s perspective. As shown for the task/ exercise distinction (cf. section 2.2.3), learners’ language proficiency and familiarity with the code will decide whether they focus on the propositional or meta-communicative content of the task. Finally, as to the task procedures, learners may adopt idiosyncratic approaches involving both overt and covert procedures, of which learners may not be fully aware. To solve tasks, learners apply skills, abilities, and psychological processes and strategies, reflecting deeper attitudes and beliefs (cf. Breen, 1987, pp. 28-41). 2.3.2 Research review Empirical support for Breen’s model comes from research studies grounded in theoretical frameworks as diverse as activity theory, sociocultural theory, exploratory practice, and conversation analysis. Research emerging at around the same time as Breen’s contributions showed teachers’ and learners’ per‐ 61 2.3 From workplan to process: Learner reinterpretations of tasks <?page no="62"?> ceptions of classroom procedures, contents, and objectives do not always match (Allwright, 1984; Nunan, 1989; Wright, 1987). Breen (1987) claimed, “any language learning task will be reinterpreted by a learner in his or her own terms” (p. 24). Following this notion, Kumaravadivelu (1991) posited, a task’s success can be related to the extent to which teacher and learner perceptions converge. Investigating two intermediate English as a second language (ESL) classes, he isolated ten potential sources of perception gaps between participants, including cognitive, communicative, linguistic, pedagogic, strategic, cultural, evaluative, procedural, instructional, and attitudinal sources. Conceptualizing learner perceptions as a combination of enjoyment, perceived effectiveness, and usefulness, Barkhuizen (1998) investigated secondary school ESL learners’ responses to different language task types by employing questionnaires, class‐ room observation, and interviews. To the surprise of the respondents’ teachers, Barkhuizen found explicit language practice (‘mechanical language skills’) ranked highest among students, as opposed to communicative tasks. This was attributed to underlying learner beliefs about the nature of language learning. Barkhuizen’s findings were confirmed by Hawkey (2006) among secondary EFL learners in Italy. Block (1994, 1996) asked how language learners and their teachers make sense of classroom procedures and attribute purpose to their language classes. Learners generally were found to have a meta-cognition of what went on in their classes, but their reflective competencies differed, for instance, in terms of identifying boundaries of tasks and classroom phases. Teachers’ and learners’ task orientations and perceptions were frequently out of tune, especially regarding the saliency of classroom tasks and their underlying rationales, partially leading learners to adopt a survival orientation (Breen, 1987). Block concluded that differences in the perception of task content, procedures, and objectives, as documented in the learners’ diaries, affect the learners’ roles as research informants. These studies collectively underscore what goes on in the classroom is often conceptualized quite differently by those engaged in the emergent activity, and there is “an imperative need to sensitize […] teachers to the potential mismatch between the virtual attentional control by the task designer and the actual attentional control exercised by the learners” (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 138). Adopting an activity theory framework, Coughlan and Duff (1994) view knowledge as socioculturally mediated and human activity as the central unit of analysis for investigating tasks. They showed how the same Cambodian ESL learner performed a picture description task differently on separate occasions and how a learner group in a different educational setting—Hungarian secon‐ dary school EFL learners—performed the same task differently from the first 62 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="63"?> learner. Coughlan and Duff consequently define a task as a ‘behavioral blueprint’ to elicit linguistic data and as motivated by specific objectives of the researcher, whereas ‘activity’ refers to how learners construct the task, which comprises the “the behavior that is actually produced when an individual (or group) performs a task” (p. 175). Activity thus refers to the fact that learners orient to tasks in relation to their subjective histories, knowledge, and capacities. Coughlan’s and Duff ’s study provides counterevidence to the view on tasks as controllable constants and participants as predictable research objects in SLA. Similarly, Roebuck (2000) reports how learners construct a text recall task differently in accordance with their abilities and position themselves in various ways towards the task. In response to three progressively more challenging L1 and L2 texts for recall—the blueprint or task—the learners in Roebuck’s study engaged in multiple different activities, such as memorization, translation, recall, and reconstruction. Their recall protocols and notes, conceptualized as ‘private writing,’ show that some learners were engaged in recalling the texts. In contrast, others made notes to help them comprehend its content, shifted their focus momentarily to resolve the meaning of Spanish vocabulary, or inserted their voices in an attempt to distance themselves from the task and, thus, their role as research subjects in order to escape the face-threatening situation of being unable to solve the task accurately. This study hence confirms Ohta’s (2001) findings mentioned above that externalized, non-social dialog (e.g., in the form of private speech) can be a window on learners’ construction of incidental learning opportunities and non-targeted task foci (cf. section 2.1.2.2). Both studies exemplify how tasks are learning opportunities intended to set the initial conditions for subsequent activity and trigger learning processes, but are crucially mediated by learners’ multilayered perceptions (Luyten et al., 2001). This is essential because activity theory views learners’ motives, goals, and instrumental conditions as inseparable from their activity. Thus, learners performing the same overt behavior are likely to engage in quite different cognitive activity—and ultimately, it is their activity that shapes learners’ orientation to learning (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001, p. 148). Furthermore, differences in cognitive activity within the scope of the same task may also entail variance in uses of the L1 and multilingual resources in inner and private speech (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Analyzing university-level ESL students’ norms of discourse and procedural approaches to a mingling task, Gourlay (2005) observed learners deliberately changing the task’s social configuration. Instead of individually interviewing classmates about business news in their countries, they formed small groups because they perceived this format as more reminiscent of business meetings. 63 2.3 From workplan to process: Learner reinterpretations of tasks <?page no="64"?> Importantly, Gourlay concludes, this change is not made because the students misinterpret the task or due to their inability to follow the instructions, but be‐ cause they construct their teacher’s understanding of the task and consider the proposed interaction format to be inadequate to match the intended text type. This result is explained by the co-constructed nature of classroom discourse and the understanding of tasks being interactionally configurated in the classroom rather than directly implemented (cf. Mondada & Pekarek-Doehler, 2004), which has been captured by the notion of the negotiated curriculum in the field of TBLT (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) Slimani (1989) focused on what learners reported to have learned in foreign language lessons via uptake charts and documented that learner-initiated top‐ icalizations—although significantly less frequent than teacher topicalizations— were mentioned more often and hence provided a greater chance for uptake and learning. This finding of increased effectiveness of learner topicalization in classroom discourse and learner-initiated language focus has since been confirmed by studies operating within a conversation analysis framework. Garton (2002) defines learner initiative as “an attempt to direct the interaction in a way that corresponds more closely to the interest and needs of the learners, as evident by the interaction itself ” (p. 48). In particular, learner initiatives can help to promote individualized learning opportunities through interaction and input, which are indeed comprehensible and foster negotiation of meaning at the learners’ current proficiency level, both during student-led (K. Harris, 2005; Mori, 2004) as well as teacher-led task phases (Garton, 2002, 2012). Notably, the creation of incidental learning opportunities is a mutual process, and learner initiatives must be met by teachers’ responsiveness, who, in turn, must strike a balance between their own teaching agenda and their learners’ agency (Waring et al., 2016). Besides providing clear evidence of learners’ active task participation at the level of interaction, this research confirms the pedagogical implication that learners are capable of steering the trajectory of tasks into the desired directions, despite the interactional architecture of classroom discourse, which is characterized by an unequal distribution of participation rights (van Lier, 1988, p. 139, ctd. in Garton, 2002, pp. 47-8), often controlled by the teacher, and structured along to the initiation-response-evaluation pattern (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). Crucially, however, task-related learner initiatives can be non-verbal, thus pointing to covert learner contributions to tasks, or even lie outside the classroom. Examining how ESL learners collectively solve a text sorting task on a table-top computer, Seedhouse and Almutairi (2009) captured the holistic and multimodal nature of these learners’ task performance. The combined analysis 64 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="65"?> of verbal task-based interactions and non-verbal table-top actions reveals how learners use self-repetition of search terms to synchronize their collective activity, whereas their gazes are divergent as each student scans the screen text. Due to the minimized and indexical interaction in tasks (see below, section 2.3.3), including extended periods of silence by some participants, the speech transcripts suggest passivity of several learners, although their screen actions are comparable to their verbally more engaged peers. Verbal non-participation, therefore, is not to be mistaken as task disengagement. Furthermore, researching learner interactions during consciousness-raising tasks, Eckerth (2003, 2008a) distinguishes interaction-induced and task-external learning opportunities. The former results from learners applying or discussing competing language forms and hypotheses during task-based collaborative dialog, thereby providing evidence of learners actively creating learning opportunities, often at variance with those forms targeted by their teachers. The latter refers to learning gains not traceable in task-based interactions and must result from extramural, often informal learning opportunities. Eckerth concludes, tasks function as ‘learning catalyzers,’ which increase learners’ alertness to certain forms and drive them to seek task-external resources for clarification. Finally, as implied by several of the studies above, the concept of task rein‐ terpretation also applies to teachers’ handling of tasks in lesson planning and teaching (Samuda, 2015; van den Branden, 2015). Studying the implementation of the same task-as-workplan from an ESL coursebook by two teachers, Samuda (2015) demonstrates how, despite starting from the same ‘task-on-paper,’ both teachers create distinctly different opportunities for language learning due to cumulative effects of their decisions along the trajectory of the pedagogical implementation. Tasks pass through the phases of the task designer’s original workplan, the teachers’ prospective plan before the lesson, the dynamic work‐ plan with on-line changes during the lesson, and the retrospective account of the workplan post-lesson. Despite targeting similar language learning goals, one teacher successively re-tasks, while the other progressively de-tasks the original workplan through modifications at the prospective and dynamic workplan stage. In practice, one teacher introduces the task in phases, activates students’ prior knowledge, connects it to their lives, and thus opens up a pedagogical space for the task; the other plunges directly into the task, treating it as another item on the agenda, referencing the page in the coursebook, thus overall situating it as distant to the learners. Essentially, one teacher treats the workplan as a task, the other as an exercise (cf. ibid., p. 288-90). Similarly, Berben et al. (2007) investigate how three teachers implement the same task on paper—creating a radio news bulletin for a fictitious radio station— 65 2.3 From workplan to process: Learner reinterpretations of tasks <?page no="66"?> in their year five and six Dutch language classrooms. All three teachers modify the task designers’ workplan by stripping the original task of its multilingual orientation and emphasizing different components, such as producing creative output in Dutch or familiarizing learners with radio news bulletins. Their example shows how teachers not only reinterpret the task for themselves but also construct learners’ task interpretations, for instance, by anticipating which aspects learners are likely to struggle with, which is the reason for some of the observed task modifications. Likewise, Verheyden (2010, ctd. in van den Branden, 2015) observed how teachers dynamically adapt task demands during the implementation of a story-writing task with ten to 11-year old learners of Dutch. Based on the learners’ perceived level of proficiency, one teacher in Verheyden’s study asked low-proficiency students to write shorter sentences and gave them negative feedback on form, hoping this would prepare them for writing more extensive sentences while encouraging high-proficiency students to use language creatively. As a result, the low-proficiency students’ writing in‐ creased in accuracy, but their complexity dropped, while the higher-performing students’ communicative effectiveness decreased. To sum up these findings, research has provided evidence that tasks do not determine learner activity, but rather provide learning opportunities and initial conditions under which learners interpretively and interactionally enact the workplan. Rather than as executioners of tasks, this framework positions learners as active interpreters of workplans, motivated by their histories, knowledge, and capabilities, who perform tasks in the social context of their classrooms. Thus, the same workplan can give rise to multiple activities, even different activities by the same learner, when performed on different occasions. Given this interpretive reconstruction of tasks, it is unsurprising that learner perceptions of tasks can differ significantly from teacher intentions. Furthermore, learners routinely construct learning opportunities in the context of tasks, frequently focusing on non-targeted learning goals, through their interactional initiatives and agency inside and outside the classroom. As will be demonstrated in the next chapter (cf. section 3.6), the introduction of digital technology into the classroom can further exacerbate these effects, but also facilitate new avenues for learners to seek learning opportunities and individualize tasks according to their perceived learning needs. The next section explores the implications of the evidence presented here for the research on language learning tasks. 66 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="67"?> 2.3.3 Implications for task-based research The evidence presented above demonstrates that learners do not simply execute tasks, but interpret and co-construct them within specific learning environ‐ ments and situations, and align them with personal motives and goals (Eckerth, 2008b, p. 26; Ellis, 2003, p. 187). The implications of this evidence, consequently, must be related to the research construct of ‘task,’ specifically its validity (Seedhouse, 1999, 2005; Seedhouse & Almutairi, 2009). Examining transcripts of learner task performance through conversation analysis, Seedhouse (1999, 2005) demonstrated how tasks do not always produce the kind of interaction suggested by task-based theory, namely, negotiation of meaning (i.e., clarification requests, confirmation checks, comprehension checks, and self-repetitions), and, addi‐ tionally, often lead to heterogeneous learner interactions. More problematically, though, task-based interaction reflects a tendency toward indexicality and minimalization. Indexicality refers to interaction which is “context-bound, inexplicit, and hence obscure to anybody reading the extracts” (Seedhouse, 1999, p. 153). This is not troubling from a pedagogical point of view, since real-world interaction outside the classroom shares this feature. From an ana‐ lytical perspective, missing contextual or procedural information can be added through recordings, multimodal transcriptions, and descriptions of the actions performed during verbal interaction. Minimalization refers to speakers reducing the volume of language to the bare minimum required for task accomplishment, even if it results in ungrammatical forms. This indeed represents impoverished learner discourse and contradicts TBLT theory, which claims to stretch learners’ communicative competencies during interaction. Thus, Seedhouse concludes that, empirically, tasks do not always lead to the kinds of interaction TBLT theory purports they do (Seedhouse, 1999, p. 153). This is problematic, given that tasks in SLA research are commonly concep‐ tualized based on the task-as-workplan, but data is drawn from the communi‐ cative event, the task-in-process. In other words, tasks have a ‘split personality’ in research: If we pose the question which of these [i.e., task-as-workplan or task-in-process] is the construct used for conceptualization by TBL/ SLA research, then the answer is that it is predominantly the task-as-workplan. (… ) If, however, we pose the question whether TBL/ SLA research gathers interactional data from the task-as-workplan or the task-in-process, the answer is that data are gathered from the task-in-process, because that is the actual communicative event that generates interactional data. So we can see initially that there is potentially a serious threat to validity in a quantitative paradigm. What is purported to be measured/ researched is conceptualized in terms 67 2.3 From workplan to process: Learner reinterpretations of tasks <?page no="68"?> of task-as-workplan, whereas what is actually measured/ researched derives from the task-in process. (Seedhouse, 2005, pp. 536-7) Since both task-as-workplan and task-in-process are incongruent more often than not, two problems arise from this split personality. Researchers and the methodological frameworks they apply, firstly, may insufficiently emphasize interactional data. Secondly, rather than deriving concepts and categories in‐ ductively from the data, researchers may be led to derive them deductively from the task-as-workplan and then impose them on the research data (Seedhouse, 2005, pp. 547-8). This may lead to activities being analyzed as tasks, and their discoursal data prematurely quantified despite only meeting the definitional criteria of the task concept in terms of the workplan, but not the resulting processes (cf. Eckerth, 2007). Therefore, task-based research must shift its conceptual and analytical focus from the workplan to the actual process, from task-based instruction to task-based interaction (Eckerth, 2003, pp. 43-4). It must investigate all three task stages, their relationship to one another, and the trajectory of the task through these stages. This requires a process approach and an emic perspective on the task procedures and participants, especially during the task-in-process (Eckerth, 2007; Seedhouse, 2005). Besides these threats to the construct validity of task, further criticism can be raised on the ecological validity of the task concept and related constructs in TBLT. Much of the research on tasks, especially those studies adopting a cogni‐ tivist perspective (cf. section 2.1.2.1), has been challenged for its overreliance on tightly controlled laboratory settings and the disregard of the individual learner perspective during performance (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011, pp. 30-4; Pica, 2010; Samuda & Bygate, 2008, pp. 37-50; Schart, 2008; van den Branden, 2015). Rather than investigating how learners interpret and process tasks in the authentic setting of their classroom, cognitivist interaction research often measures the quality of mostly oral learner output in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency to trace features of the interaction to those of the task (van den Branden, 2015, p. 307). This research treats learners and the task they engage in as uniform and individual variation in task performance as a confounding factor to be minimized (Eckerth, 2003, p. 41). The paucity of task-based research in intact classrooms, which further reduces the knowledge base of TBLT, is aptly described by van den Branden (2015): to study the impact of authentic classroom activities (that are intended to approximate real-life target tasks) on people’s actual ability to perform these target tasks outside the classroom, researchers observe learners in a context that resembles a classroom, and ask them to do things that resemble things they believe learners typically do, 68 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="69"?> or might do, in a classroom. They then test effects by asking the same learners to do things with language that are believed to resemble what they do with language outside a classroom. In the case of each of these three factors, it is very hard to make an educated guess on how far or how close the simulation matches the real thing. (pp. 307-8). These issues are problematic for several reasons. As discussed above, learners by no means perform tasks uniformly, since task performance is influenced by features of the individual learner, group dynamics, the teacher, the learning situation, and the institutional context. It is to be questioned to what extent task performance in artificial laboratory settings reflects the kind of personally relevant, goal-oriented, and invested discourse participation that TBLT sets out to promote (van den Branden et al., 2007, p. 2). Likewise, the performance in pairs or small groups rather than in the classroom, in addition to the intentional reduc‐ tion of context variables that make up the complexity of authentic classrooms (cf. section 4.5.1), may further reduce the generalizability of laboratory research. What is more, constructs derived from laboratory settings (e.g., negotiation of meaning or noticing) may not function the same way in classrooms. This may also entail that the conditions identified in laboratory settings as ideal for language learning may not be replicable in a classroom, or learners in real classrooms may react to the same conditions differently (Samuda et al., 2018, pp. 3-4). It has also been questioned whether a predictive relationship observed between isolated task features and task performance in laboratory settings can be established the same way in classroom settings (Lantolf, 2000, p. 92). 2.4 A wider understanding of learner perceptions of tasks In the remainder of this chapter, the concepts mentioned above and empirical insights into learner perceptions of language learning tasks are picked up to discuss a framework of how learners perceive and engage in such tasks in the context of the EFL classroom during the task-in-process. In so doing, this section is intended to provide general points of orientation in line with the emergent and exploratory approach taken in this study (cf. chapter 4). From the preceding discussion of the ecological and construct validity of tasks, the following premises for task-based research can be derived: First, tasks should be researched in their complete trajectory through all three temporal realizations, from workplan(s) to processes to outcomes. Second, particular emphasis is placed on the process or action stage since this is precisely where the task is interpreted and reconstructed by the learner through the lens of their subjective 69 2.4 A wider understanding of learner perceptions of tasks <?page no="70"?> history, knowledge, and capabilities. Third, language learning tasks should be studied in the naturalistic context of the classroom because—in keeping with the notions of the social origins of psychological activity claimed by sociocultural and activity theory—the context is not just a backdrop against which learning is constituted, but is part of a complex activity system which impacts learners’ actions and is interactionally constructed by the learners. Fourth, neither is learner variation to be glossed over, nor rejected as a threat to reliability, but indeed to be considered a natural aspect of task enactment reflecting the social, cultural, and historical situatedness of activity. Fifth, learners engaging in the same activity at the surface level of behavioral engagement are more likely than not to be pursuing cognitively different activities as they bring different (i.e., affective, cognitive, social, etc.) contributions to the task. Sixth, task enactment is multimodal; any attempt to reduce it to verbal performance and speech transcripts risks representing only part of the holistic activity in which learners engage. Seventh, task enactment in general and task-based interaction, in particular, are social activities, understood as participation in communities, which requires researchers to capture social entanglements in the research data. In terms of how learners perceive and engage in tasks, we can challenge the commonly assumed directionality task⟶learner, based on the assertion that perception is an active process of reconstruction: “We may therefore regard what the learners actually learn—the outcome from language learning—as significantly shaped by what they bring and contribute to the whole process” (Breen, 2001, p. 1). Breen (2001) outlines four nested layers of task context where learner contributions occur, extending outward from the individual learner to the wider community, including: (1) attributes of the individual learner, conceptualizations, and affects; (2) the learner’s action in social and cultural context, including the related concepts of agency, self-regulation, autonomy, and strategies; (3) the classroom context as a learning community; and (4) the identity work and participation in the wider community, including states of transition. For the discussion of learner perceptions and reinterpretations of tasks, the language and structure of activity theory is borrowed, which views collective human activity, embedded in interconnected activity systems, as the central unit of analysis. It builds on the three-layered hierarchical distinction of human activity first proposed by Leont’ev. At the top level, we find the activity itself, which is oriented towards a motive (‘why is something done? ’), representing some type of material or ideal need, which the individual or group wants to attain and transform into desired outcomes. It gives direction to the second level, 70 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="71"?> a series of actions. These are conscious and intentional processes that respond to goals and serve to fulfill the activity, typically mediated by tools and artifacts (‘what is done? ’). Actions, in turn, are implemented by lower-level operations, which are automated or habituated processes carried out to adjust the activity to the concrete conditions under which the goal is pursued (‘how is it done? ’). Operations emerge through incremental automatization of activities or, in novel contexts, as a form of improvisation (cf. Kaptelinin, 2013; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). 2.4.1 Activity Applying this hierarchy to how learners perceive and enact tasks, the first level—activity—corresponds with more stable and abstract learner beliefs and attitudes (Kalaja et al., 2015; Kalaja & Barcelos, 2012; Wesely, 2012) as well as task motivation, which also overlaps with the lower, procedural level of actions (Dörnyei, 2002). Learner beliefs are subjective judgments on the relationship between language learning and values and attributes of the learner (Kim, 2012, p. 450) and are directed toward the nature of language learning, the role of the learner in this process, and the target language and community (Bernat, 2008; Horwitz, 1988; Kim, 2012). Beliefs are interrelated with aspects of both the individual (e.g., identity, personality, self-concept, self-efficacy) and their social and cultural environment (e.g., relationships, authority, insights from research), giving direction to how learners learn inside and outside the classroom, but also how they make sense of and assign meaning to experiences, achievements, processes, and outcomes (Bernat, 2008). Recent research embedded in sociocul‐ tural theory suggests learners’ beliefs are discursively constructed, fluid and dynamic, possibly variable from one moment or context to another, revealing how learners approach tasks more accurately than psychometric categories of individual learner differences (Kalaja et al., 2015). Learner beliefs in the current study, then, can be insightful in illuminating if and to what extent learners, for example, accept digital technologies as well as informal genres of Web 2.0 and social media as useful sources for EFL learning, and whether they view their use and affordances as worth investing time and energy. Likewise, teacher beliefs, for instance, on the affordances of technology-enhanced tasks or the myth of the ‘digital native’ (cf. sections 3.1.2 and 3.3.1), can have an impact on the construction of participant roles and the implementation of tasks. Incongruent beliefs between teachers and students, possibly connected to differential use of digital technologies outside the classroom, can explain miscommunication, students’ use of strategies disapproved by teachers, or even withdrawal and 71 2.4 A wider understanding of learner perceptions of tasks <?page no="72"?> negative emotions experienced by learners in the context of tasks (Barcelos & Kalaja, 2012, p. 387). Learners’ beliefs thus feed into motivation and impact whether learners take up and sustain activity within a task and why they may choose to do so, although this relationship is complex and non-linear (Dörnyei, 2002; Kalaja et al., 2015). Such motives have been conceptualized as investment, which is predicated on a view of the learner’s actions as intricately connected to his or her social identity: “when language learners speak, they are not only exchanging information with target language speakers but they are constantly organizing and reorganizing a sense of who they are and how they relate to the social world” (Norton Peirce, 1995, p. 18). An investment in an activity (e.g., language learning in general, a language learning task in particular) represents an investment in one’s dynamic social identity. This perspective can advance the understanding of motivation and resistance in a task, as suggested above, in relation to Legutke and Thomas’s (1991) task features. Both participation and non-participation can be signs of learner agency (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001), but when learners feel a task aligns with their construction of social identity, they are more likely to be invested in the activity. From this perspective, learners’ expectations toward the investigated school project and their assignment of significance to individual components of the project curriculum can contextualize their participation or non-participation in individual tasks, especially those which involve social interaction and computer-mediated communication, as in the context of the publication of learner texts in Web 2.0—even though learners seldom have the choice of complete non-participation in an institutionalized classroom context. In this regard, Dörnyei (2002) discusses a process model of motivation which views motivation as co-constructed among learners and which is capable of reflecting the dynamic nature of motivation during the individual task phases. Task motivation influences action during the pre-actional stage by setting goals, forming intentions, and launching action; the actional stage, where learners engage in ongoing appraisal and control of their actions in order to stay on task and sustain their goal-oriented activity; and the post-actional stage, where learners reflect on the task and retrospectively evaluate how things went. This approach merits closer attention if tasks are viewed as collaboratively enacted, situated processes rather than theoretical and generalizable workplans. A process-oriented motivation concept furthermore can help connect the level of activity to the level of goal-oriented actions because rather than relying on a definition of motivation based on stable traits and temporary but homogenous states of motivation, it proposes that task motivation is situation-specific and can change during task enactment. Similarly, this approach acknowledges, tasks 72 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="73"?> 9 Egbert (2020) further adds agentive engagement (e.g., engaging in self-reflection and perceiving task ownership). are embedded in broader actional contexts, and so, as learners participate in tasks, different motivational contingencies are activated. Task motivation, then, connects features of the situation and the wider context and is predictive of how learners overtly and covertly engage in a task and what actions they carry out during each task phase. 2.4.2 Actions At the level of actions, it is of interest what learners do within the scope of a task and which processes are launched and carried out based on the workplan. These processes—processing of information, participation in social action, and co-construction of knowledge—are what is meant by task engagement and are a necessary condition for any learning to emerge from tasks (Egbert & Chang, 2018; Mercer, 2015; Philp & Duchesne, 2016). As discussed above (cf. section 2.3.2), at the level of classroom discourse, tasks give rise to multiple learning opportunities, defined as “access to any activity that is likely to lead to an increase in language knowledge or skill” (Crabbe, 2003, p. 18). Learning opportunities emerge during tasks, can be intentional as well as planned or incidental, provided by the teacher or the students themselves, address targeted or non-targeted goals, and occur within and outside the classroom. The example of interactional learner initiatives showed how learners carve out learning opportunities to align the content and trajectory of the classroom discourse with their agendas. This example illustrates that learning opportunities are, as their name implies, potential rather than deterministic. To understand whether students take up learning opportunities during tasks, researchers must consider task engagement, meaning the extent to which learners are actively involved in actions rather than merely going through the motions. Motivation can lead to engagement, but the concepts are not interchangeable. Motivated learners may still show little task engagement, for instance, when the task’s demand level and the learners’ skill levels are incongruent. While motivation is psychological and focuses on the outcome of a task, engagement is procedural and refers to the extent and quality of learners’ involvement and participation in tasks (Mohamadi, 2017). Task engagement is commonly classified as behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and social (Egbert & Chang, 2018; Philp & Duchesne, 2016). 9 Behavioral engagement has been meas‐ ured in SLA quantitatively in terms of time on task and corresponding word and 73 2.4 A wider understanding of learner perceptions of tasks <?page no="74"?> turn counts in the interaction data. Generally, behavioral engagement concerns observable actions and participation by learners. By contrast, determinants of cognitive engagement are mental in nature and often not as readily observable during tasks. They include attention and concentration on the task, the use of cognitive strategies to facilitate and control task performance, and can be in‐ ferred from attentive behavior such as questioning, completing peer utterances, making gestures and facial expressions, or through private speech. Emotional engagement, which can be closely associated with motivation and thus supports learners in sustaining task-based activity, may involve enthusiasm, interest, and enjoyment. Generally, this encompasses students’ perceptions of a task’s value, their personal achievement, and a sense of (dis-) connection with peers during the task. Laughter can be an indicator of emotionally engaged learners (Hasegawa, 2018). Learners are socially engaged when they participate in social interaction, complete tasks in collaboration, and provide a social context for task enactment for each other (cf. Mohamadi, 2017; Philp & Duchesne, 2016). Far from being independent, these dimensions overlap and frequently occur together in the context of tasks. Learners who are socially engaged in task-based collaborative interaction with peers are also likely to expend attention to task contents and engage in observable behavior toward task completion. Conversely, learners who are emotionally disengaged because they feel anxious, are overwhelmed by exceeding task demands, or are not interested in the task, thus feeling bored, may also be unable to allocate attention to the task and fail to concentrate on the task performance. The joint activation of these dimensions, whereby learners fully immerse themselves in the learning activity and shield off distractions, is associated with flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Since task engagement by itself may not automatically lead to attaining the desired outcomes of an activity, learners must engage in meta-cognitive processes and adopt learning strategies to ensure their actions serve the identified goals (Gao, 2010). 2.4.3 Operations In activity theory parlance, goal-oriented actions are realized through lower-level operations as learners interact with the affordances in their en‐ vironment. In foreign language learning, this level arguably comprises the four language skills of reading, writing, speaking, and listening, along with respective sub-skills and operations, such as message generation, grammatical and phonological encoding, articulation, and discourse processing for the skill of speaking (Levelt, 1989). Likewise, with regard to the technology-enhanced 74 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="75"?> nature of the school project investigated in this study, it is at the level of operations in which learners draw on their often unconscious multiliteracy and online navigation skills. As learners engage in tasks within online environments, they interact with the affordances therein, for instance, by typing words on the keyboard, accessing and scanning websites, using navigational buttons and links, copying and pasting text, and so on. These are all operations typically carried out habitually without requiring heightened levels of attention. They are the in-process means by which the actions are instantiated and help accommodate the action’s flow to the contextual conditions. All operations had to be consciously learned at one stage and thus initially represented actions, but through processes of internalization were transformed into operations. In a novel or challenging setting, however, learners might have to use scaffolding and expend greater attention to carry them out competently, thus treating them as higher-level actions once again. It is indeed the transformation from actions to operations that represents learning in this view (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, pp. 219-21). (The discussion will return to this three-level distinction of human activity and its role in EFL pedagogical research with a specific focus on CALL in section 3.6). 2.4.4 Agency To conclude this discussion of learner activity in tasks, the concept of learner agency is introduced, because it impacts and is impacted by all three levels of activity, as Lantolf and Thorne (2006) argue: An outcome of activity in language classrooms may include linguistic, pragmatic, and discourse grammatical features of the focus language. But it is equally important that each outcome of the local action and operation should enhance an individual’s sense of agency. This is one aspiration that activity theory shares with critical pedagogy— to not only further a subject’s developing expertise at the level of communitive performance, but also to support continued development as a person. (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, pp. 239-40) In this view, learner agency is connected to the development of identity as a result of agentic learner activity. This corresponds with Martin’s (2004) definition of agency as “the capability of human beings to make choices and act on these choices in a way that makes a difference in their lives” (p. 135). Other definitions foreground the situatedness of agency, such as Ahearn’s (2001) seminal definition of agency as the “socioculturally mediated capacity to act” (p. 112). Agency, thus understood, attempts to capture the dialectic of autono‐ 75 2.4 A wider understanding of learner perceptions of tasks <?page no="76"?> mous human action and the heteronomy of social, cultural, and institutional contexts (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Mercer, 2011; van Lier, 2008). Because higher mental functions are derived from social interaction and the internalization of symbolic and cultural concepts and artifacts, agency is mediated by social relationships and cultural context, for instance, in the form of grammatical rules of language, pragmatic conventions of social discourse, and power relationships inherent in language and social configurations (cf. section 2.1.2.2). Rather than a property of the individual, agency is performative and mediated; it is manifested in constant processes of co-construction and renegotiation of social relationships with those around the individual. Learners pursuing the same behavioral actions can be engaged in different cognitive activities because their activity is driven by subjective motives, desires, and needs. Even when individuals act alone in an unsolicited way, their actions are interpreted and often motivated socially (cf. Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Drawing on Duranti (2004), van Lier (2008, p. 172) suggests that learner agency in the foreign language classroom involves initiative and self-regulation, mediates and is mediated by the environment, and involves the learner’s aware‐ ness of his or her responsibility vis-à-vis the social environment. Agency can be further characterized as a combination of learners’ will, intent, and capacity to act in a goal-oriented way within specific social contexts—or “believing you can, wanting to, and knowing how to” (Mercer, 2015). Lantolf and Thorne (2006) thus posit agency is what connects motivation to action, and Benson (2007) suggests agency is a starting point for autonomy. Mercer (2011) stresses that agency is both psychological and behavioral and hence distinguishes the learner’s perception or sense of agency from the exercise of agency: learner agency exists as latent potential to engage in self-directed behavior but how and when it is used depends on a learner’s sense of agency involving their belief sys‐ tems, and the control parameters of motivation, affect, meta-cognitive/ self-regulatory skills, as well as actual abilities and the affordances, actual and perceived, in specific settings. (p. 435) These dimensions are inextricably linked in such a way that beliefs and motivation feed into actions, which in turn are accommodated to the affordances in the environment through lower-level operations. In this regard, a central notion of agency is that individuals assign significance to aspects of their environment. The tools that individuals work with and the operations they carry out do not have meaning by themselves—it is the motivated activity in which tools and operations are engaged that renders them meaningful. This bears great significance for the context of learning with digital technologies where 76 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="77"?> learners are tasked with constructing their personal learning environments, for example, through the selection and arrangement of online tools, opportunities to access target language discourse, in addition to platforms for self-expression and identity work. The concept thus points toward learners’ interactions with their particular environment by noticing and exploiting the action potential of different types of affordances. (The notion of affordances is discussed in more detail in connection to CALL and human-computer interaction in section 3.5.) Despite its centrality, however, learner agency is not readily quantifiable (Ahearn, 2001; Mercer, 2012, p. 55; Vandergriff, 2016). At the level of interaction, it manifests itself through learner initiatives, as discussed above (cf. section 2.3.2), while in the area of CALL, it might also involve instances where learners seek formal and informal learning opportunities. Learner agency is best measured in degrees rather than absolute terms and may also involve different types of agency (Ahearn, 2001; van Lier, 2008). Although most teachers would agree they can recognize the presence or absence of agentic learner behavior, it defies simplistic operationalization. Vandergriff (2016) addresses this issue as follows by referring to the three aforementioned levels of activity: When language learners have agency, they have some measure of control over how to learn and what to learn, including control over what to say. Learner agency, at its core, describes learners taking action, that is, a way of learning in which learners take the initiative, set goals for themselves, find a way to make progress toward their goals, and stay focused and motivated, all of which are associated with language learning success. (…) In some ways, it is easier to describe what learner agency is not, namely having a learner’s action controlled by others. (p. 88) Similarly, the studies by Coughlan and Duff (1994) and Gourlay (2005), among many others, document learners in displaying agentic behavior during their idiosyncratic task engagement and deliberate modifications of task procedures in situ, according to their own judgment and motives. However, their agency is also clearly mediated by the sociocultural contexts in which they operate and their experiences and histories, which influence their interpretation of the tasks. Ahearn (2001, p. 114) reminds us that learner agency is not to be mistaken for socially unfettered free will, and C. Jones and Healing (2010, p. 347) argue activity is conditioned by the circumstances in which it takes place—both the internal circumstances of the person and external circumstances in which the person acts. 77 2.4 A wider understanding of learner perceptions of tasks <?page no="78"?> 2.5 Summary This chapter has set out to delineate the pedagogical approach of TBLT and relevant directions for task-based classroom research. The approach was situ‐ ated conceptually and historically in experiential learning and the movement of CLT while grounding it empirically in applied linguistic research on interaction. The task construct, which forms the centerpiece of TBLT at all programmatic stages—from curriculum design to lesson planning, to implementation, and assessment—is understood in this study as holistic learner activity. It has been framed within the notion of complex competence tasks, which connect the general pedagogical principles of TBLT to the German secondary school context and concomitant notions of standards and competence orientation. While closing in on the learner experience and learner reinterpretation of tasks in the classroom, the task-as-workplan was distinguished from the task-in-process and further related to applied linguistic research within the frameworks of conversation analysis, exploratory practice, activity theory, and sociocultural theory. Based on these findings, it is argued that the construct of task suffers from threats to its construct validity because research currently conceptualizes tasks as workplans, but yet draws data from the task process. Likewise, the ecological validity of the task concept is threatened because task-based research is notorious for its reliance on experimental research in laboratory settings. From this review, a framework for learner perceptions of tasks was deduced, structured along the three-levels of human activity in activity theory. It was proposed that learner agency is critical to all three levels. That is, learner agency is expressed but also influenced by the levels of activity, actions, and operations. The next chapter will address the second theoretical, conceptual, and empir‐ ical focus of this study, CALL. It will introduce the approach to blended language learning, on which this school project is based, and the field of language learning with Web 2.0 as well as explore the common ground between CALL and TBLT. 78 2 Task-based language learning and teaching <?page no="79"?> 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL As digital technologies increasingly permeate all aspects of professional, leisure, and educational contexts, teaching and learning languages with technology is becoming the standard mode and forms the expanding discipline of CALL. This chapter serves to locate the study on learner perceptions of technology-medi‐ ated tasks within CALL and connect the previous results relating to TBLT to the affordances of technology-enhanced learning environments. Thus, this chapter will first delineate the CALL field conceptually and historically and outline the relationship between technology, teachers, and learners (section 3.1). Secondly, blended language learning is introduced as the pedagogical prin‐ ciple for curriculum design and classroom implementation that allows for the systematic integration of face-to-face and online or technology-mediated modes of learning (section 3.2). Blended learning is frequently implemented using LMS and complemented with Web 2.0 tools and concomitant discourse genres in formal as well as informal contexts, which are discussed next (section 3.3). These CALL-related considerations are then connected with research on TBLT. It is argued that analog task concepts do not work the same way in multimodal online contexts but must be specifically reimagined as technology-enhanced tasks (section 3.4). A critical notion underlying this discussion is the theory of affordances, which are conceptualized in CALL as technological, educational, social, and linguistic action potentials emerging between learners and their digitally-mediated learning environment (section 3.5). Finally, these aspects converge in the discussion of how task-as-workplan and task-in-process are related in CALL (section 3.6). 3.1 Computer-assisted language learning 3.1.1 Definition and conceptual overview Computer-assisted language learning is commonly defined as “the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning” (Levy, 1997, p. 1). As a sub-discipline of applied linguistics, CALL addresses the use of technology in the domain of language teaching and learning. The term it‐ self, however, is not without criticism, and competing terms have been proposed (cf. Beatty, 2003, pp. 10-1 for an overview). Language learning and teaching with <?page no="80"?> technology can include any technological device beyond the desktop computer, such as smartphones, tablet computers, laptops, or interactive whiteboards, as well as the networks connecting them and peripheral devices associated with them. They can fulfill functions other than merely ‘assisting’ in learning, and the label ‘learning’ itself can cloud our attention on the areas of design or teaching. Competing terms like technology-enhanced language learning (TELL) or mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) express these differences in subtle ways. Nevertheless, in using the term CALL in this study, these differences are not to be disregarded, but the discussion follows Levy and Hubbard (2005), who advance these practical and theoretical reasons for its use: the distinctiveness and complexity of language as an object for learning; the need for a global term that can be reliably employed to describe what we do, and the de facto existence of a substantial, international group of individuals and established professional organisations that have continued to use the term for more than two decades. (p. 148) A pedagogically-oriented conception of CALL is proposed by Beatty, who states ‘a definition of CALL that accommodates its changing nature is any process in which a learner uses a computer and, as a result, improves his or her language’ (2003, p. 7). While this approach seems to adequately cover the breadth of research and classroom practices in CALL, Hubbard (2009, p. 2) raises the critical question of what constitutes an improvement of learner language (learning). It can focus on various perspectives: - learning efficiency: learners can pick up language knowledge or skills faster or with less effort; - learning effectiveness: learners retain language knowledge or skills longer, make deeper associations and/ or learn more of what they need; - access: learners can get materials or experience interactions that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to get or do; - convenience: learners can study and practice with equal effectiveness across a broader range of times and places; - motivation: learners enjoy the language learning process more and thus engage more fully; - institutional efficiency: learners require less teacher time or fewer or less expensive resources. Notably, not all of these aspects impact the quality of learning directly, but they can influence the conditions under which learning occurs. In this sense, the definition of CALL can be formulated even more extensively also to include 80 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="81"?> 10 See also Beatty (2003, pp. 18-41) for a brief history of CALL applications. applications and procedures involving technology, which can facilitate teacher productivity, learner autonomy, and other aspects. Besides, the technological applications underlying these types of impact constitute affordances, which do not lead to learning improvement automatically but must be exploited actively by participants. This understanding may also entail, under specific conditions, that CALL could have an undesired or a negative influence on the learning process (Hubbard, 2009, p. 2). 3.1.2 Technology, teachers, and learners in CALL From its inception until today, the field of CALL has undergone significant developments. An interpretive analysis of this history is necessary to understand why certain developments occurred, to develop “a fully appropriate role of computers in language teaching and learning” (Bax, 2003, p. 14), and to map the research agenda in CALL. Several linear and non-linear processes have influenced the development of CALL since the middle of the 20 th century. Whereas the development of computer technology represents a linear process directly traceable, the influencing factors of pedagogy and SLA theory are non-linear, representing “a disorganized, multipronged and often contradictory collection of notions and practices” (Davies et al., 2013, p. 20). From a distance, computer technology has evolved from very limited mainframes to powerful multimedia microcomputers with access to the world wide web and which, today, permeate every sector of our private and professional lives. During this same time frame, CALL has progressed from behavioristic drill-and-practice approaches targeting the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar to complex and interactive learning arrangements facilitating the learning of speaking, listening, writing, reading, pronunciation, and culture (Davies et al., 2013, p. 20). 10 In the different stages of CALL, technology, teachers, and learners occupied different roles within teaching-learning configurations, which were influenced by both pedagogy and technological development. The remainder of this section examines these different roles. With the increasing introduction of computers to schools, multiple taxono‐ mies describing the role of technology in the classroom emerged in the 1980s (De Quincy, 1986; Higgins, 1982; C. R. Jones & Fortescue, 1987; Taylor, 1980). Among these models, Taylor’s (1980) taxonomy of the computer—or more generally, technology—as a tutor, tool, or tutee is the most influential one, not least because the other frameworks can be mapped onto this taxonomy (cf. Levy, 1997). 81 3.1 Computer-assisted language learning <?page no="82"?> Although conceptualized almost four decades ago, Taylor’s model still proves fruitful for contemporary CALL. The computer as a tutor requires that “the computer must be programmed by ‘experts’ in programming and [in the respective] subject. The student is then tutored by the computer executing the program(s)” (Taylor, 1980, ctd. in Levy, 1997, p. 83). This role is reminiscent of behavioristic drill and practice activities typical of early CALL using mainframe-based applications like the well-known PLATO. Taylor recognized such programming was extremely time-consuming, required highly specialized expert knowledge, thus making it unfeasible for teachers. After all, this mode meant the computer program “analyzes and evaluates an individual learner’s response to a question and provides feedback on it” (Levy & Stockwell, 2006, p. 22). Teachers in this setup monitor learners’ technology use and learners are recipients of knowledge with little control over contents and procedures. Today, however, more intelligent language tutoring systems rely on complex algorithms aiming to perform error diagnosis and error correction, as well as the provision of individualized learner feedback, in addition to implementing natural language processing techniques (Levy & Stockwell, 2006, p. 23; Pandarova et al., 2019). The computer as a tool relies on some useful capability programmed into the computer (e.g., graphic design, video editing, web browsing, word processing), which students can use to carry out a specific task (Taylor 1980: “244”). In many ways, this role of technology enhances learner activity and functions as an enabling device providing access to resources or facilitating communication, as in synchronous and asynchronous CMC. The primary focus is on what users can do with the computer, not on the interaction with it. In this way, the interaction with the tool becomes transparent, even invisible to the user unless a breakdown of some kind occurs (Levy, 1997, p. 184). Whereas computer-as-tutor contexts aim, at least in part, to replace the teacher in some ways, teachers here assume the role of embedding computer-as-tool use in tasks or lessons and scaffold learners’ use of technology. In contrast to tutors, the “tool role […] is fundamentally non-directive. Tools are neutral, and how they are used is not predetermined” (Levy, 1997, p. 181). For learners, this means they retain control over crucial choices regarding their learning process and environment, which creates demands for learner autonomy. The computer as a tutee involves the learner in ‘teaching’ the computer to do certain operations by programming it in a language it understands (Taylor, 1980). Taylor states that the computer “makes a good ‘tutee’ because of its dumbness, its patience, its rigidity, and its capacity for being initialized and started over from scratch” (ibid.). In order for learners to program successfully, 82 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="83"?> they must first understand how computers work and how programming lan‐ guages are effectively applied. This approach shifts the focus from the end product of learning to the process, from acquiring knowledge to manipulating and understanding it. Researchers have also proposed taxonomies to define the place of CALL in the classroom. Warschauer, among others, seeks to relate the use of technology to different approaches in language teaching (Kern & Warschauer, 2000; War‐ schauer, 1996; Warschauer & Healey, 1998). He defines three distinct phases of CALL. First, structural CALL rests on behavioristic approaches and a struc‐ tural understanding of language. It thus employed simplistic drill-and-practice activities in a computer-as-tutor approach. Second, communicative CALL in‐ creasingly employed technology as a tool, such as text processing software, to engage learners in language use. Third, integrative CALL, from the 1990s on‐ wards, adopts a socio-cognitive approach, relying on multimedia and networked computers to facilitate social interaction and the integration of language skills. Reexamining this framework, Bax (2003) takes a different approach and adopts the integration of technology in the classroom as a focal point to define ‘restricted,’ ‘open,’ and ‘integrated’ CALL. Restricted CALL, he argues, was not necessarily behavioristic in nature, but somewhat limited in terms of possible activities, regarding the teacher’s role, feedback types, and learners’ choice yielded by the technology. In open CALL, which is still prevalent in many contexts today, pedagogy focuses on the purpose of technology rather than the technology itself, and the development of language skills rather than isolated linguistic knowledge. It is relatively open in terms of teacher and learner roles, software types, and feedback, but the technology remains disconnected from the lesson and overall curriculum. Namely, technology use is planned as an addition to the regular curriculum and occurs in separate computer labs. The third approach, integrated CALL, rests on the notion that CALL is routinely embedded in teaching as well as learning processes and technology is readily available in every classroom, on every desk, and in every bag or pocket, so its presence becomes, in many ways, invisible (Bax, 2003, pp. 20-2). At the time Bax proposed this taxonomy, he argued that fully integrated CALL “does not yet exist to any significant degree, but represents instead an aim towards which we should be working” (Bax, 2003, p. 22). The defining criterion of this approach is normalization, meaning the seamless integration of CALL in virtually all teaching contexts, treated secondary to learning, so teachers and learners use it functionally without exaggerated fears or expectations of what it can or cannot do (Bax, 2003, p. 24). Naturally, the degree of normalization differs between technology types and institutional contexts. 83 3.1 Computer-assisted language learning <?page no="84"?> 11 Cf. questionnaire item QS 1-S- DigMed_PCNutzEU (n = 323). The EFL classrooms investigated in this study (see chapters 8-10) reflected normalization concerning specific CALL applications. For example, in the student pre-survey, 79.9% indicated they had done web-research, and 45.5% had created screen presentations in class during the previous school year, while only a small minority reported use of CALL software for chat (5.6%), the publication of learner texts (5.9%), or the creation of podcasts or videos (1.9%). 11 Likewise, the focal courses of the classroom-based investigation relocated portions or all of their EFL classes during the election project to their schools’ computer lab, which would contradict Bax’s criterion of seamless technology integration. However, as Hinkelman (2018, p. 9) points out, normalization may not be the most pressing issue in blended learning contexts that seek to combine face-to-face and CALL modes of teaching and learning. Rather than integrating technology across the curriculum, the value of blended learning lies in the skillful design of learning environments which draw on both online and offline learning (cf. section 3.2). Finally, these developments in CALL not only imply a changing role of technology in the classroom but are also associated with different roles and responsibilities for teachers and learners. As Healey (2016) describes, the tutor role of technology in early CALL served to relieve teachers of providing learners with practice on language forms during class time. Learners assumed the passive role of recipients of programmed CALL materials, as they were given little choice in selecting contents, activities, or in designing their learning environment. Teachers are not directly visible in this process but act ‘behind the scenes’ in selecting the content and, during the practice phase, monitoring student activity. As microcomputers became more available in schools from the 1980s onwards, the value of learner interaction at the computer, and often stimulated by the computer, was recognized. Despite still limited opportunities to construct CALL materials themselves, teachers’ planning remained crucial in selecting groups, establishing roles, and setting appropriate and challenging CALL tasks. In many ways, this goes hand in hand with the tool role of technology discussed above: Tools are non-directive; they do not teach. Thus, the activity and interaction which ensue depend on the tasks that frame the use of technology, the planned and implemented scaffolding around the task, and the learners’ capability to direct their learning autonomously. As opposed to the recipient role of the learner in early CALL, current applications of Web 2.0 and the varied affordances of LMSs place the learner in the position of a communicator, collaborator, creator, and publisher. Table 3.1 distinguishes the 84 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="85"?> broad roles of teacher and learner in CALL regarding the different degrees of activity/ passivity, and the role of technology in the classroom in terms of how transparent its use is perceived (cf. Healey, 2016, p. 15). broad roles of teacher and learner in CALL regarding the different degrees of activity/ passivity, and the role of technology in the classroom in terms of how transparent its use is perceived (cf. Healey, 2016, p. 15). Teacher Learner Technology Passive Turn on the machine Respond Controller/ Curri‐ culum/ Lessons Visible Cheerleader Respond/ Use information Controller/ Provide information Active Facilitator: process and scaffolding Use information Facilitator: infor‐ mation and tools Hidden Creator/ Evaluator Creator Resource/ Tool Table 3.1: Teacher, learner, and technology roles in CALL (Healey, 2016, p. 15). 3.2 Blended language learning Within CALL, blended language learning plays a significant role as a pedago‐ gical approach connecting face-to-face with online or technology-mediated learning. This sub-chapter will provide a definition and conceptual overview of blended learning (section 3.2.1), present relevant research on language learning and teaching in blended contexts (section 3.2.2), and finally discuss LMS as the most commonly used technology to facilitate blended learning, which also underlies the school project in this study (section 3.2.3). 3.2.1 Definition and conceptual overview While the previous section outlined the major tenets of CALL, its history, and concomitant changes in participant roles and technology, the focus now narrows to address the organizing principle of blended learning and LMS as one essential technology facilitating this approach. Foreign language researchers commonly understand blended learning as a combination of face-to-face class‐ room teaching with some online component (Graham, 2006, p. 5; Neumeier, 2005, p. 164; Rösler, 2010, p. 285; Pete Sharma, 2017, p. 167; Stracke, 2007, p. 57; Whittaker, 2013b, p. 12). Thus, much work in blended language learning fosters the integrated use of technology in the classroom and extramural settings (cf. Gruba et al., 2016, p. 3; Whittaker, 2013b) and thereby responds to Bax’s call for normalization. Likewise, a central impetus for blended learning derives 85 3.2 Blended language learning Table 3.1: Teacher, learner, and technology roles in CALL (Healey, 2016, p. 15). 3.2 Blended language learning Within CALL, blended language learning plays a significant role as a peda‐ gogical approach connecting face-to-face with online or technology-mediated learning. This sub-chapter will provide a definition and conceptual overview of blended learning (section 3.2.1), present relevant research on language learning and teaching in blended contexts (section 3.2.2), and finally discuss LMS as the most commonly used technology to facilitate blended learning, which also underlies the school project in this study (section 3.2.3). 3.2.1 Definition and conceptual overview While the previous section outlined the major tenets of CALL, its history, and concomitant changes in participant roles and technology, the focus now narrows to address the organizing principle of blended learning and LMS as one essential technology facilitating this approach. Foreign language researchers commonly understand blended learning as a combination of face-to-face class‐ room teaching with some online component (Graham, 2006, p. 5; Neumeier, 2005, p. 164; Rösler, 2010, p. 285; Pete Sharma, 2017, p. 167; Stracke, 2007, p. 57; Whittaker, 2013b, p. 12). Thus, much work in blended language learning fosters the integrated use of technology in the classroom and extramural settings (cf. Gruba et al., 2016, p. 3; Whittaker, 2013b) and thereby responds to Bax’s call for normalization. Likewise, a central impetus for blended learning derives 85 3.2 Blended language learning <?page no="86"?> from the persistent call for developing learners’ digital literacies (Dudeney et al., 2014) and multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Lotherington, 2007) as critical requirements for sociocultural participation in the 21 st century. Historically, the roots of blended learning can be traced to the corporate world where the facilitation of on-the-job training via digitally-mediated classes and self-study was first introduced as a cost-saving measure (Pete Sharma, 2010, p. 456). Graham (2006, p. 5) describes the emergence of BL as a convergence of historically separate modes of face-to-face and distributed learning: While traditional classroom-based learning relied on teacher-directed procedures and direct contact between learners in a live synchronous environment, distance learning mostly involved self-paced study of learning materials and asynchro‐ nous interactions. Technological advances have narrowed these gaps and even created overlaps, with distance education adopting features like synchronicity and high-fidelity environments from face-to-face contexts and vice versa (ibid.). Today, blended language learning can be situated within the field of CALL and itself includes a wide range of possible variants (Gruba et al., 2016, pp. 3-4). Although researchers generally agree that BL combines digitally mediated and face-to-face modes, the concretization of such a definition is contested. Pete Sharma and Barrett (2007, p. 7) refer to combining classroom-based teaching with the appropriate use of technology, thus also including offline media, such as CD-ROMs, and other technologies, for instance, interactive whiteboards. Rösler (2010, p. 285) highlights the combination of the pedagogical modes of face-to-face classroom-based teaching, self-study, and virtual learning phases, which is supposed to optimize learning processes and outcomes. Citing Oliver and Trigwell (2005), Pete Sharma (2010) argues that the blending can occur at different levels, resulting in BL as the integrated combination of traditional learning with web-based online approaches, BL as a combination of media and tools employed in an e-learning environment, and BL as a combination of pedagogical approaches, irrespective of learning technology. A different approach, yet one that is instructive for this study, is taken by Staker and Horn (2012). They define BL from the learner’s perspective as a formal education program in which a student learns at least in part through online delivery of content and instruction with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/ or pace and at least in part at a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home. (p. 6) The element of student control here is crucial as the authors highlight that learning is no longer restricted to the school day or year, to the walls of the classroom, the pedagogical approach of the teacher, or the pace of the 86 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="87"?> classroom as a whole. Still, this definition refers to the formal context of the school classroom, but yet it acknowledges informal and self-directed learning opportunities increasingly afforded by educational technology. As this review shows, BL is context-sensitive and thus may appear in locally situated variations. Moreover, the concept is described as transitory by becoming so ubiquitous it will soon be the standard way of language teaching (Graham, 2006, p. 7; Pete Sharma & Westbrook, 2016, n.p.). Researchers, accordingly, must clearly define which form of BL they investigate to avoid diluting its meaning (Grgurović, 2017, p. 150). Because of the context-sensitivity and flexibility of BL, researchers have proposed multiple frameworks to guide the categorization and description of BL approaches (Hinkelman, 2018; Hockly & Clandfield, 2010; Motteram & Sharma, 2009; Neumeier, 2005; Staker & Horn, 2012; cf. Würffel, 2011). Hockly and Clandfield (2010) suggest describing blends with percentages denoting the share of face-to-face vs. online teaching and learning in a course, such as ‘70%-30%’ for face-to-face supported by online teaching or ‘50%-50%’ for hybrid forms. This simplistic terminology, however, masks qualitative differences between programs. Graham (2006, pp. 11-3) differentiates blending at the levels of individual activities (i.e., an activity contains elements in both modes), the course syllabus (i.e., distinct online and face-to-face activities as well as hybrid forms), the program level (i.e., a combination of online and face-to-face courses), and at the institutional level (i.e., where whole institutions commit to BL). Resulting blends may enable greater or more convenient access to learning opportunities, enhance existing pedagogies incrementally, or transform them more radically. Surveying over 80 K-12 blended learning programs in the U.S., Staker and Horn (2012) identified four general categories of locally situ‐ ated approaches. In the rotation model, students rotate on a fixed schedule between online and face-to-face learning. In this first model, learners may rotate modalities within their classroom (‘station rotation’), between locations within their school campus, such as a classroom and a computer lab (‘lab rotation’), between face-to-face delivery at school and online components at home (‘flipped classroom’), or according to individually determined rotation (‘individual rotation’). The flex model, secondly, describes a program that mostly relies on online delivery, while the teacher or tutors can be consulted flexibly on-site for adaptive scaffolding and support. The self-blend model, thirdly, has the students take a course entirely online on their school campus or off-site with their teacher being available online. Finally, the enriched-virtual model operates at the institutional level with all courses of a program blending on-site, face-to-face teaching and online, remote-learning. A closer examination of 87 3.2 Blended language learning <?page no="88"?> participant statistics (cf. chapter 6) and the description of the three case studies (cf. chapters 8-10) reveal that most participants in the investigated school project adopted the rotation model regarding the courseand activity-level blending. Also, most school settings required courses to rotate between the regular classroom and the computer lab (i.e., lab rotation) or, if a computer lab was not available, delegate online work to the students’ homes (i.e., flipped classroom). A more detailed taxonomy for describing various components of a blended language learning course is proposed by Neumeier (2005), who distinguishes six dimensions of a course. First, the parameter of mode refers to the use of face-to-face and online modes in a program, including the choice of a lead mode guiding the overall learning process, the distribution of modes across a syllabus, and the choice of modes for individual program components, such as lessons or task cycles. Second, the parameter of the model of integration involves decisions about the sequencing of modes (e.g., following a fixed schedule or depending on individual tasks or lessons) and the level of integration (i.e., whether online and face-to-face components are compulsory or optional). Third, blended programs may differ in terms of the distribution of learning content and objectives across different modes, for instance, whether learners acquire a skill in one mode exclusively or in both online and face-to-face modes. Fourth, the choice of teaching methods in each of the modes can lead to vastly different designs, for instance, whether collaborative arrangements only occur inside the brick-and-mortar classroom or as well in the online mode. Fifth, blended designs differ in how they involve teachers and learners in the learning activity, namely interactional patterns, participant roles, and their level of autonomy. Finally, the sixth parameter concerns the location where learning occurs, usually involving multiple locations, even within the same mode. Although criticized for lack of terminological clarity of some of these categories (cf. Würffel, 2011, 2014), Neumeier’s framework is nevertheless an especially useful model because of its scope (microand macro-pedagogical dimensions) and its integration of technical and pedagogical considerations. It will thus serve to analyze the investigated school project in more detail (cf. section 5.5). 3.2.2 Research on blended (language) learning Faced with the multifarious variations of BL approaches in accordance with local conditions, it is difficult to predict the impact of blended learning generally. If based on a tool-centric rationale, technology may be seen as facilitating transfor‐ mative changes in the classroom; if implemented with an instrumental rationale, 88 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="89"?> their addition or removal may be seen as minimal (Hinkelman, 2018, p. 25). While these impacts must be evaluated in the specific local implementation contexts considering how learning ecologies as a whole are influenced, the research literature addresses general benefits and issues associated with BL. Overall, three areas of affordances of BL can be identified: improved pedagogy, increased access and flexibility, and increased cost-effectiveness (Graham, 2006, p. 8). In terms of the latter of these, authors consider the roots of BL in corporate training and advance cost-reduction arguments, highlighting that BL is often associated with eliminating travel and development costs (Whittaker, 2013b, p. 13). In education, time and cost efficiency play a similar role because BL is assumed to foster easy scalability of educational programs and facilitate more extended and individualized learning time for students independent of class schedules. It is doubtful, however, that this argument can be fully transferred to educational contexts, due to the initial costs for purchasing devices, routine maintenance, and ongoing teacher training, which can be prohibitively expensive (Whittaker, 2013b, p. 14). More importantly, however, affordances related to pedagogy, flexibility, and access are commonly associated with BL approaches. Contrasting BL with traditional CALL based on behaviorist approaches, Pete Sharma and Westbrook (2016) maintain that BL is suited to implement a more pronounced sociocultural and socio-constructivist approach to language teaching and learning. Web 2.0 applications commonly used in BL, such as forums, blogs, wikis, and podcasts, for instance, can increase interactivity between learners and software as well as among learners in terms of communication and the joint construction of meaning (cf. Graham, 2006, p. 8). Likewise, affordances associated with MALL (Burston, 2015) can enrich BL when learners have easy, permanent, and ubiquitous access to learning materials, from which informal on-the-go learning opportunities can emerge (Hockly, 2011; Pete Sharma & Westbrook, 2016, n.p.). Moreover, as implied by Staker’s and Horn’s (2012) BL definition, opportunities for learner choice may afford increased relevancy of learning materials and contents for learners, who can incorporate information sources that interest them, thus facilitating prolonged engagement otherwise considered too time-consuming in class (Comas-Quinn, 2011; Pete Sharma & Westbrook, 2016). In a flipped-classroom approach, for instance, BL can free up class time by providing input at home, where learners can flexibly access learning materials, while deeper engagement with the material or transfer activities can occur in the classroom, where the teacher and co-learners provide additional scaf‐ folding (Pete Sharma, 2017, p. 168). Thus, face-to-face phases and pedagogical interventions in BL designs serve the particular function of facilitating social 89 3.2 Blended language learning <?page no="90"?> presence by repairing social bonds and alleviating tensions and emotional load, in order to foster trust and a stronger community feeling, which in turn support interactions and cooperative processes online (Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2019, p. 54). Finally, Hockly (2011) and Grgurović (2017) note, besides these affordances, both learners and parents increasingly expect technology to be integrated into language classrooms, and ministries of education may require teachers to adopt BL in their curricula. In contrast to these affordances, various constraints and challenges of BL approaches are discussed in the literature related to questions of design, learner demands, and conceptual issues, besides challenges generally associated with CALL (see Grgurović, 2017 for a review). Depending on the type of BL design, Pete Sharma (2017, p. 168) illustrates, learner success can be inherently contin‐ gent on learner autonomy and self-regulation because BL involves extended self-study phases outside the classroom, detached from closer scaffolding and guidance by the teacher. Nunan (1997, p. 201) supports this view by stating that learners are often ill-equipped to take responsibility for their learning outside the classroom. Stracke’s (2007) study on learner motivation in BL is insightful here, as she was able to show that language learners often leave BL courses on the grounds of motivation and attitudinal rejections of the online mode. The three students in her study, French and Spanish language learners at a university language center, left the BL course they were attending for three reasons: a perceived lack of support and connection between both modes of the blend, a perceived lack of the use of the paper medium for reading and writing, and a rejection of the computer as a medium for language learning. Pete Sharma and Westbrook (2016) agree that the distance element in BL, in particular, requires both intrinsic motivation, which is supported by making the material attractive to learners, and extrinsic motivation, for instance, by making face-to-face activities reliant on the completion of distance activities and thus ensuring integration of both modes. In the context of BL tasks, instructions available to learners play a crucial role as they are frequently the primary, and often the sole realization of teaching presence during online phases, and by helping learners maintain social affiliations and manage task organization (Kurek, 2015, pp. 19-20). Moreover, unlike inside the classroom, where social affordances in the form of casual and inadvertent interaction opportunities emerge naturally, these affordances do not exist by default in online phases. They must be intentionally designed into this pedagogical space (Kirschner et al., 2004, p. 51). These constraints foreground the substantial role of design in BL, or “getting the blend right” (Whittaker, 2013b, p. 19), to ensure desired learning outcomes 90 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="91"?> 12 Parts of this paragraph are adapted from Kaliampos (2019). and learner satisfaction. Here, technology can assume routine support activities by providing static scaffolds, allowing teachers to focus on providing dynamic and responsive support. However, BL also pushes course designers and teachers to anticipate learners’ needs a priori and implement support systems accord‐ ingly. Online phases in BL thus typically necessitate a combination of hard (i.e., static and fixed, primarily technology-mediated) and soft (i.e., dynamic and customizable, typically provided by experts) as well as distributed scaffolds (i.e., a combination of multiple, even redundant scaffolds for a single task) to address the needs of diverse student populations within their respective ZPD (Priya Sharma & Hannafin, 2007). Scaffolds can be deployed separately or in combination to support procedural, conceptual, meta-cognitive, and strategic performances (E. Lee & Hannafin, 2016). Responding to the risks of reduced teaching presence and contingent social affordances online, Hauck and Hampel (2008) add the scaffolding of affective and social learning strategies. 12 Despite scaffolding, Grgurović (2017), in a review of research into blended language learning, highlights the supportive role of teacher and learner training, which should be gradual, technological, and pedagogical rather than adopted as single interventions. Technical training should involve practical application training, reflection on rationales of technology use, and pedagogical support of learning strategies. Regarding participant roles, research into blended language learning has demonstrated how this approach’s implementation may frequently result in “a contested space where traditional hierarchies and relationships between tutors and learners are in a state of flux and where new hierarchies and relationships are constantly being forged” (Comas-Quinn et al., 2012, p. 129). The aforementioned shift from transmission-oriented to sociocultural approaches in BL thus implies shifts in teachers’ identities exceeding the mere acquisition of ICT skills and requiring that teachers understand the affordances of the new medium and accept the modified participant roles (Comas-Quinn, 2011). Finally, one problematic desideratum in this research body is the scarcity of studies addressing the direct experiences of learners in BL contexts. Neumeier’s (2005, p. 163) conclusion that “a systematic investigation into the factors that shape the Blended Learning (…) experience in the context of language learning and teaching is missing and urgently needed” still holds for the secondary school context (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2010, p. 35). It is indicative of this desideratum that Grgurović’s (2017) review of blended language learning does not include a single investigation undertaken in a secondary school context. Reviewing the most highly cited scholarship in BL research, Halverson et al. 91 3.2 Blended language learning <?page no="92"?> (2014) identified that less than two percent of highly cited BL publications focus on K-12 contexts. Furthermore, only four of the studies in their review explored learner engagement in blended settings. Arguing from the perspective of distance learning, C. White (2017) criticizes these aspects’ marginalization in previous research: To be of value, access to the situated practices of distance language learners and teachers in particular settings needs to be interpreted against a background of what we have long understood to be major challenges for the field: namely the need for ongoing attention to learner support that adds value to individual learning agendas, attention to community, and affiliations within that, feedback on individual and collective activity, and careful consideration of the affective aspects of distance language learning. (…) Thus, looking ahead, there is a critical need not only for pedagogical innovation, but for sustained attention to how new tools and environments function from the point of view of learners, and through careful scaffolding to extend the value they can derive from technology‐mediated distance language teaching. (C. White, 2017, n.p.) This marginalization of the learner perspective is highly problematic, given the above-cited calls for broader adoption of BL approaches and educational technology in general. Additionally, this connects to the theory problem in BL: “Blended learning needs substantive conversations about theory, and such con‐ versations will not happen without supporting empirical research” (Halverson et al., 2014, p. 29). 3.2.3 Learning management systems Learning management systems, also referred to as virtual learning environ‐ ments, represent one of the most common technologies to facilitate BL in school-based contexts. The following characteristics define LMS: - a designed information space; - a social space: educational interactions occur in the environment, turning spaces into places; - explicit representation of this information/ social space which can vary from text to 3D immersive worlds; - students are active and also actors by co-constructing the virtual space; - not restricted to distance education, thus also enriching classroom activities; and - integration of heterogeneous technologies and multiple pedagogical ap‐ proaches (Dillenbourg et al., 2002, pp. 3-4). 92 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="93"?> As such, LMS are generic, server-based tools that facilitate a variety of course management, communication, and cooperative functions in a consistent and customizable online environment with extensive options for content authoring (Godwin-Jones, 2017, 379). Kerres (2018, pp. 460-1) stresses that LMS respond to the requirements of the scalability of learning environments to various sizes and contexts, in addition to the flexibility of reflecting the educational institution and purposes. Typical elements of LMS involve complementary objects and processes. Objects comprise learning contents such as resource materials or activities, usually implemented along with descriptors or instructions. These are arranged in courses, thus reflecting the general structure and sequence of a syllabus. Participants populate courses with specific roles and rights, such as teacher, tutor, or student. Processes, on the other hand, include administrative processes (e.g., granting access permissions, user roles, and functionality rights), processes of personalization (e.g., modifying the learning environments through customizing user accounts, modifying course areas, or using personalized interfaces like dashboards, which are usually generated during the LMS use), time-controlled delivery of contents (i.e., automated or pre-determined opera‐ tive processes), creation of support systems (e.g., establishing learner groups or assigning tutors), and the documentation of the learning status (e.g., automatic tracking of task completion as a basis for certifications). Furthermore, Kerres (2018) outlines five critical functions of LMS in the social and educational context of classrooms, which exceed mere technological func‐ tionalities. First, LMS assign roles within the classroom’s social configuration. Technologically assigned roles like ‘tutor’ or ‘student’ within the LMS reflect social expectations toward the participants’ behavior in specific social situations and thus impact on how users interact with each other online. Second, LMS organize the activities the participants are expected to carry out as part of their curricula in specific sequences. This organization of the learning trajectory includes varying degrees of priority, which can be determined by the teacher or the students themselves, who can be given responsibility for planning matters in the LMS. Third, LMS are used to manage the learning materials by providing learners access to materials and, on the course teacher’s and designer’s side, facilitate systematic storage of teaching materials in scalable repositories and implementation of external resources via HTML or plug-ins. Fourth, LMS provide meta-information for learning in a course such as organizational information about the course and didactic information on course objectives, requirements, amongst others. Fifth, LMS document learning processes and outcomes by tracing learner texts and digital artifacts, from user-log data to textual and multimodal contributions in forums and chats, to uploaded materials 93 3.2 Blended language learning <?page no="94"?> as well as evaluations and grades. In facilitating these functions, LMS impact the learning and teaching trajectory, without automatically determining it. In keeping with the ecological understanding of affordances (cf. section 3.5), these core functions outline the affordances and constraints of learning within this context, yet whether teachers and students exploit them may also be influenced by their underlying agendas and pedagogical approaches. In addition to such general functions, it is their social affordances that render LMS valuable in educational contexts. Kerres (2018, p. 483) stresses in this regard that ‘social’ LMS are characterized by inward and outward permeability. Despite providing secure and private learning spaces, LMS may also support learning by allowing internal contents such as learner blogs or artifacts to be published to the Internet and thus validate learning outcomes by making them visible. Conversely, the incorporation of external contents or persons, such as exchange partners or experts, can enrich internal learning spaces. Social interaction within LMS can further be supported by setting up groups and providing private learning spaces with potentially additional roles for group members to foster group cohesion. Besides, LMS designs must allow for informal and incidental social interactions between participants to occur. This element of surprise is referred to as ‘social serendipity’ and is commonly observed in social networks where users encounter unexpected reactions by unacquainted others with the same interests, or unexpectedly stumble upon personally relevant information. Such processes are considered necessary to communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) to develop among LMS participants. Technological features like the visibility of online users, automated notification of new comments, and the overall appeal of the LMS content to users foster the emergence of such serendipitous effects. Likewise, tasks that specifically encourage learners to engage in dialog, share personal objects and information online, and comment on those of others can be conducive (Kerres, 2018, pp. 485-6). Many of these general affordances apply to foreign language learning, especially as they concern the social and communicative dimension of learning. In evaluating the use of LMS in foreign language classrooms, the analysis of the affordances of LMS for language learning by von der Emde et al. (2001) remains instructive. First, according to these authors, LMS promote authentic commu‐ nication and content, and the CMC genres typically encountered on these platforms, such as chat or forum discussions, help intermediate and beginner learners bridge the gap between written and conversational language. Moreover, learners actively shape their online learning environment as their contributions are incorporated into the LMS’s public discourse, and thus themselves become 94 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="95"?> authentic sources for further interaction and learning processes. Second, the decentered structure of LMS affords learner autonomy and fosters peer-teaching as students can influence the trajectories of group discussions, decide how many drafts of a product are necessary to meet personal expectations, or provide peer-scaffolding through online comments—tasks previously held by teachers. Third, LMS may individualize learning processes since online CMC genres provide increased time for all learners to participate in discourse with peers, which they can adjust to their current proficiency levels through the ongoing negotiation of meaning. Fourth, multimodal and creative forms of ex‐ pression, private or semi-private communication contexts, and the opportunity to create alternative identities online may encourage learners to experiment with linguistic resources and engage in playful or informal discourse. Fifth, the prominent role of the written medium in CMC, its permanence, and associated higher levels of cognitive awareness help to make learner language susceptible to analysis and reflection, thus positioning learners as researchers in their own right. This discussion is but a cursory overview of language affordances encoun‐ tered in LMS, and because of the diversity of functionalities and text genres therein, an exhaustive discussion such affordances is impossible. As LMS are commonly enriched with further applications and Web 2.0 tools in language classrooms (Blake & Shiri, 2012; Strasser, 2011), it may thus be more conducive to look at these text genres and applications individually. Therefore, the following sub-chapter discusses the theoretical antecedents of this social Web in more detail, along with its role in language learning at the example of three recurring genres: blogs, wikis, and social networking sites. 3.3 Web 2.0 technologies and foreign language learning As outlined above, LMS are commonly combined with various tools of the social Web or Web 2.0, which therefore played a significant role in the technological and pedagogical realization of the investigated school project. The following sections introduce the notion of Web 2.0 conceptually (section 3.3.1) and present research on language learning with three distinct Web 2.0 genres: blogs (section 3.3.2.1), wikis (section 3.3.2.2), and social networking sites (section 3.3.2.3). While the underlying tools are not necessarily used across the school project’s curriculum, crucial elements of these genres are adopted in the tasks and researching them can help draw inferences from the present research context. The sub-chapter closes with a discussion of formal and informal learning 95 3.3 Web 2.0 technologies and foreign language learning <?page no="96"?> pertaining to the learners’ engagement in the Web 2.0 genres mentioned above (section 3.3.3). 3.3.1 Definition and conceptual overview Web 2.0 applications have become a ubiquitous part of our daily lives over the past decade and a half, and they are now permeating virtually all professional and leisure contexts. Tim O'Reilly (2005) is credited with popularizing the term Web 2.0, the outcome of a conference brainstorming in 2004. Together with his colleagues, he initially conceived Web 2.0 as “the web as platform” (n.p.) that offers users different kinds of services via intuitive interfaces, thereby reaching the edges of the web and not just its center. Web 2.0 applications are designed to exploit the collective intelligence of its users to improve its services, either as contributors of individual or collaborative creative content, as co-developers of the service or product itself, or as contributors of user data to services which improve as more user data is aggregated in the algorithmic systems facilitating these services. Underlying this conception is an architecture of participation with applications built to enable users to create, modify, remix, share, and publish content collaboratively, in addition to inclusive default settings to aggregate user data. While it can be argued that this technological innovation marks a paradigmatic shift, one from connecting computers to connecting people, Tim Berners-Lee, the ‘inventor’ of the World Wide Web, argues that Web 2.0 fulfills what the Internet was intended for all along (Berners-Lee, 2006). Moreover, while definitions of Web 2.0 may vary in the literature, the defining feature most authors would agree upon is the social and participatory nature of the ‘social Web’ (Lomicka & Lord, 2009a). Accordingly, we can adopt a minimal definition of Web 2.0 technologies as “openly available online technologies that allow creation, editing and sharing between (often large) groups of people via a web-browser” (Bower, 2016, p. 765). Researchers have thus defined Web 2.0 by describing exemplary applications and uses (e.g., Redecker, 2009, p. 31). The major technological innovations marking the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 are aptly summarized by Benito-Ruiz (2009, p. 65; but see also Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008; O'Reilly, 2005; Warschauer & Grimes, 2007; cf. Table 3.2). 96 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="97"?> Web 1.0 Web 2.0 Web as Read-only Web as Read-Write Web as Medium: Where content is transmitted from a web‐ master or company to an audience Web as Platform: Where content can be stored, created, shared, remixed, and commented by each user Web of large documents Web of small pieces of data Web of Software: If a user buys and downloads a piece of software but does not use it, the company still makes a profit. Web of Content: If people do not use the Web-based appli‐ cation, the application does not exist (nor the company or the start-up behind it). Web of geeks and techies: HTML knowledge needed. Web of anyone willing to try: Web-based publishing platforms (e.g., blogs, wikis), no need for technological language. Web as Broadcast: One to many. Web as Conversation: Social participative nature of web 2.0 tools. Many to many. Web as Static: Applications and websites are closed. Web as Dynamic: Applications are open and remixable, recombining and deconstructing Web. Web of Search Engines: You go to the Web to find what is out there. Web of RSS: Content and data can be subscribed to and ‘delivered’ to the user. Web of Copyrighted Content Web of Copyleft and Commons: Content can be licensed for re-use and derivative works. Web of Categories: Content organized and stored in large and fixed categories by webmasters. Top-down. Web of Tags and Folksonomies: Smallest units of content tagged by anyone in the online community. Bottom-up. Web of Forums Web of Blogs and Social Networks Web of Stable Releases Web of Beta Releases Table 3.2: Development from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 (adapted from Benito-Ruiz, 2009, p. 65). However, Web 2.0 is not merely about a change in technology, but about the way software developers and end-users engage in online practices (Hicks & Graber, 2010, p. 623; Lomicka & Lord, 2009a, p. 4; Warschauer & Grimes, 2007, 97 3.3 Web 2.0 technologies and foreign language learning <?page no="98"?> p. 2). These practices, according to Musser et al. (2007), rest on three key principles, namely those of user participation, openness, and network effects. User participation in Web 2.0 environments is markedly different from the receptive form of participation typical of the first-generation web. Musser et al. (2007) are eager to point out that participation in Web 2.0 refers to participation leading to reuse, understood as the affordances of aggregating, combining, tagging, or valorizing content through annotations, giving new meaning to materials, remixing, modifying, multiplying, and curating online resources (cf. Zourou, 2012, 16). Reuse thus describes the process through which user-generated content emerges in the social web. It typically involves some form of publication, built on creative effort whereby users add personal value to their work. It increasingly takes place outside of professional routines and practices, using applications that facilitate creative expression without requiring extensive training or programming knowledge (cf. section 3.3.3). Secondly, Web 2.0 environments are characterized by their openness in mul‐ tiple ways, relying on a horizontal participatory structure (Zourou, 2012, p. 21). This may include open source applications and environments raising limited obstacles for accessing their source code, thus inviting users to get involved and function as co-developers. On the other hand, openness may also refer to the creation of content in open spaces with contributions by users themselves, as in the prominent case of Wikipedia. This development has led to changes in how we understand formerly analog concepts of audience, authorship, and artifact, “from plain text to multimedia, from static to dynamic content, from authorship by an educated elite to mass authorship, and from high costs of entry into the public sphere to low ones” (Warschauer & Grimes, 2007, p. 16). This development is fueled by a change in the direction of communication: “while Web 1.0 was the ‘readable web’, where the dominant activity was reception of texts, sounds and images, Web 2.0 is the ‘writable web’, where creation of new content is dominant” (Kárpáti, 2009, p. 140). Others have characterized this as the change from information delivery to contributing and shaping content (McLoughlin & Lee, 2010), or simply as the emergence of the “read-write” web (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008; Richardson, 2005). Finally, Web 2.0 environments designed to exploit network effects, that is, the architecture of participation and inclusive default settings of software for the aggregation of user data ensure that a product or Web 2.0 application— social networks, folksonomies, search engines, to name but a few—become more valuable the more users utilize them and submit their information. Likewise, the easier it becomes to spread viral content, and the more people populate a network, the more attractive it becomes to the users themselves. This 98 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="99"?> notion is essential for foreign language learning as it opens new possibilities and frameworks for expression, identity construction, language contact, and interaction, which are discussed in the following sections in more detail. The number and diversity of Web 2.0 applications available today, whether browser-based or in the form of mobile apps, are dizzying, and it is impossible for average users to keep up with the variety of available services. Frequently used technologies include blogs, wikis, social networking sites, video sharing and podcasting, social bookmarking, multimedia content creation and editing, gaming, and virtual worlds (Hew & Cheung, 2013). Bower (2016) proposes a comprehensive typology of such services, resulting in 37 types of applications arranged into 17 clusters. Such a variety comes with practical challenges for learners and educators alike, relating to their competencies in selecting and operating the technologies, correctly estimating student proficiency, coping with changes in software design or discontinuation of services, and integrating their use into sound conceptual frameworks (Bower, 2016). Indeed, young people today are engaging in Web 2.0 use for a myriad of professional and private activities. They: - upload and share digital contents like texts, photos, and videos; - create original contents and manipulate and remix existing ones, relying on multimedia editing applications, to produce personalized and creative mash-ups; - express their identity and explore alternative identity concepts through blogs, creating authentic and artful accounts or avatars, investing into communities by joining social networks and following other users; - communicate in multifaceted ways, using multimodal communication chan‐ nels like instant messaging and video-chat; - collaborate with others indirectly through recommender systems and di‐ rectly through collaborative writing, social bookmarking, and file exchange; - organize and manage both professional and private practices using online databases, calendars, and productivity apps; - stream video content and photos and subscribe to blogs and podcasts for entertainment; and - engage in virtual worlds, locally used LMS or larger scale massive open online courses (MOOCs) for studying and other professional outcomes (Crook, 2008). The normalization of these Web 2.0 tools across professional and leisure contexts as well as its permeation of informal communication, collaboration, and entertainment practices, coupled with the technological affordances which 99 3.3 Web 2.0 technologies and foreign language learning <?page no="100"?> rely on intuitive use without requiring explicit and extensive user training, has, paradoxically, made their demands and the needed skills and literacies for effective use invisible. The conundrum raised here is that whilst students increasingly engage with these tools in their everyday lives, there is still lack of Web 2.0 practices that draw on the specific features of these tools and align them with educational goals […]. (Parmaxi & Zaphiris, 2016, p. 712) It would indeed be simplistic to assume today’s learners enter the classroom fully equipped with the competencies needed to harness the affordances of Web 2.0. At the turn of the millennium and the onset of the social Web, widespread positivism suggested this notion through characterizations of learners as ‘digital natives’ ( J. G. Palfrey & Gasser, 2008; Prensky, 2001a, 2001b), the ‘net generation’ (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005), and ‘new millennium learners’ (OECD, 2008). These terms denote younger generations of learners born after 1980, raised with access to emerging digital technologies, and socialized into novel digital practices associated with Web 2.0, amongst others. The terms imply that young people’s digital skills are in some way innate rather than learned or taught and that there is a generational break after which users were prompted to deterministically adapt to their technological environment in uniform ways, enabling them to engage in highly sophisticated uses of digital media (Palfrey et al., 2011). Since then, researchers and pedagogues have widely contested this under‐ standing as emerging empirical evidence suggests a much more diversified image of today’s learners (Thomas, 2011). Likewise, the still existing forms of firstand second-level digital divides and the resulting participation gaps are well documented today (Hargittai, 2002; Jenkins et al.; van Dijk, 2012). A less deterministic stance rejects the argument that new technologies determine the outlook of an entire generation and instead propose that Web 2.0, along with the ubiquity of the Internet, have particular characteristics affording specific, novel ways of social engagement—not in generational ways, but in widespread, significant, and diversified ways (Chris Jones, 2011). As a description of a subset of today’s younger populations, this concept nevertheless contributes to our understanding of today’s learners and their preferred modes of learning as well as their expectations toward learning, which may include the use of technology to express identity, routinely engaging in multi-tasking and task-switching, expecting information to be in digital format, and the movement from mere consumers to producers or, more accurately, ‘prosumers’ of publicly accessible information (Palfrey et al., 2011, p. 41). As a consequence, they demand a 100 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="101"?> different type of education, one that embodies both formal and informal contexts and responds to the ubiquity, accessibility, and ease of using new digital tools: Compared to prior generations of learners, they are digitally literate, they think more visually and in a nonlinear manner, they practise multitasking and give preference to multimedia environments. They are continuously connected with their peers and “always on”. In learning environments they are easily bored, need a variety of stimuli not to get distracted, are impatient and expect instant feedback and rewarding. They are social, team-spirited and engaged, goal-oriented and pragmatic, and appropriate (learning) resources to suit their individual needs. To come to terms with the information overload of the digital era, they (need to) employ learning strategies that involve searching, sieving, managing, re-combining, validating and contextualizing information. (Redecker, 2009, p. 21) 3.3.2 Research on Web 2.0 in language learning Research on the use of Web 2.0 for language learning and teaching has flourished over the past 15 years. Researchers have specifically addressed the pedagogical implications of Web 2.0 for language learning (Thomas, 2009), its impact on tasks and the nexus of TBLT and social computing (Becker et al., 2016; Biebighäuser, Zibelius, & Schmidt, 2012), its implications for of social networking and online collaboration (Lamy & Zourou, 2013; Lomicka & Lord, 2009b), as well as its use for telecollaboration (Guth & Thomas, 2013) computer-mediated discourse (Vandergriff, 2016), and the influential role of Web 2.0 for learner autonomy (Cappellini et al., 2017). This accumulating research has been synthesized in several systematic research reviews and meta-analyses on Web 2.0 and general pedagogy (Conole & Alevizou, 2010; Crook, 2008; Greenhow et al., 2009; Redecker, 2009), with a particular focus on foreign and second language learning and teaching (Luo, 2013; Parmaxi & Zaphiris, 2016; Reinhardt, 2019; Selwyn, 2007; S. Wang & Vasquez, 2012), including research on mobile-assisted language learning (Burston, 2015; Chwo et al., 2018). A general theme spanning across this scholarship is the diversity of Web 2.0 tools available online. This diversity, however, is not matched in the published research, with the bulk of studies focusing on the use of blogs, wikis, virtual worlds, podcasts, and social networking tools (Hew & Cheung, 2013; Luo, 2013; S. Wang & Vasquez, 2012). Likewise, research involving microblogging, social reading, social content curation, social note-taking, and social storytelling remains scarce to date (Parmaxi & Zaphiris, 2016). This body of research, according to Sturm et al. (2009), can be grouped into three categories: language issues (e.g., development and characteristics of 101 3.3 Web 2.0 technologies and foreign language learning <?page no="102"?> Web 2.0-based CMD), learner issues (e.g., learner attitudes and perceptions, motivation, learner training and competences, learner autonomy and strategy use, learning communities, identity development), and technology issues (e.g., affordances and functionalities of tools, access to technology, comparison of different technologies and their effectiveness and efficacy). Many of the studies investigating Web 2.0 for language learning rely on small-scale case study designs that adopt an emic and ethnographic perspective (Reinhardt, 2019), typically foregrounding the situatedness of the technology use and the impact of contextual parameters during the implementation of Web 2.0-based pedagogies. Most of the studies reported in the subsequent chapters fall into this category. Complemented by larger-scale studies about access to and engagement with Web 2.0, such as PISA (e.g., OECD, 2015) or JIM (MPFS, 2019), which arguably reflect greater methodological rigor, case-based research can build a detailed understanding of the affordances, challenges, and uses of the reported tools and applications. In terms of theoretical and epistemic frameworks, the increased focus on social media and Web 2.0 tools has benefited from the ‘social turn’ in SLA research, as psycholinguistic and cognitive theories emerged as inadequate in their ability to account for processes and outcomes associated with the new generation of online tools and learning environments (Parmaxi & Zaphiris, 2016; Reinhardt, 2019; S. Wang & Vasquez, 2012). The following sections will review three genres within Web 2.0 in more detail: blogs, wikis, and social networking sites. Research and conceptual work in these areas have progressed significantly during the past 15 years. These genres represent Web 2.0 technologies that have played the most prominent role in the investigated school project. 3.3.2.1 Blogs Blogs, short for weblogs, emerged as one of the earliest forms of social media and were “designed to support interactive readership, multimedia embedding, and hyperlinking” (Reinhardt, 2018, n.p.). They are digital journals or pinboards for text-based and multimedia content, consisting of individual posts that typically appear in reverse chronological order. Free WSIWYG blog-hosting applications make it possible for users to create their blog by providing customizable pub‐ lishing templates that function as an online hub by integrating different media such as hyperlinks, videos, images, interactive content, all without requiring programming knowledge. Blogs can be grouped into different categories, for instance, by topic (e.g., news, sports, sciences, business, and recipe blogs), the number of authors (e.g., individual author, groups or author collectives, guests), or predominant medium (video blogs or vlogs, photo blogs, mobile blogs, audio 102 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="103"?> blogs or podcasts). The majority of blogs squarely falls into the categories of personal journal, news blog, and knowledge blog (Sykes et al., 2008; Warschauer & Grimes, 2007). While all of these variations can potentially become part of a task-based EFL lesson, blogs specially designed for language learning purposes have also been established, including tutor blogs, individual learner blogs, and blogs collectively run by learner groups or courses (Campbell, 2003). They are implemented for various pedagogical purposes, such as class portals and bulletin boards covering administrative purposes, online filling cabinets and materials depositories, collaborative writing spaces, intercultural exchange spaces, plat‐ forms for knowledge management and articulation, and as e-portfolios, amongst others. Blogs are characterized by an open architecture allowing them to be viewed by anyone online, frequent updates, and often asymmetric exchange features in the form of cross-linking, RSS, and commenting and response functions (Carney, 2009). Blogs, as opposed to other Web 2.0-based collaborative writing genres like wikis, feature a strong authorial voice. Authorship in blogs is usually directly identified with real persons, or pseudonyms, often linked to personalized (account, about page, photos, or avatars) and meta-textual information, which indexes the writing process, including time-stamps, reverse chronological order, and selected tags (Sykes et al., 2008; Vandergriff, 2016; Warschauer & Grimes, 2007). Blogs afford easy and frequent publication, especially of personal thoughts and opinions, or other information to which the author publicly attaches personal significance, thereby facilitating the participation in target language discourse communities (Raith, 2009; Vandergriff, 2016, p. 76). By providing exposure to real or even implied audiences, blogs foster the development of authorial identity and agency. Audience awareness can be a double-edged sword empowering some learners while intimidating others who perceive this as communicative and social pressure (Reinhardt, 2019). Likewise, the learners’ sense of agency may be stifled if blogging is embedded in closed task formats that poorly correspond with the affordances of blogs by denying learners the choice of topic and audience, enforcing peer feedback, or asking learners to perform activities that are vastly unrelated to authentic, vernacular blog use (Reinhardt, 2018). L2 research on blogs has explored their affordances as media for culture learning and intercultural exchange, as spaces for literacy and identity devel‐ opment, scaffolding the development of learner autonomy, audience awareness, and the impact of learner and task design variables (Reinhardt, 2019). Blogging can support language learning in various writing skill areas, including content, grammar, and creativity. It provides authentic reading and writing contexts 103 3.3 Web 2.0 technologies and foreign language learning <?page no="104"?> by establishing authentic interaction practices with real audiences, raises feedback on language content and form, provides opportunities to participate in meaningful interaction, supports reading comprehension, and provides space for the development and exercise of more self-regulated language learning (cf. Carney, 2009; Conole & Alevizou, 2010; Parmaxi & Zaphiris, 2016; Reinhardt, 2017; S. Wang & Vasquez, 2012). 3.3.2.2 Wikis Whereas blogs afford connective and reflective writing while foregrounding authorial voice, wikis represent a well-suited environment for collaborative writing between multiple co-authors and co-editors simultaneously, mirroring face-to-face collaborative writing in distributed digital space (Vandergriff, 2016). Wikis facilitate the creation of interconnected text and multimedia pages fea‐ turing an open architecture in which user rights to add, delete, and edit content are granted non-restrictively to all readers or community members. Wikis remove the distance between author(s) and reader(s) to the extent that readers can directly edit content, often making it difficult to discern a single primary author (Warschauer & Grimes, 2007). Nevertheless, supplemental discussion features (e.g., forums) and automatic tracking of edits afford a unique process perspective that allows users to track a text’s history and gain insights into the collaborative writing process (Sykes et al., 2008, p. 531). Wikis contrast with most traditional CMC genres by promoting formal, topic-centered, and ‘depersonalized’ interaction (Kessler, 2012; Warschauer & Grimes, 2007). In practice, network-based collaborative processes centered around wikis are typically accompanied by additional, less formal voiceand text-based communication channels, facilitating richer and more complex collaborative interaction among learners (Oskoz & Elola, 2011). Learners have been found to focus on meaning rather than accuracy in wiki-supported language tasks unless the focus on linguistic form is made explicit, and learners are instructed to give feedback on form (Aydın & Yıldız, 2014; Kessler, 2009). Specifically, the digitally mediated collaboration associated with wikis is void of some of the crucial features of face-to-face collaborative processes. For instance, learners do not use verbal language to complete their thoughts as in the form of thinking aloud and especially languaging (Vandergriff, 2016, pp. 75-6). Consis‐ tent with TBLT research, it has been demonstrated that effective collaboration within wiki-based tasks is not necessarily a function of the task design and instructions but instead influenced mainly by the participants’ sociocultural attributes like convergent goal-orientation, collaborative agency, and positive emotion (Li & Zhu, 2017). Accordingly, wiki-enhanced language tasks should 104 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="105"?> make explicit references to aspects of collaborative learning, such as workload distribution, and offer opportunities for learner training as well as facilitate teacher scaffolding, given that learners often do not have direct experience in authoring wikis themselves, are unfamiliar with the technology, and thus might avoid the use of wikis altogether during the task-in-process (Kennedy & Miceli, 2013). These learners may benefit from awareness-raising activities that foreground the affordances of wiki technology and different wiki genres, as well as the principles of collective intelligence and crowd-sourced wisdom. Wikis may also be effectively deployed as virtual learning environments (e.g., glossaries, dictionaries, guidebooks, or encyclopedias) in highly structured tasks without external audiences for knowledge-building and critical discussion because learners then perceive themselves as the intended audience (Reinhardt, 2019). 3.3.2.3 Social networking sites Social networking sites (SNS) are characterized by their capacity to allow users to construct public or semi-public profiles within a given system; to build networks with co-users with whom one shares a connection; and to view and traverse one’s connections and those of other users (boyd & Ellison, 2007). Due to the growing integration of different Web 2.0 elements on individual platforms and the overlap of online genres, it has become increasingly challenging to define SNS unambiguously. Reinhardt (2018) thus describes them more generally as “any digital application or technology through which users participate in, create, and share media resources and practices with other users by means of networks that are often user-defined” (n.p.). SNS include sites for personal networking (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn), media sharing (e.g., YouTube, Flickr, Instagram, Snapchat), microblogging (e.g., Twitter), as well as ranking and categorizing online content, for instance, social bookmarking (e.g., Pinterest), social gaming (e.g., Farmville), and reviewing (e.g., Yelp, TripAdvisor), amongst others. These SNS can also be categorized according to their role for intentional language learning. One the one hand, vernacular SNS like Facebook mostly connect users who have met in person. On the other hand, social networking sites for language learning (SNSLL) or social network-enhanced commercial CALL sites (Reinhardt, 2019) provide a space for foreign language learning and intercultural exchange between learners who often have not met in person (Lamy & Mangenot, 2013, p. 203). The latter include sites like LiveMocha, Babbel, and Busuu, which provide social software comparable to conventional SNS to language learners, thus creating structured language learning communities 105 3.3 Web 2.0 technologies and foreign language learning <?page no="106"?> in which L2 interaction opportunities, as well as tasks and feedback, can be provided (Reinhardt, 2018; Zourou, 2012). With their complex integration of multimodal media, SNS significantly impact traditional notions of authorship and communication. Objects and contents can be posted, searched, located, and responded to with great ease, and the participatory architecture of many platforms with crosslinking, sharing, and commenting functions facilitate many-to-many communication via multi‐ media channels (Warschauer & Grimes, 2007). These SNS come with unique sets of functions, are designed for specific purposes, and give rise to diverse affordances, such as creating individual profiles, expressing and negotiating viewpoints, and presenting identity conceptions in open and interconnected networks (Reinhardt, 2018). Competently moving between and within these applications relies on awareness and knowledge of genre conventions and expectations commonly associated with these SNS (Fuchs & Snyder, 2013; Hallet, 2016; Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008; Vandergriff, 2016), thereby exposing different ‘cultures-of-use’ (Thorne, 2003). Thus, digital literacy in this context necessarily involves genre-awareness in the various computer-mediated contexts subsumed under the umbrella ‘SNS.’ According to Vandergriff (2016), digital genres are dynamic and multimodal. They feature complex forms of intertextuality, collab‐ orative authorship, and hybridization of reading and writing. Based on distinct communicative purposes, particular genres require specific move structures, realized by rhetorical strategies at the text level (Swales, 1990). Genres, by themselves, carry meta-messages on top of the verbal message, and competent users will be implicitly aware of instances when a genre’s meta-message and communicative purpose clash, for instance, when users post private messages on a Facebook wall or deploy emojis in print text (Vandergriff, 2016, pp. 71-3). However, while undoubtedly helpful in facilitating participation in CMC, the notion of digital genres in CMC warrants caution, since platforms like Instagram or Facebook have become “swiss army knives of communication that harbour versatile communication contexts and purposes for interaction so that different communities may establish different genres” (Lamy & Mangenot, 2013, p. 209) using the same tools. L2 research on SNS has investigated the informal use of vernacular SNS by L2 learners, SNS-enhanced pedagogies, and the use of SNSLL by learners (Rein‐ hardt, 2019). Descriptive research on the use of vernacular SNS has uncovered various affordances beneficial to language learning, such as allowing learners to connect languages and cultures of study and their home, developing and expressing new conceptualizations of one’s identity to transcultural audiences in informal, hybrid, multimodal and polylingual ways, socialization into real 106 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="107"?> and imagined communities, reflecting on register and audience appropriate‐ ness, and practicing self-directed learning. As media for formal instructional purposes, SNS have been shown to serve as sources of input and spaces for practicing socio-pragmatic uses and registers of the target language and the experimentation of identities and literacies in situated contexts like fandoms or gaming forums. Research on SNSLL has shown that learners typically seek these platforms to interact with native speakers and for their gamification and self-assessment features. However, many of them prioritize some language skills over others and all too often adopt behavioristic frameworks and limited technological affordances (Reinhardt, 2018). 3.3.3 Formal and informal language learning with Web 2.0 The role of formal versus informal learning practices and their integration in the foreign language classroom are crucial issues raised by the preceding discussion of Web 2.0 applications and social media. Instead of treating this tension as a dichotomous distinction, a more fluid distinction might be in place, one between the four elements of formal and informal learning, and formal and informal settings (Lamy & Mangenot, 2013, p. 213). Both formal and informal learning opportunities play a significant role in ecological conceptions of language learning, which view language as a dynamic system in use across time and space and emphasize the role of the physical, social, and symbolic contexts in which learners engage (Blin, 2016b; Greenhow et al., 2009; van Lier, 2004). From this perspective, individuals simultaneously engage in multiple settings. They create learning environments for themselves within and across settings with more or less permeable boundaries, and engage in interest-driven activities spanning these contextual boundaries sustaining themselves, provided learners have sufficient time, freedom, and resources at their disposal (Barron, 2006, pp. 199-201, ctd. in Greenhow et al., 2009, p. 248). This notion stresses the value of learner autonomy in CALL, and recent research in the field has increasingly moved from focusing on classroom and formal education to more organic learning in leisure and everyday contexts, highlighting the role of learners themselves in designing their learning environments (Cappellini et al., 2017; Hayo Reinders & White, 2016). The notion of (in)formality and the integration of informal learning and instructed foreign language learning may create a host of tensions. Learners, from a pedagogical and pragmatic point of view, enjoy the freedoms and choices that SNS promise to afford, but in a school context, they also want results and systematic learning progress. Similarly, tasks are open learning formats, but they 107 3.3 Web 2.0 technologies and foreign language learning <?page no="108"?> also imply deadlines, assessment, and discourse conventions, and some form of control (Lamy & Mangenot, 2013, p. 211). Tasks must be carefully designed and implemented to address this tension adequately. Social media and Web 2.0 applications are designed for informal and intuitive use without extensive formal user training being necessary, and adopting informal, often colloquial, and genre-specific forms of discourse discussed above (especially regarding blogs and SNS, and SNSLL respectively). The digital literacies employed in these contexts are conceived as social practices of language in use and are acquired informally through processes of socialization: we are dealing with something learned informally, bottom‐up, and through socializa‐ tion—quite differently than how [foreign language learning] is traditionally framed in the classroom. Moreover, different users have rather different repertoires and may be unaware of what they know and how they know it. (Reinhardt, 2018, n.p.) Evidentially, learners bring their conceptions of social media—their understand‐ ings of the technology and its affordances, functions, and associated discourse genres—to the formal classroom setting, where these understandings may clash with those implied by tasks and pedagogical interventions. Not all learners are likely to engage in the same digital practices outside school and thus may carry very different sets of experiences, skills, understandings, and attitudes, thereby remaining unable to exploit the learning opportunities of technology-enhanced tasks. Likewise, tasks can render the affordances of social media and Web 2.0 useless if they stifle learners’ agency by imposing overly rigid regulations on the learning process to the extent that task procedures and outcomes do not match cultures-of-use of and affordances of the medium. Such detrimental task features may include pressure to focus on form, impeding peer collaboration, no choice in selecting the type and format of the outcome, mismatches between communicative purpose and task or medium, and exceeding demands in terms of learner autonomy. Furthermore, Reinhardt warns that potential affordances of SNS may not be available at all outside the informal settings in which they are typically used, “because they hinge on users retaining a sense of agency, which social media technologies, when used informally, offer by providing a sense of control, production, and social participation” (Reinhardt, 2018, n.p.). As a consequence, how should technology-enhanced tasks be designed and implemented to avoid these potential shortcomings? Reinhardt concludes that learner agency and awareness are key to facilitate effective use of new literacies for L2 learning, “agency in choosing which, when, where, and in what ways to use these new tools, and awareness of why and how to use them” (Reinhardt, 2018, n.p.). Tasks must provide the space for the exercise of agency by the 108 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="109"?> learners, thus affording “unrestricted situations, beyond formal, institution-led forms of interaction” (Lamy & Zourou, 2013, p. 4). This implies that learners must be given a choice over the organization of task-based learning procedures, and phases of action must be complemented with phases focusing on reflection on form, discourse genre, and the use of technologies and media: When learners can practice agency and have a say in the parameters of their learning, awareness of how to make meaning in new L2 digital contexts can be empowering, not debilitating. Awareness activities can focus on developing linguistic, cultural, and pragmatic knowledge at increasing levels of meta-cognition—familiarity, comprehension, and mastery. It is important to develop critical awareness of social media itself, how and why it functions as it does, and how our experiences with it and dispositions towards it impact our lives both positively and negatively. (Reinhardt, 2018, n.p.) Following this position, language pedagogy involving social media and Web 2.0 requires ‘rewilding,’ that is, it must be enhanced by what Thorne refers to as “structured unpredictability” (Little & Thorne, 2017, p. 17; see also Rösler, 2009). This request can inform concrete proposals for task designs. For instance, Lamy and Mangenot (2013) argue that the inherent tension between the formal requirements of schooling and the informal requirements of social media can be resolved by (1) class-based exploitation of informal practices of the social Web in the sense of so-called ‘bridging activities’ (Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008); (2) embedding social media use in open pedagogical designs granting learners self-regulation, especially project-based approaches; (3) introducing resources that provide learners with genre models and the opportunity for structured exploration of them while simultaneously welcoming process-oriented teacher scaffolding. 3.4 Synergies: Technology-mediated TBLT Although popularized at around the same time in the early 1980s, CALL and TBLT developed separately for a long time. While TBLT emerged as “an embry‐ onic theory of teaching language” (Doughty & Long, 2003, p. 51) commonly associated with the communicative approach to language teaching, CALL is a response to the accelerating development of ICT and has evolved from an early behavioristic to an integrative stage. Yet, many digital language learning appli‐ cations, especially commercial ones, are still based on questionable psycholog‐ ical rationales (M. J. Evans, 2009, Hayo Reinders & Thomas, 2010; cf. section 3.1.1 109 3.4 Synergies: Technology-mediated TBLT <?page no="110"?> on the development of CALL). Scholars assert that the “imperative of integrating computer and information technologies in education is undisputed today” (González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014, p. 1). This “inevitability of technology” (Ortega & González-Lloret, 2015, p. 60) has been soaring internationally to the extent that technology has transformed habitual cognitive practices (i.e., reading text, retrieving information, privacy measures, identity formation, amongst others) and extended the opportunities for learning, so that the integration of tasks and technology is likely to evoke a sense of authenticity and learner-centeredness among new generations of learners. Indeed, the role of authenticity, along with the theoretical antecedent of project-based and content-based learning, experiential learning, and constructivist and socio-constructivist rationales, are shared by TBLT and CALL today (Hayo Reinders & Thomas, 2010). The following sections first review the synergies between both approaches and the research conducted at this intersection (section 3.4.1), before addressing how technology-enhanced language tasks can be conceptualized (section 3.4.2). In this latter part, three task models will be discussed: Chapelle’s (2003) SLA-informed model of tasks in CALL (section 3.4.2.1), pedagogically oriented models of CALL tasks (section 3.4.2.2), and Kurek and Müller-Hartmann’s (2017) framework for technology-enhanced task evaluation (section 3.4.2.3). 3.4.1 Technology-mediated TBLT: Research review The fields of CALL and TBLT have increasingly converged in the past 15 years in both research and pedagogy and stimulated each other (González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014; Lai & Li, 2011; Hayo Reinders & Thomas, 2010; B. Smith & González-Lloret, 2020; Thomas, 2013; Ziegler, 2016). On the one hand, tech‐ nology can counter many of the challenges associated with analog task-based settings by extending the range of tasks through online resources, increasing authenticity and learner motivation, facilitating student ownership and agency, and integrating pedagogical options for post-task activity (Skehan, 2003). On the other hand, TBLT offers a robust theoretical framework to guide technology-mediated learning processes and experiences, as well as to select and implement technology in educational contexts, thereby maximizing the affordances of technology for language learning (Chapelle, 2003; Doughty & Long, 2003; Skehan, 2003). Conceptually, TBLT and CALL have the potential to mutually enrich each other (B. Smith & González-Lloret, 2020). According to a review on the inter‐ section between both approaches by Lai and Li (2011), technology enhances the range of tasks through the inclusion of online resources, increases authen‐ 110 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="111"?> ticity and motivation during implementation, facilitates student ownership and agency in tasks, and extends the potential for language and culture work during the post-task phase. Conversely, tasks provide a conceptual foundation for the principled selection and implementation of technology-mediated language learning resources and experiences. The authors further maintain: [T]echnology provides a natural and authentic venue for the realization of the methodological principles of TBLT, and TBLT provides a rationale and pedagogical framework for the selection and use of technology. (…) On [the] one hand, technology facilitates and enhances TBLT both in terms of its effectiveness and its contribution to our understanding of TBLT; on the other hand, TBLT serves as a useful pedagogical framework and set of principles that enrich and maximize the use of technology for language learning. (Lai & Li, 2011, p. 499) These theorized pedagogical benefits are said to counter the temporal and physical constraints of brick-and-mortar task-based language classrooms, such as students’ passive learning styles and overreliance on the teacher, crowded and cramped classrooms with discipline issues, mixed proficiency levels among student cohorts, and students’ avoidance of the target language during task performance (ibid.). There is now mounting evidence and conceptual literature available on the processes involved in technology-mediated TBLT and its potential outcomes (Biebighäuser, Schmidt, & Zibelius, 2012; González-Lloret, 2017; González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014; Lai & Li, 2011; Hayo Reinders & Thomas, 2010; B. Smith & González-Lloret, 2020). B. Smith and González-Lloret (2020) recently concep‐ tualized the intersection between CALL and TBLT as a nascent discipline of ‘technology-mediated task-based language teaching’ or TMTBLT. Most studies on the integration of language learning tasks and technology investigate task-based learner interactions that emerge from technology-enhanced envi‐ ronments, often framed within interactionist SLA, which views interaction as the site of language learning. These studies may belong to one of three categories (González-Lloret, 2017): (1) studies on the effects of technology on task-based interactions, often adopting tasks from face-to-face contexts; (2) studies on the development of tasks and the effect of particular task types or task features, mediated by technology, on interaction; and (3) studies on tasks developed explicitly for the use of Web 2.0 applications. The following paragraphs, based on Lai and Li (2011) and González-Lloret (2017), summarize the current state of research on L2 learning with technology-mediated tasks in various cultural and educational settings. 111 3.4 Synergies: Technology-mediated TBLT <?page no="112"?> Researchers have, first, explored whether and in what ways technology enhances learning from tasks. Evidence from text-based and multimodal CMC suggests that technology can increase the quantity of foreign language produc‐ tion during task performance. The less personalized or even anonymous nature of text-based CMC can lower learners’ affective filter, leading to higher learner motivation associated with this context. It has also been found that synchronous CMC may spur more fluent language production than asynchronous CMC. Likewise, multimodality in combined videoand text-chat, together with learner choice of preferred modalities, can facilitate richer interaction than single-mo‐ dality channels. Technology has also been found to increase the quality of target language production during performance in complex ways. For example, written synchronous CMC combines the spontaneity and immediacy of spoken interaction with greater grammatical accuracy and more complex structures typical of written discourse. Compared with face-to-face interaction, learners engage in less off-task and non-target interaction during synchronous CMC, self-correct more often due to increased opportunities for noticing, and use pragmatic strategies more frequently. Asynchronous CMC, on the other hand, is structurally more constrained and may resemble the initiation-response-eval‐ uation pattern during teacher-student interactions, but can also facilitate greater lexical richness and accuracy, especially when planning time is increased. Both enhanced quality and quantity of learner language in technology-mediated task performance have been shown to promote language development. Studies have documented how expert scaffolding during performance leads learners to move from objectand otherto self-regulated learning activity. In telecollaboration, for instance, learners may independently access online resources on language form and incorporate scaffolding that is provided by native-speaker conversa‐ tional partners (Thorne, 2003). Secondly, task-based research has explored the varied ways in which technology enhances the learning from tasks. Different types of CMC, for instance, can be employed to equalize learner participation during performance. Text-based CMC reduces social cues and oral interaction constraints, helping inhibited and less successful learners to show greater participation rates than in analog contexts while allowing teachers to take a less dominant classroom role. Likewise, multimodal CMC has been shown to afford greater control and choice to learners over their interaction, such as when text chat is available to complement audioor video-based interaction. As such, synchronous CMC can help to maximize learners’ practice time and to share the control and direction of interactive tasks. Technology can also enhance noticing and self-monitoring during task performance, two processes with the potential to promote language 112 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="113"?> development (Ziegler, 2016). Due to the text-based task performance, CMC involves increased processing and planning time, visual saliency, and lower demands on cognitive resources than oral face-to-face discourse. This allows learners to monitor their language production, render it susceptible to post-task analysis and reflection, and facilitate higher rates of noticing and self-correction (Ortega, 2009). The deindividuation of the online context can also support the emergence of language play and social cohesiveness, especially as learners take on non-academic identities during online interactions in chatrooms, video conferences, and other media, as opposed to the institutional learner role within the classroom. Furthermore, technology can contribute to language learning during task performance in different ways compared to face-to-face interaction. Adopting a conversation analytical framework, B. Smith (2003) showed that synchronous CMC, although structurally similar to oral conversation, is charac‐ terized by short delays and disrupted turn adjacency, leading to split negotiation routines and less contingent corrective feedback. This ambiguous nature of synchronous CMC pushes learners to make their intention for negotiation more salient to interlocutors and may thus amplify the discursive functions of negotiation for meaning (Ortega, 2009). Thirdly, these structural characteristics of CMC can positively impact affec‐ tive factors and learner motivation. González-Lloret and Ortega (2014) argue that “language learning tasks which are mediated by new technologies can help minimize students’ fear of failure, embarrassment, or losing face; they can raise students’ motivation to take risks and be creative while using language to make meaning” (p. 4). As mentioned above, increased processing time, linguistic saliency, reduction of social and pragmatic pressure, and deindividuation, which are characteristic of asynchronous CMC contexts, may lead to more equitable participation rates among learners compared to oral conversation or classroom settings. Likewise, enhanced options for self-evaluation and the availability of corrective feedback improve learner confidence. Given these affordances, learners may produce language more freely, take interactional risks, and test hypotheses without the social pressure of face-to-face interaction. Technology, interactive Web 2.0 applications, and the opportunity to access authentic target culture texts and communicate with peers online can be valuable sources of learner motivation. Also, technology offers enhanced and creative ways of expression that help construct positive L2 identities, for instance, in the context of blogs and podcasts (T. Schmidt, 2009), online videos (Kaliampos & Schmidt, 2014), and fandoms (Sauro, 2014), thus supporting the development of learner autonomy and agency (Thorne et al., 2015). In this regard, Ortega and González-Lloret (2015) posit that task design appears to have a more significant 113 3.4 Synergies: Technology-mediated TBLT <?page no="114"?> impact on motivation than the technology itself, confirming the theoretical argument that there is no ‘silver bullet technology,’ and that its use must be guided by sound pedagogy (Salaberry, 2000). Fourth, Lai and Li (2011) conclude that technology helps to enrich and extend our understanding of TBLT as it pushes researchers and teachers to reconceptualize notions of tasks, task performance, and task-based pedagogical cycles (Chapelle, 2003; González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014; Hampel, 2006; Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2017). On the one hand, the nature of task performance changes when tasks are mediated by technology as learners develop a complex set of non-linguistic competencies such as digital, intercultural, and strategic competencies, leading researchers to investigate other areas than those tradi‐ tionally covered in TBLT research. Task cycles, on the other hand, must be conceptualized differently, highlighting the need for extended preand post-task phases. For instance, pre-task activities may include familiarizing learners with the topic and discourse, understanding each other’s cultural norms and socio‐ cultural perceptions, and providing clear evaluation criteria and expectations, while post-task phases may address the analysis of a learner-generated corpus of task performance, both oral and written, or prompt learners to compile portfolios or write learning journals (Skehan, 2003). Finally, this research review highlights that the widely accepted condition of the technology integration in TBLT being realized across the full program‐ matic cycle of TBLT (cf. González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014)—from the needs analysis to the phases of selecting and sequencing tasks, developing materials, teaching, assessing learning outcomes, and evaluation programs (Norris, 2009) —is yet to be realized (González-Lloret, 2017). Only recently have these areas of programmatic technology integration in TBLT been addressed, for instance, focusing on the role of the needs analysis, pedagogical principles, and exam‐ ples of technology-mediated tasks (Biebighäuser, Zibelius, & Schmidt, 2012; Gánem-Gutiérrez & Roehr, 2011; Sauro, 2014; Solares, 2014) task-selection and sequencing (Cantó et al., 2014; Oskoz & Elola, 2014), student assessment (Winke, 2014), and course evaluation (Nielson, 2014). However, more research is needed in this regard. 3.4.2 Conceptualizing technology-enhanced tasks Despite the consensus that TBLT can serve as a theoretical framework for technology-enhanced language pedagogy, this requires an extension of tradi‐ tional TBLT, which was initially established in light of face-to-face language learning (Hampel, 2006, p. 106; cf. Chapelle, 2003, p. 135; Ellis, 2010). While 114 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="115"?> specific task characteristics of analog contexts (cf. section 2.2.2.1) can be directly transposed to digitally mediated contexts, others are context-dependent and must be reconceptualized accordingly (Chapelle, 2003, p. 173ff.; Hampel, 2006, p. 106). Thus, Ellis (2010) maintains that, We cannot assume that tasks work the same way in FTF [i.e., face-to-face] classrooms and in technology-mediated environments. Nor can we assume that they work in the same way in the highly varied environments that technology now affords. Given the current advocacy of TBLT and the increasing use of technology in language teaching it is important that we develop a fuller understanding of how to design tasks for use with different technologies and how best to implement them in ways that will foster language learning. (p. xviii) Addressing this same conceptual issue, Doughty and Long (2003) sought to outline the optimal psycholinguistic conditions for technology-enhanced language learning. In the form of methodological principles, they proposed that communicative tasks should be the basis of analysis, that input should be elaborate and rich, learning processes should align with SLA principles, and that instruction is individualized according to learners’ psycholinguistic needs. Given the increased opportunities for participatory engagement in communities and discourse afforded by ICT today, these mostly cognitive factors neglect the sociocultural dimension of language learning online. The effectiveness of technology-enhanced tasks may depend on several sociocultural factors not represented in this model, namely the relationship between participants, their roles, as well as the activity and the learning environment they co-construct while drawing on their individual backgrounds and locally determined goals (Hampel, 2006, p. 109). Thus, task conceptions informed by sociocultural theory have become increasingly useful, such as the concept of ‘socio-collaborative tasks’ (Meskill, 1999, p. 146), according to which language learning tasks should: - provide ample opportunities for controversy and consensus-building; - encourage active participation while allowing for individual realizations of learning procedures; - involve some form of technology-mediated problem-solving; - designate different roles to learners and teachers; and - integrate an awareness of linguistic forms and functions, scaffolded through methodological teacher decisions like pre-teaching, modeling, and linguistic monitoring. Indeed, these functions are amplified as digital technology is becoming ubiqui‐ tous, facilitating new tasks inside and outside the foreign language classroom, 115 3.4 Synergies: Technology-mediated TBLT <?page no="116"?> especially in terms of discourse participation. As the discussion of Web 2.0 applications for language learning has shown (cf. section 4.3), language learners casually use technology to create new or alternative identities, communicate with peers, access other cultures, maintain social networks, publish multimedia artifacts, curate and share objects, play games, as well as engage in civic actions, to name but a few examples. Nevertheless, in order to reap the educational benefits of these innovations and exploit their affordances, technological appli‐ cations must be adequately grounded in pedagogy: no matter how exciting new technologies for language learning may seem, they can become nothing more than entertainment unless their design, use, and evaluation are guided by viable educational and language developmental rationales. (González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014, p. 3) Accordingly, language pedagogues have responded to this impetus and ad‐ vanced task concepts for these various technology-enhanced application con‐ texts, such as telecollaboration (Belz, 2007; Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2017; O'Dowd & Ware, 2009), virtual learning environments for distance learning (González-Lloret, 2007; Hampel, 2006, 2010), online courses promoting meta-lin‐ guistic conversations (Lamy, 2007), learning with interactive whiteboards (Cu‐ trim-Schmidt & van Hazebrouck, 2012), data-driven learning with electronic language corpora (Götz, 2012), interactive multimedia applications (Schrooten, 2006), and language learning with Web 2.0 applications (Biebighäuser, Schmidt, & Zibelius, 2012; Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008). As outlined in section 2.2.2, task-based pedagogies are not uniform and differ in the emphasis they place on cognitive factors, psycholinguistic metrics of the processes of language use, and the sociocultural discourse participation facilitated through tasks. This is reflected in the various approaches to conceptualizing technology-enhanced tasks. The subsequent sections discuss three task approaches that have emerged as highly influential in technology-enhanced language learning over the past two decades. 3.4.2.1 Chapelle’s (2001) SLA-informed CALL task framework An influential model of technology-mediated tasks was proposed by Chapelle (2001), who demanded that CALL tasks be firmly grounded in interactionist SLA theory. Her task evaluation cycle covers interactionist constructs supporting L2 learning under face-to-face conditions, such as negotiation for meaning, noticing the gap, comprehensible output, and corrective feedback. According to the framework, CALL tasks can be evaluated using these criteria: 116 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="117"?> - Authenticity: Does the task correspond with target language activities of interest to students outside the classroom? - Meaning focus: Does the task direct learners’ attention toward the meaning of the language? - Learner fit: Is the task’s level of linguistic difficulty and design appropriate to learner proficiency and individual learner characteristics? - Language learning potential: Do the task conditions provide sufficient opportunity to focus on form during meaning-oriented interaction? - Positive impact: Does the task facilitate non-linguistic learning outcomes in the areas of learning strategies, intercultural learning, and others? - Practicality: Are the hardware, software, and personnel resources available for the task to succeed? Chapelle (2001, p. 55) explicitly prioritizes the language learning potential as the most critical criterion for evaluating task appropriateness. This ap‐ proach emphasizes the learner’s ability to manipulate linguistic forms during meaning-focused interaction in the target language. Chapelle argues that tasks providing opportunities for target language use, yet lacking a beneficial focus on form, have a low language learning potential and thus are incapable of fostering language learning. This argument is not without criticism, especially from the perspective of sociocultural theory and ecological perspectives, which assign significance to discourse participation in social contexts as a hallmark of language development. Similarly, from a pedagogical point of view, Chapelle’s model marginalizes pedagogical and methodological questions of classroom implementation and task performance. For example, levels of language other than focus on form, such as pronunciation or discourse, as well as non-linguistic competencies like social, intercultural, or digital competencies, are relegated to the ‘positive impact’ category. Even though many SLA studies have applied Chapelle’s model, it may prove less than optimal for non-experimental research purposes and pedagogical planning, which are the focus of this study. Therefore, task frameworks that primarily focus on pedagogical and sociocultural dimen‐ sions are sought. 3.4.2.2 Pedagogically-oriented CALL task models As argued above, technology-enhanced language learning tasks extend beyond mere linguistic or even communicative dimensions by capitalizing on social, technological, creative, and participatory dimensions, amongst others. Chap‐ elle’s CALL task evaluation cycle may thus be inadequate due to its inability to account for the role of the context and pedagogy in technology-mediated task performance. That is, it appears detached from both the pedagogical 117 3.4 Synergies: Technology-mediated TBLT <?page no="118"?> principles that teachers apply to shape task implementation as well as the minute processes that learners engage in when enacting the task-as-workplan during performance (Doughty & Long, 2003; González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014; Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2017). In discussing tasks with Web 2.0 applications, Biebighäuser, Schmidt, and Zi‐ belius (2012) emphasize that crucial TBLT processes from face-to-face contexts are still valid in online or hybrid contexts. However, offline tasks cannot be transposed to an online environment without modification. González-Lloret and Ortega (2014, p. 5) stipulate that we should “work with a TBLT-informed definition of tasks, so that new technologies can be chosen and yoked with real ‘tasks’, rather than being chosen as mere translations or extensions of exercises and activities of various kinds into computer platforms,” generally calling for “conceiving of tasks in more radical ways” (ibid.) to achieve a technology and task integration at all stages of the programmatic cycle of TBLT. For the authors, technology-enhanced tasks should involve a primary focus on meaning and allow for an incidental focus on form and implicit language learning. Tasks should be goal-oriented by emphasizing a communicative purpose in the area of language use, affective engagement, and identity investment, as well as specifying communicative and non-communicative outcomes. Third, they should be learner-centered by foregrounding the role of needs analysis, enabling learners to use their linguistic and non-linguistic resources, and providing ample opportunities for learner choice and flexibility. Fourth, tasks should be holistic, a concept corresponding to the notions of authenticity and real-world relationship, which both foreground the fidelity between communicative pro‐ cedures and discourse inside as well as outside the classroom. Finally, the feature of reflective learning replaces the categories of positive impact and language learning potential in Chapelle’s framework. It draws on the Deweyan principle that the construction of knowledge, together with moral and intellectual growth, require direct learning experience (i.e., communicating in the foreign language), as well as opportunities to reflect on the process and outcomes of learning, which can facilitate higher-order thinking. At the same time, this orientation marks a departure from the primacy of SLA rationales in task design for technology-rich contexts that was proposed by Chapelle since the notion of reflective learning equally emphasizes the different domains of competency beyond language development (cf. González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014, pp. 5-6). González-Lloret and Ortega remind task designers to be cognizant of the non-neutrality of technology. However, the impact of multimodality and choice of technology is but implicitly featured in the authors’ categories of learner-cen‐ teredness and holism, respectively. Other researchers have highlighted the 118 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="119"?> impact that different modes of technological mediation and communication may create on the learning process and outcomes facilitated by tasks (Hampel, 2006; Kress, 2003; T. Schmidt, 2007; Stockwell, 2010). As will be described in sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2, different technologies combining various media and modalities facilitate the emergence of technological, pedagogical, social, and linguistic affordances during situated practice. This aspect is crucial in the design of technology-mediated tasks, because: how multiple modes of CMC are used can have significant pedagogical implications in terms of how communication takes place (or is avoided), and teachers will need to bear in mind exactly what is to be achieved in implementing a specific task, and how the use of different modes can have an effect on the way in which the task is approached and completed. (Stockwell, 2010, p. 87) There is evidence that multiple modes of CMC can promote development in different areas of learner language. For example, synchronous CMC has been shown to elicit shorter, but more fluent and accurate language while asynchronous CMC, in which learners are provided more time to draft and reflect on their language, facilitates learners in producing more extended and complex language, but possibly at the expense of accuracy (Stockwell, 2010). Therefore, CMC modes can be associated with specific pedagogical applications, and teachers can employ this principle to facilitate different outcomes according to the learners’ proficiency levels, the given task, and the learning environment. For instance, teachers could recognize learner preferences by allowing learners to choose a preferred mode of CMC for a single task, or determine specific modes in tasks throughout a curriculum (Stockwell, 2010, p. 102). Likewise, if the materiality of the resources and tools adopted in a task has the potential to facilitate very different activities and outcomes (Kress, 2003; Toohey et al., 2015), then “an easy (and cheap) transposition of face-to-face tasks to a virtual environment is not possible” (Hampel, 2006, p. 111). 3.4.2.3 Kurek and Müller-Hartmann (2017) The above pedagogical and technological considerations illustrate how an assessment of a task’s inherent SLA components and the features of the technology may fall significantly short of addressing issues of pedagogy and learner perceptions. Hence, a technology-enhanced task “can successfully meet all of Chapelle’s criteria, yet its value may be questioned on pedagogic grounds” (Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2017, p. 12). In a study on technology-enhanced task design and evaluation, Kurek and Müller-Hartmann (2017) found that task-based pedagogical criteria elicited qualitatively more appropriate task 119 3.4 Synergies: Technology-mediated TBLT <?page no="120"?> analyses than those in Chapelle’s evaluation cycle. They conclude that “Chap‐ elle’s criteria, due to their breadth, openness to interpretation, and strong SLA orientation, do not assist task designers in a thorough evaluation of telecollaboration tasks” (Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2017, p. 14). Solely SLA-in‐ formed task criteria do not adequately capture crucial pedagogical aspects of task implementation, such as the balance between task demands and support, task purpose, or sequencing. Consequently, the authors propose the following components of a technology-enhanced task framework (Table 3.3), which are addressed individually below. Category Task characteristic(s) Task design interest and appeal; communicative orientation; meaning focus; real-world relevance; open-endedness and choice; engagement of cognitive processes; Task implemen‐ tation clarity and self-explicitness of instructions; balance between task demand and support; task sequencing; Technology integration affordances of tools; choice of technologies; authenticity of use; ICC learning and multiliteracies attitudes; knowledge of culture; intercultural discovery and inter‐ action; intercultural interpretation and relation; critical cultural awareness; Table 3.3: Criteria for designing and evaluating CALL tasks (Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2017). The first category, task pedagogy, asks to what extent a particular task has the potential to involve and challenge learners and thus support learning. Appropriate tasks are relevant to learners’ (language) learning needs and activate learners’ resources (‘interest and appeal’); have a clear communicative focus and audience and thereby facilitate intensive communication among participants (‘communicative orientation’); focus on the pragmatic meaning of a message (‘meaning focus’); and are reflective of the communicative demands that learners are likely to encounter outside the classroom, including the use of authentic resources and communication channels (‘real-world relevance’). In terms of learner involvement, the task design should allow for task procedures to be modified or negotiated by learners and offer choices on resources, technol‐ ogies, and communication channels (‘open-endedness and choice’). Likewise, the task should facilitate learners’ higher-order thinking, different forms of cognitive processing, further information search and knowledge transfer, and reflection on task procedures (‘engagement of cognitive processes’). 120 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="121"?> The second category, task implementation, demands tasks be clearly com‐ municated and structured in the classroom. This includes the clarity and explicitness with which task instructions, objectives, procedures, possible or expected outcomes, and evaluation criteria are communicated (‘clarity and self-explicitness of instructions’). Also, tasks should reflect an adequate and challenging balance between interactional, technological, linguistic, and other demands and support types when enacted (‘balance between task demand and support’). In addition, tasks should logically build upon each other and be sequenced according to their complexity and established structures (pre-, while-, and post-task) so that task sequences can facilitate a variety of outcomes and types of interaction (‘task sequencing’). In terms of technology integration, the third category, tasks must ensure their instructions, procedures, objectives, and outcomes are compatible with the medium and the specific affordances and constraints of the selected technology. Specifically, learners should be prompted to notice and exploit the various types of affordances a tool offers in situated activity (‘affordances’), and they should be allowed to choose technologies that best match their learning preferences to complete the task (‘choice’). The use of technology should furthermore be relevant to real-life contexts that learners are likely to engage in outside the classroom (‘authenticity’). If these points are neglected, the task may stifle effective technology integration and prevent learners from realizing the affordance that the technology could potentially offer under more supportive conditions. Fourth, due to the framework’s original focus on telecollaboration, the category of ICC learning and multiliteracies is emphasized and adopts the structure of Byram’s model of intercultural communicative competence (ICC). For instance, Kurek and Müller-Hartmann ask to what extent tasks and the tools they rely on support openness and curiosity towards intercultural partners, acceptance and understanding of other perspectives, and personal engagement (‘attitudes’). Tasks should equally support the learning and understanding of others’ cultural practices and awareness of one’s practices (‘knowledge of culture’), prompt the discovery of interesting, similar, or unexpected aspects of the engaged cultures and facilitate interaction with intercultural partners (‘in‐ tercultural discovery and interaction’), and support learners in interpreting and explaining intercultural artifacts and concepts as well as participate in related discourses (‘intercultural interpretation and relation’). Taken together, these task components are intended to help learners make intercultural judgments based on explicit criteria and negotiate cultural practices and values in the process (‘critical cultural awareness’). While this last category envisions the 121 3.4 Synergies: Technology-mediated TBLT <?page no="122"?> telecollaborative context with direct intercultural exchanges, it is also highly relevant for technology-mediated TBLT in general, where indirect intercultural exchange is integral to tasks through the enhanced access to authentic resources and discourses facilitated by the technology, even when direct CMC with is not part of the curriculum. In sum, this model facilitates a much needed dual empirical and pedagogical focus and simultaneously captures the materiality and affordances of the tech‐ nologies implemented in the EFL classroom. It thus offers substantial advantages over Chapelle’s (2001) CALL task evaluation cycle, which is exclusively based on the interactionist SLA framework and marginalizes non-target and non-lin‐ guistic outcomes and competencies. It is also deemed more adequate for this study as other pedagogically oriented task models that transpose face-to-face task criteria to the digital world. Therefore, the criteria proposed by Kurek and Müller-Hartmann (2017) will be adopted to guide the discussion and evaluation of the focal tasks and their implementation in the three case analyses that form the qualitative part of this study (chapters 8-10). 3.5 Affordances and learner perceptions of technology-enhanced tasks Task conceptions by themselves cannot illuminate how learners perceive and act on tasks in the classroom. We also need to consider the interaction between learners, tools, and the learning environment in which learning takes place. The ecological notion of affordances is useful in this regard as it facilitates an understanding of the action potential that emerges between agents and the properties of their environments in which different processes are enacted. This subchapter first introduces the foundational tenets of affordance theory (section 3.5.1) and then adapts these tenets to the context of CALL (section 3.5.2). 3.5.1 Affordance theory In the investigation of learning and ICT, it may appear tempting to apply a causal view that explicates learning outcomes as direct consequences of the technology. In CALL research, this would mean to infer linguistic and communicative skill development solely from the features of a CALL system embedded into the pedagogical approach. In the same way that tasks do not automatically lead to planned learner behavior (cf. section 2.3.1), technology does not lead to uniform usage patterns. Therefore, an affordance-based perspective on CALL 122 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="123"?> is introduced that represents a relational approach to explaining how learners interact with technology in a given context or situation (S. K. Evans et al., 2017; Leonardi, 2013). Affordances are possibilities for action. Ecological psychologist James J. Gibson coined the term to describe the relationship between an organism and objects in its environment, filtered through its perception and aligned with its current needs and intentions. In Gibson’s terms, affordances are “what [the environment] offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill” (Gibson, 1986, p. 127, qtd. in Blin, 2016a, p. 43). As agents pick up information from the environment through direct perception of physical properties, they process this information as action possibilities according to their own characteristics. For example, a tree can afford different things: shelter, orientation, hiding from predators, even food. The object’s properties are invariant, but the affordances may differ according to the agent’s needs, perception, and ability. Specifically, the agent-object relationship must meet two conditions for affordances to be perceived and realized (Kirschner et al., 2004, pp. 49-50). First, there must be a reciprocal relationship between the physical or symbolic properties of the object and the physical or mental capabilities of the agent. The tree in the above example thus affords different things to different agents, or even to the same agent on different occasions. It may afford hiding to a mouse but not a horse. It may afford climbing to an adult human but not an infant, to whom reachability of the tree branches, balancing of one’s body weight, and coordinating one’s limbs are unavailable (Hammond, 2010, pp. 205- 6). Second, there must be some sort of perception-action coupling. Once the need for action (climbing further up) emerges, affordances in the environment will be perceived and become salient to the agent (i.e., reachability of the next branch). Gibson would argue that through our ontological development, our effectivities (i.e., action capabilities) have become attuned to the niche in our environment. Affordances thus point both ways to the environment and the agent; they are “equally a fact of the environment and a fact of behavior” (Gibson, 1986, p. 129, qtd. in Blin, 2016a, p. 44). They are, at the same time, physical and psychical—physical because they emerge from the object’s properties, psychical because they must be perceived and related to goals and needs by the agent in order to be realized as an activity (ibid.). Therefore, the concept’s “central and distinctive contribution is that it suggests a way of seeing the world as a meaning laden environment offering countless opportunities for actions and countless constraints on actions. The world is full of potential, not of things” (Hammond, 2010, p. 206). 123 3.5 Affordances and learner perceptions of technology-enhanced tasks <?page no="124"?> Figure 3.1: Affordances in context (van Lier, 2004, p. 96). Figure 3.1 describes the relationship between these concepts. The environment is full of meanings and potential for actions, while the agent is imbued with specific abilities (or competences, knowledge, effectivities, aptitudes, etc.). Affordances create a match between something in the environment and the agent; they fuel both perception and action, resulting in meaning and further, potentially more complex action and more refined perception.Adapted to the field of computer-assisted (language) learning, affordances can serve as a frame‐ work to describe how learners interact with technology in goal-oriented activity. Affordance was initially popularized in human-computer interaction (HCI) by Norman (1988), who defined it as a design aspect of a machine or software— perceived or actual properties “that determine just how the thing could possibly be used” (Norman, 1988, p. 9, qtd. in Blin, 2016a, p. 42). While this view may reinforce the roles of the designer and intended user in HCI, affordances are not embedded unambiguously into software by design. They instead arise from the interaction between users and software, which may involve unanticipated processes of experimentation and adaptation, thus leading to wholly or partially unforeseen results (S. K. Evans et al., 2017, p. 37). Critical to this discussion is the notion of cultural artifacts—modified objects that have been incorporated into goal-directed human action. While natural objects (like the tree in the example above) may directly signal potential uses, those are purposefully embedded into cultural artifacts by way of design. To perceive them, users crucially depend on prior knowledge and experience (e.g., memory, schemata, and scripts) (cf. Hammond, 2010, pp. 206-7). As a consequence, cultural artifacts may reflect two interrelated but different facets of artifact use—intended use (i.e., the designer’s view of how it should be used) and possible use (i.e., what users actually do with it) (Blin, 2016a, pp. 53-4). The latter may not only be driven by users’ perceptions of technological features, but on what they imagine the technology is for, a process that involves user expectations and beliefs toward technology 124 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="125"?> and is influenced by affect. In this regard, technologies like mobile devices or Web 2.0 applications may function as social cues to users, who, in turn, may interact with them as having emotions or as being social agents (Nagy & Neff, 2015). Affordances thus imply that neither materiality nor human agency alone is sufficient in explaining the use of technology (S. K. Evans et al., 2017). The concept provides a “middle ground between technological determinism and social construction,” which allows “researchers to point to the materiality or functions of technology while reminding their readers that these functions are always subsumed by users’ actions” (Nagy & Neff, 2015, 2). 3.5.2 Affordances in TMTBLT Building on the work of Kirschner et al. (2004), Blin (2016a, 2016b) proposes a theory of affordance for the context of CALL, which involves other types than just technological affordances, reflecting the notion of CALL as a complex and dynamic activity that connects technology use to educational, social, and language-related goals. Blin thus defines CALL affordances as “a unique combination of technological, social, educational, and linguistic affordances” (Blin, 2016a, p. 57). These affordances are intricately interwoven as they emerge in complex sequential or nested configurations (Gaver, 1991). These affordance types are discussed in the following paragraphs. The notion of technological affordances builds on Gibson’s original conceptu‐ alization of action potentials that emerge between the capabilities of the agent and the features of an object. Technological affordances are associated with usability and utility: “Usability is concerned with whether a system allows for the accomplishment of a set of tasks in an efficient and effective way that satisfies the user” (Kirschner et al., 2004, p. 50). It thus refers to how well users can perform a particular task using the provided system. Usability is a necessary condition for the design of CALL systems, but it is not sufficient. If it is ignored, however, the CALL system may not allow learners to make practical use of its embedded educational and social functions. This has been documented by T. Schmidt (2007) in the case of an EFL software for German secondary school students that appears to neglect the human side of HCI. Utility, on the other hand, refers to the technical functionalities of a system, answering the question, ‘what is it that the system is capable of doing (i.e., its functions)? ’ A CALL system or Web 2.0 application used in a CALL context is usually designed to achieve specific educational, social, and linguistic outcomes. For example, an instant messenger is designed and used to connect users, promote synchronous CMC in the L2, and allow for direct interaction with representatives of the target 125 3.5 Affordances and learner perceptions of technology-enhanced tasks <?page no="126"?> culture. “A system that is usable but does not have the functionalities the user needs, is worthless” (Kirschner et al., 2004, p. 52). Together, utility and usability form the system’s usefulness (ibid.), a key goal of interaction design. While usability broadly defines the system’s technological affordances, its different types of utility can also be associated with the educational, social, and linguistic affordances. Social affordances can be defined as “properties of a CSCL [i.e., computer-sup‐ ported cooperative learning] environment that act as social-contextual facilita‐ tors relevant for the learner’s social interaction” (Kreijns et al., 2002, p. 13). Unlike in the physical world, however, opportunities for casual and inadvertent social interactions in digital spaces do not emerge by default but must be actively embedded in the system. As Kreijns et al. (2003) posit, The key to the efficacy of collaborative learning is social interaction, and lack of it is a factor causing the negative effectiveness of collaborative learning. This lack of social interaction is due to the assumption that social interaction will automatically occur because the environment permits it and because the social interaction which is stimulated is usually restricted to the cognitive aspects of learning, ignoring/ forget‐ ting that social interaction is equally important for affiliation, impression, formation, building social relationships and, ultimately, the development of a healthy community of learning. (p. 349) Specifically, a system must fulfill a learner’s social intentions when they emerge and be capable of supporting these intentions (reciprocal relationship). In addition, the system must facilitate perception-action coupling in the sense that users’ social presence (Kreijns et al., 2011) becomes salient to peers and the system’s features allow or even encourage social interaction. CALL systems that are void of these social affordances or only incorporate them insufficiently run the risk of isolating learners from peers and inhibiting L2 interaction (Kirschner et al., 2004, p. 51). Educational affordances describe the relationship between the properties of an educational intervention—a task—and those of the learner that enable certain types of learning and behavior to be enacted. Educational affordances are operationalized through tasks: “Task ownership, task character, and task control are defining factors in the educational affording of environments” (Kirschner et al., 2004, p. 51). These three task dimensions can reflect varying degrees of learner vs. teacher agency. At the end of teacher agency (or ‘other-regulation’ from the learner’s perspective), the teacher owns and defines the problem space (task ownership), constructs and devices tasks of limited relevance to the students and rigidly structured to comply with curricular goals (task character), 126 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="127"?> and may determine who does what, when, and how in a given task context (task control). However, at the other end of the continuum, students can perceive and exercise agency in multiple ways and to varying degrees, resulting in different educational affordances. Kirschner et al. (2004) mention individual accountability, positive interdependence, and promotive learner interaction as factors that can increase learners’ sense of task ownership. In terms of task character, learner agency can be increased by providing authentic tasks bearing a close relation to real-world problems, which tend to be ill-structured, complex, and multifaceted. Indeed, the notion of authenticity is central to the task/ exercise distinction in TBLT (cf. section 2.2.3) and the goal of authenticity in CALL, which can refer to the language of the task (linguistic authenticity), the origin of task materials (cultural authenticity), and the inclusion or simulation of daily life experiences (functional authenticity) (Bündgens-Kosten, 2013). Finally, greater task control by learners refers to the way and degree to which learners can determine and customize various task parameters and their learning paths. This was discussed in section 2.3 regarding learner contributions to task design (cf. Breen, 1987). Learner’s task control, of course, presupposes a sufficient degree of learner agency and autonomy in the sense that learners can indeed seize the potential for learning and L2 activity embedded in the design and implementation of the task so that educational affordances can be successfully perceived and realized. Embedded in the preceding affordance types are linguistic affordances, that is, the action potential between a person and a linguistic expression. Leo van Lier introduced the concept to SLA as an alternative concept to input, which he criticized as overly cognitivist and built on the conduit metaphor, an assumption that language is a fixed code directly transmittable from one person to another (van Lier, 2004, p. 90). Linguistic affordances are specified in the linguistic expression that becomes salient to the active interlocutor and, once picked up, may promote further actions and deeper levels of interaction. As van Lier (2004, p. 95) puts it, “language affordances, whether natural or cultural, direct or indirect, are relations of possibility between language users. They can be acted upon to make further linguistic action possible.” The SLA concept that most closely approximates linguistic affordances is feedback (cf. Blin, 2016a), as it provides the opportunity to notice the gap and correct errors. In a CALL environment, feedback can be provided by other users, more capable tutors, or the system itself, which is the case in intelligent language tutoring systems. In the application of Web 2.0 tools and LMS, which are depicted in this research project, educational, social, technological, and linguistic affordances 127 3.5 Affordances and learner perceptions of technology-enhanced tasks <?page no="128"?> are intimately connected through the design of the CALL system and the agency of its users. Figure 3.2: Nested CALL affordances in the U.S. Embassy School Election Project (adapted from Blin, 2016b, p. 49). 3.6 Task-as-workplan and task-in-process in TMTBLT Having identified the conceptual, empirical, and pedagogical synergies between CALL and TBLT as well as affordance theory in the preceding sections, the discussion now returns to the relationship between task-as-workplan and task-in-process, which was introduced in section 2.3. It is now specifically discussed with regard to technology-enhanced tasks. In discussing this rela‐ tionship, the notion of learner agency and its reciprocal relationship with affordances in situ are of particular importance (Basharina, 2009, p. 395). This is also acknowledged by Chapelle (2001), who proposes that CALL evaluation should draw on judgmental analyses of the adequacy of the selected technology and planned task procedures, as well as an empirical analysis of the actual task performance, namely, the learner activity emerging from the task-as-workplan. Only the latter can address the interplay between affordances and agency in a given learning environment at a particular point in history. Activity theory has been proposed as a suitable framework for analyzing this relationship in technology-mediated TBLT (Källermark Haya, 2015; Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2010; Thorne, 2006). Activity theory defines collective, 128 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="129"?> tool-mediated, culturally, and historically situated human activity as the central unit of analysis in activity systems. Activity systems comprise three interrelated levels: tools and artifacts as mediational means, subjects and subject collectives and their activities, and the community and its rules. In this study, the level of mediational means consists of the blended learning approach and Web 2.0 technologies (cf. sections 3.2 and 3.3). The level of the community and concomitant rules and division of labor is represented by the EFL classroom (cf. section 4.5.1) and the sociocultural context of the school project (cf. chapter 5). This section, however, chiefly focuses on the second level where the theoretical task-as-workplan is transformed into the reality of the task-in-process and where the different levels of human activity—activity, actions, and operations (cf. section 2.4)—are enacted through the interplay of affordances of the learning environment and the participants’ agency. Thus, to illuminate this process in the context of CALL tasks, the following paragraphs review CALL research on the role of the teacher, students, and their activity in the context of task implementation. While the role of the teacher is crucial in TBLT in general (van den Branden, 2016), it carries additional functions in BL where teachers are tasked with cali‐ brating affordances in the learning environment. As discussed above, teachers design and plan the implementation of blended learning and anticipate task demands a priori so they can be systematically addressed through scaffolding in terms of task instructions and assistance with the technology. At the peda‐ gogical micro-level of classroom implementation, task instructions are crucial in supporting learners to realize task affordances within the complex and unpredictable BL context. In fact, task instructions may be the only available form of teaching presence (Anderson et al., 2001) during online phases in BL. They mediate task procedures and outcomes, in addition to signposting available task support and affordances in a multimodal, multicultural, multiuser, and multilingual learning environment (Kurek, 2015, p. 19). Nevertheless, as Kurek (2015) argues, task instructions by themselves do not ensure that learners will perform a task in a certain way: Well structured and clearly communicated task instructions serve as a mere departure point for students’ on-task performance, during which the task is interpreted in the light of students’ needs, intentions, identities and their individual perceptions of the final goal. (p. 22) Upon task implementation, teachers can significantly influence their learners’ agency through dynamic scaffolding when difficulties arise or with static scaffolds implemented in task materials and based on an a priori appraisal of 129 3.6 Task-as-workplan and task-in-process in TMTBLT <?page no="130"?> potential challenges (Kaliampos, 2019). Drawing on van Lier’s (2004) ecological view on affordances, Liu and Chao (2018) show how teachers’ technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) is predictive of how they orchestrate various affordances inside the classroom and pinpoint learners towards these affordances by offering dynamic scaffolding, which is especially relevant given that learners are not always competent technology users. Specifically, research has shown how teacher roles are modified in tech‐ nology-enhanced settings. For instance, during the pre-task phase, the primary responsibility of teachers shifts toward providing technological assistance and eliminating technological problems, establishing a relaxed and communicative environment, in addition to facilitating social cohesion among learners (A. Wang, 2015). Looking at the learners in blended language learning environments, Stock‐ well and Levy (2001, pp. 432-3) differentiate six online learner profiles: the low-motivation, daunted, struggling, and technophobic student, as well as the inconsistent and the ideal high responder. How learners engage or disengage with each other in collaborative behavior can have a tremendous impact on task trajectories. For instance, free-riders, inhibited learners, or those who resist the task, even if only momentarily, through non-participation, may risk becoming completely invisible members of their online groups and thus constrain social cohesion and task procedures and outcomes (Zibelius, 2015). Moreover, Zibe‐ lius (2012) showed how learners often intentionally resist overly prescriptive cooperative task procedures when they perceive a mismatch of suggested procedures and the affordances of the available digital tools, for instance, by replacing chat sessions and forum discussions with in-person meetings or phone calls. Likewise, how intensively learners engage in cooperative behavior online may additionally depend on whether they take deep, strategic, or surface approaches to learning (Basharina, 2009) and, for instance, whether a task is set as compulsory and is going to be assessed. T. Schmidt (2007) documented how intensive interaction among learners emerges not only in the form of CMC but especially in person at the computer when pairs of students share the same device. Although these interactions are often conducted in the L1, they frequently spark task-related negotiation and reflection, which can be channeled into mediation processes during subsequent CMC or the creation of a task product. Investigating online task performance among secondary school EFL learners, Dooly (2018) found that task designs frequently lead to learners being momen‐ tarily disengaged while waiting for other group members to complete an activity. Also, despite an emphasis on cooperation in the task instructions 130 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="131"?> and seating arrangements, learners in this study frequently departed from this task-as-workplan. For instance, learners sat together, but completed tasks individually, communicated through text chat rather than in person, or, in one case, instead of discussing individual results, silently looked at one student’s computer screen as he completed a web research task. Findings from Källermark Haya’s (2015) study on online reading in a secondary Spanish classroom in Sweden affirm this view as learners in her study frequently engaged in labor division rather than mutual collaboration in CMC. These studies suggest that online tasks must adhere to analogous aspects of face-to-face coopera‐ tive learning, including positive interdependence, individual accountability, simultaneous interaction, equal participation, and group autonomy, although their implementation might differ in online phases compared to the physical classroom (Dooly, 2018; cf. Biebighäuser, Schmidt, & Zibelius, 2012). Following these insights, the question becomes how learners interpret and act on the task-as-workplan (i.e., the teaching intention and theoretical plan for classroom activity) to enact the task-in-process (i.e., the real and situated task performance inside and outside the classroom) (Breen, 1987; Seedhouse, 2005). As outlined in section 2.3 on learner reinterpretations of tasks, the perspective of activity theory (Engeström & Miettinen, 1999) distinguishes the task as the behavioral blueprint, motivated by pedagogical objectives and constrained by practice considerations, from the emergent activity during implementation, which “comprises the behavior that is actually produced when an individual (or group) performs a task” (Coughlan & Duff, 1994, p. 175). It was further discussed in section 2.4 that agency, “the capability of individual human beings to make choices and act on these choices in a way that makes a difference in their lives” (Martin, 2004, p. 135), crucially guides how the task-in-process is enacted and what outcomes it produces. Importantly, agency is relevant to all three levels of human activity—collective activity, individual or group actions, and routinized operations—each offering a different analytical view on task performance (Blin & Jalkanen, 2014, p. 156; cf. section 2.4). Based on this three-way distinction of layers of activity in the process of TMTBLT, an activity theoretical model of learner perceptions of tasks can be deduced (Figure 3.3), which is further outlined below. 131 3.6 Task-as-workplan and task-in-process in TMTBLT <?page no="132"?> Figure 3.3: An activity theoretical model of learner perceptions of tasks in TMTBLT. 132 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="133"?> In terms of motives at the level of activity, agency is linked to identity and self-determination, as it helps learners to build an L2 self and align their language learning with their interests, intentions, and histories (Vandergriff, 2016, pp. 87-8). As discussed above, the format of blended language learning (cf. section 3.2) and the affordances of Web 2.0 tools (cf. section 3.3) both emphasize the role of the learner in new, multimodal ways of meaning construction and negotiation through the tools available to them and access to the communities and contents online. Using these tools, learners can ‘self-translate’ (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000) their identities to a public audience and construct alternate identity conceptions through blogging, social media accounts, or multimodal artifacts, or engage in discourse with communities through social networks, forums, or multiplayer online games. Associated with this idea is the notion that both BL and Web 2.0 tools foreground the role of self-directed and sustained learning in both formal and informal contexts beyond the classroom walls. These motives directly relate to the second level of students’ individual or collaborative actions for the attainment of goals. At this level, agency is associated with initiative, control, and autonomy (Garton, 2012; van Lier, 2008; Waring, 2011). The learning environment (cf. sections 3.2 and 3.3) and the tasks (cf. section 3.4.2) outlined above represent affordances and constraints, or the space where learners can exercise their agency and thereby adjust the task-as-workplan. According to Vandergriff (2016, pp. 92-102), language learners commonly exercise their agency through planning, initiative, and self-regulated learning; modifying tasks by resisting rules, challenging others, and ‘doing teacher; ’ and seeking informal learning opportunities. Knight et al. (2017) add that agency, which has an inherent value and results in superior learning, is expressed in both the physical interaction with technology or the use of software (i.e., ‘directional agency’) as well as in spoken interaction and CMC for organizational, strategic, and representational purposes. In terms of their interaction with technology during task performance, learners frequently make choices whether or not to use technology. The decision is based on their learning aims and beliefs, proficiency and experience in using particular tools, and their personality (Trinder, 2016). Analogous to the SLA concept of ‘willingness to communicate,’ MacLean and Elwood (2009) refer to the willingness to use technology to explain how students may resist using technology as prescribed in task instructions if they do not realize its utility or usability. As a result, the task-as-workplan, if lacking space for learners to make their own choices on task processes and technology use, will clash with the learners’ willingness to use technology. This notion is especially relevant in the context of Web 2.0 tools, where compulsory task instructions, such as friending co-learners or creating 133 3.6 Task-as-workplan and task-in-process in TMTBLT <?page no="134"?> a profile in social networking sites, would contradict informal ‘cultures-of-use’ (Thorne, 2003). These aspects of teacherand student-related task implementation, when enacted, can lead to vastly different interpretations of the task-as-workplan as well as different perceptions of the enacted task-in-process and its out‐ comes (cf. section 2.3). Investigating the collaborative task interactions of secondary-school EFL learners, Dooly (2011) showed how teachers might falsely interpret learners’ L1 interactions at the computer as non-participation or departures from the task-as-workplan. In the observed case, students mostly relied on their L1 to discuss input they received from online activities and organize their task performance, thus making task modifications that did not appear to be in direct accordance with the teacher’s intentions. However, process data reveal how these learners draw on first language and multilingual resources to prepare the task outcome. They pass through several stages of target language use, exploit unexpected discourse opportunities afforded by the technology, and eventually produce a target language outcome. Thus, such examples also demonstrate that learners’ and the teacher’s perceptions of the task-as-workplan can diverge during the process phase but converge again in the outcomes. Adding to this research body, H.-C. Huang (2013) identified in an online reading project that the teacher’s intentions mostly correlated with the reading approaches of high-performing students, who made extensive use of global strategies, while especially low-performing students prioritized support strategies in reading online texts in the target language. These differences in perception, the author argues, should alert teachers and researchers of the importance of incorporating diverse strategies in a program’s design, allowing more time for extended learner training, and raising their awareness of online learning strategies. Despite these insights, we are reminded that learners’ (seeming) failure to complete a task according to its workplan or fully attain its objectives may not be solely attributed to their sense or exercise of agency and the related constructs of “low aptitude, lack of motivation, or inappropriate learning strategies instead of to their possible marginalization from a community of practice, insufficient mentoring from an expert, or scant access to a learning community” (Basharina, 2009, p. 395). This, again, highlights the significance of the interaction between students’ agency and the affordances and constraints of a learning environment as well as the socio-collaborative nature of agency. Finally, at the level of automated or internalized operations, learners’ task-based interactions have been investigated with the help of user tracking (Chun, 2013; Fischer, 2007) as a form of ethnographic research, and recently also 134 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="135"?> more elaborate ways of eye-tracking, which are particularly suitable to visualize the allocation of learner attention (O’Rourke et al., 2015). Drawing on tracking data, Fischer (2012) observed how language learners interact with digital technology across contexts, differentiating between organized and unstructured or chaotic approaches. Some students move through CALL applications linearly following the instructions provided by the task or the software design. In contrast, other students’ technology use appears so distorted and interrupted by the consultation of various software features or task-unrelated tools that no systematic pattern emerges. Organized CALL use correlates with higher levels of software experience and content and language knowledge of the learners. Students also frequently overlook or misinterpret technological affordances, leading them to overuse single ancillary functions and widely neglect others, which are perceived as irrelevant or of little help to the task at hand. In fact, many learners “adopt highly idiosyncratic approaches to using software, some of which do not seem to suggest even a modicum of planning or metacognitive control” (Fischer, 2012, p. 19). Despite this idiosyncrasy in technology use, students with lower levels in the L2 seem to make more extensive use of resources in CALL software, although again, high levels of variability are routinely observed. In addition, studies combining tracking data with learner self-reports like questionnaires or stimulated recall reveal that retrospective accounts may inaccurately reflect what students did during task performance. Likewise, learner accounts tend to foreground features according to their perceived pedagogical value and the degree of intensity with which learners engaged in their use rather than mere frequency of use. These findings conspire with research on learners’ preparedness to use digital technologies effectively for learning and to exploit its affordances for educational purposes. Typically, these studies highlight the importance of some form of learner training built into the curriculum and individual tasks (Hubbard, 2013). For instance, Hubbard (2004) proposes five general principles for learner training: (1) teachers should experience CALL themselves; (2) learners should be taught language learning principles applicable in any kind of language learning; (3) learner training should follow a cyclical approach of application and reflection; (4) lessons should include collaborative debriefings allowing learners to share and discuss CALL experiences from inside and outside the classroom; (5) learners should be taught general exploitation strategies for the software in focus to maximize learning benefits. 135 3.6 Task-as-workplan and task-in-process in TMTBLT <?page no="136"?> 3.7 Summary This chapter began by locating this study in the tradition of CALL and delin‐ eating the discipline conceptually and historically. As a highly flexible and varied approach to curriculum design and teaching, blended language learning was introduced. Different variants of the rotation model, specifically lab rotation and flipped classroom, were identified as the most common BL approaches and, together with LMS as an essential mediational tool, were adopted to implement the investigated school project. In terms of technological mediation, LMS are frequently complemented with Web 2.0 tools, which give rise to unique affordances of discourse and community participation, L2 identity work, and developing learner agency. These affordances were discussed in connection to the online genres of blogs, wikis, and social networking sites. The pedagogical approach of blended language learning and the mediational tools of Web 2.0, furthermore, facilitate synergies when coupled with the principles of TBLT, which were originally conceptualized for face-to-face contexts. The review of task approaches in CALL demonstrated that the theorized benefits of TBLT cannot be taken for granted in technology-enhanced contexts unless tasks respect the materiality of tools and the multimodal, multilingual, multiuser, and multifarious nature of discourses and genres associated with these tools, while still adhering to the original principles of authentic, challenging, and commu‐ nicative tasks in TBLT. In this context, the ecological notion of affordances was emphasized as an action potential emerging between the learning environment and the learner during the performance of tasks, especially in the form of technological, educational, social, and linguistic affordances. Finally, these concepts converge in the discussion of the relationship between task-as-workplan and task-in-process in technology-enhanced environments, a notion informed by principles of activity theory. Specifically, emerging research in this area reflects how this relationship is highly context-sensitive and mediated by several factors: - changing teacher roles of facilitating and scaffolding technology use and pinpointing learners toward affordances in the learning environment; - learners’ engagement in online and face-to-face collaborative task perform‐ ance and their motives relating to investment and self-determination in both formal and informal contexts; - learners’ sense and exercise of agency, their perception of the compatibility of task design as well as affordances and constraints of the learning environment; 136 3 Tasks and task perception in CALL <?page no="137"?> - and lastly, learners’ preparedness and skills in utilizing technology effec‐ tively and staying goal-oriented, drawing on prior experience or opportu‐ nities for learner training. The next chapter moves from the review of relevant research and concepts to this study’s empirical part. It introduces the methodological framework guiding the mixed-methods research approach and the instruments and procedures of data collection, analysis, and interpretation employed to investigate learner perceptions of tasks in the school project. 137 3.7 Summary <?page no="139"?> 13 Parts of this chapter are based on Kaliampos (2014a). 4 Research methodological framework This chapter introduces the methodological framework of the study, which must necessarily go beyond a technical description of the research instruments and procedures selected for the collection, analysis, and interpretation of research data. 13 Any methodology of social inquiry entails the four interrelated domains of (1) philosophical stances about ontological and epistemological assumptions, (2) the inquiry logic of the research design, (3) guidelines for practice in the form of decisions about concrete methods and instruments, and (4) sociopolitical commitments about a study’s values and how it advances social critique or serves particular interests (Greene, 2006). If the domain of philosophical stances frames our research in terms of what is important to see and what constitutes knowledge, then the second domain of inquiry logic maps the structure of the investigation accordingly and ensures we record and measure what is important to be seen, while the third domain provides the concrete tools and methods of our investigation. The fourth domain connects research to its sociopolitical context and power relations within this context. Together, these four domains form paradigms of inquiry broadly categorized as qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research. This chapter addresses each of these points in more detail and thus unfolds the various layers of this study’s mixed-methods approach. Therefore, it begins by introducing the research interest and questions (section 4.1). Second, the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of this research approach and the associated inquiry logic of mixed-methods research are discussed (section 4.2). In the subsequent sections, then, this study’s research design is introduced schematically (section 4.3) before describing the individual instruments and methods of data collection in more detail (sections 4.4 and 4.5). Next, the associated quantitative and qualitative procedures of data analysis and inter‐ pretation are outlined (section 4.6). Finally, this discussion critically examines the role of the researcher (section 4.7) and issues of research quality and ethical safeguarding (section 4.8). <?page no="140"?> 4.1 Research interest and questions The idea and impetus for this study emerged, at the general level, from the interest in questions of task perceptions and learner agency in technology-en‐ hanced EFL learning scenarios. More specifically, the context of the U.S. Embassy School Election Project represented a unique learning opportunity that merged these aspects at an unprecedented scale in the German secondary school context. As outlined in chapter 5, the project’s singularity stems from its institutional partnership, the interactive and cooperative project structure with around 2,000 participants nationwide working towards a shared, comple‐ mentary outcome, and its integration of a technology-enhanced curriculum with content-based and intercultural tasks about a current historical event into the participants’ regular EFL classrooms. Because of this unprecedented project approach, an open and exploratory research design was conceptualized to accommodate the emergent nature of the research interest and the breadth of the initial research focus, which was to be narrowed during the subsequent phases of data analysis and interpretation. Since this study’s focus does not only include the analysis of the processes and outcomes within this learning scenario but as well its contextual conditions and configuration, it necessarily had to close in on different scales of the project: from the micro-level of individual learners’ minute task processes in select phases to the meso-level of the intact EFL classroom as a complex sociocultural entity, to the macro-level of the school project. While each of these levels would undoubtedly merit an in-depth analysis of its own, this study rests on the assumption that to understand these layers, the interactions and synergies between them must be examined to retrieve more refined understandings of the constituent parts. The integration of these levels is, furthermore, reflected by the combination of qualitative and quantitative com‐ ponents in the mixed-methods design. The quantitative surveys were employed to capture the project’s macro-perspective from a bird’s-eye view, while the qualitative classroom-based component illuminates the mesoand micro-level of concrete learning procedures on-site. Based on this general research interest, the following research questions were deduced: - How do learners engage in blended learning EFL tasks facilitated by LMS and Web 2.0 applications? Specifically, how do they perceive and act on the tasks’ affordances during the task-in-process? - How is learner agency mediated in technology-enhanced EFL learning environments? How is it perceived and exercised by the learners during the task-in-process? 140 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="141"?> In order to help direct the research focus, and to structure the research data, a series of guiding questions were formulated. Following the exploratory research design, the scope of these questions was intentionally broad. They were weighted differently for individual data types or incidents in the data as some phenomena and processes emerged as more important than others during the research process. Accordingly, these questions served as guiding questions on the different dimensions of the research focus, not as concrete research questions to be analyzed entirely and extensively. For instance, these questions were taken up as part of the question guides for the retrospective interviews and the learning journal or implemented in the quantitative participant surveys. Focus on the project context (macro-perspective): - What expectations and interests do the students associate with their partic‐ ipation in the school project? - Which are the technological conditions of the project participation on-site? Which technological infrastructure is available? - How is the blended learning approach implemented? That is, how are online and face-to-face phases distributed, which modes are used, how are learners involved, and which locations are chosen for these procedures? - What access to ICT do students have at home and school? What are their attitudes towards these technologies in leisure and school contexts? In which digital practices do they engage using the English language? - Which prior school-based experiences involving ICT and CALL do partici‐ pants have, especially in the context of EFL? - What kinds of obstacles do the participants expect regarding their partici‐ pation in such projects? - How does the project participation impact established EFL practices, in‐ cluding discourse structures, participant roles, and teaching approaches? - How do participants evaluate and reflect on the learning opportunity of the school project? Focus on task engagement and learner agency: - How do learners engage in technology-enhanced tasks and adapt or modify planned task procedures during the task-in-process? - How do teacher intentions and procedures in the task-as-workplan differ from learner engagement during the task-in-process? - How do tasks differ across learners in terms of interpretations, performance, and outcomes? 141 4.1 Research interest and questions <?page no="142"?> - How is learner agency in technology-enhanced tasks in the classroom mediated (i.e., exercised, facilitated, or stifled)? - How do learners recognize and act on technological, social, educational, and linguistic affordances? What obstacles keep them from acting on or even recognizing these affordances in their EFL classroom? - Do learners purposefully resist or ignore planned affordances, and what are the reasons for this? Focus on learning objectives: - How do learners perceive their learning achievement in the context of individual tasks or the project overall? - Which personal learning goals do learners associate with technology-en‐ hanced tasks, and do they align with the teachers’ intentions? - Which learning objectives do teachers associate with individual tasks or the school project at large (in the areas of language learning, intercultural learning, content-based learning, digital literacies, and learning strategies)? Focus on language learning: - Which linguistic and communicative competencies are required for the performance of the technology-enhanced tasks in the school project? - Which requirements do unenhanced, authentic online materials place on learners’ (visual, aural, textual, and intercultural) comprehension skills? - How do learners handle comprehension problems while performing tasks online? How do they initiate and resolve incidental language-related epi‐ sodes in the context of content-based, communicative tasks? Focus on the teacher: - Which specific teaching competencies are necessary to implement tech‐ nology-enhanced tasks effectively? - How do teachers introduce and instruct technology-enhanced tasks in the classroom? Which routines do they rely on during the various phases of tasks, from task initiation and instruction to task implementation and scaffolding to task debriefing and evaluation? - How is the teacher role modified during the project relative to the teaching materials and learners? Focus on tasks: - What elements of effective language learning tasks can be identified during the project implementation? 142 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="143"?> - What requirements does the inclusion of digital technologies pose on the design and implementation of tasks? - How is the principle of blended learning implemented in individual tasks? - What role do task instructions, learner training, and scaffolding play in learners’ ability to understand, interpret, and perform tasks? Digital media and technology: - Can the LMS and Web 2.0 be utilized to facilitate communicative, con‐ tent-based, and digital competencies? - Which challenges emerge in these tools’ use by EFL learners in concrete learning situations and settings? 4.2 Towards mixed-methods classroom research Although these research questions can be directly associated with specific research instruments and methods discussed later in this chapter (sections 4.3-4.6), these methods are undergirded by epistemological and ontological assumptions guiding how we look for and what we consider as evidence. To make the mixed-methods design of this study transparent, the following subsections discuss this study’s pragmatic stance on mixed-methods research (MMR) (section 4.2.1), its inquiry logic (section 4.2.2), and the purposes of combining different research paradigms (section 4.2.3). 4.2.1 A pragmatist rationale of mixed-methods research At the level epistemological and ontological stances, MMR researchers reject the notion of qualitative approaches, typically grounded in constructivist-inter‐ pretivist paradigm, and quantitative approaches, which are based in a (post-) positivist paradigm, as being incommensurable. Inherent in this view is the notion that research paradigms are not considered as “monolithic interlocking sets of philosophical assumptions” (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010, p. 13), but instead as shared beliefs among communities of researchers whose ontological and epistemological oppositions are overstated and can be bridged (Morgan, 2007, p. 53). Recent paradigmatic frameworks for MMR research—including pragmatism, critical realism, critical theory, and transformatism—identify prac‐ tical value, rather than hindrances, in connecting qualitative and quantitative approaches (Creswell, 2010). 143 4.2 Towards mixed-methods classroom research <?page no="144"?> In the present study, the combination of qualitative and quantitative ap‐ proaches is framed within a pragmatist stance (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009) to seek practical answers to the research question of learner perceptions of technology-enhanced tasks. According to this notion, knowledge is both con‐ structed and resulting from empirical discovery; it takes the ontological stance of pluralism (i.e., realities are complex and multiple) and the epistemological stance that multiple forms of inquiry can deliver warranted assertions rather than claims of unvarying truth. In this view, the combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches is legitimate if it helps obtain valued outcomes and provides useful answers to research questions (R. B. Johnson & Gray, 2010, pp. 87-8). In practical terms, this means that instead of deriving methodological decisions from underlying philosophical stances, MMR researchers subscribing to pragmatism “use research questions as a springboard to determining the choice of research approach and methods, enabling the investigation of impor‐ tant questions through mixing methods in ways that cannot be adequately addressed with a single approach” (Riazi & Candlin, 2014, p. 142). Pragmatism, however, does not imply an ‘anything goes’ approach as long as it serves the purpose of a research project, nor does it mean the choice of methods should be completely detached from epistemological and ontological considerations. Rather, pragmatism implies that “the essential emphasis is on actual behavior (‘lines of action’), the beliefs that stand behind those behaviors (‘warranted assertions’), and the consequences that are likely to follow from different behaviors (‘workability’)” (Morgan, 2007, p. 67). 4.2.2 Inquiry logic: Defining mixed-methods research Having discussed the philosophical underpinnings of MMR and framing this study within a pragmatist stance at the levels of epistemology and ontology, the underlying inquiry logic can be characterized as the type of research in which a researcher […] combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration. (R. B. Johnson et al., 2007, p. 123) This research logic combines the components of quantitative research, which relies on a priori defined variables and categories expressed in numbers and calculated with statistical operations in order to test hypotheses and create generalizable results; and qualitative research, which follows an emergent design and primarily considers textual data anchored in sociopolitical factors 144 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="145"?> of the specific field and situation in order to generate hypotheses through interpretive procedures (cf. Dörnyei, 2007, pp. 32-9). The pragmatist rationale for MMR argues that this distinction is not categorical in nature and the choice and orchestration of research methods is a bottom-up process resting on the specific demands of the research question and the researcher’s methodological competence (Brown, 2014, pp. 6-8; Dörnyei, 2007, p. 25; R. B. Johnson et al., 2007, pp. 123-4). Moreover, the above definition of MMR leaves room for interpretation as to what data and methods are mixed, how and when this is done, and so forth (R. B. Johnson et al., 2007, pp. 125-8)—that is, questions pertaining to concrete methods and instruments within the research design (cf. section 4.3). A research paradigm in its own right in the social and behavioral sciences, MMR has been acknowledged in the fields of applied linguistics and language teaching in addition to learning, as can be observed by its inclusion in textbooks on research methods (e.g., Dörnyei, 2007) and the publication of textbooks exclusively discussing MMR for applied linguistics (e.g., Brown, 2014). Magnan (2006) showed that 6.8% of research articles published in the Modern Language Journal between 1995 and 2005 were applied mixed-methods designs. Likewise, Nunan (2005, p. 237) confirms, “[c]lassroom researchers appear to be increas‐ ingly reluctant to restrict themselves to a single data collection technique, or even to a single research paradigm.” Recently, two reviews of mixed-method studies in applied linguistics and language teaching and learning attested to the growing relevance of MMR designs in both fields (Hashemi & Babaii, 2013; Riazi & Candlin, 2014). Riazi and Candlin (2014) assert that MMR in the field of language teaching and learning is currently in a phase of maturation and predict the climate is supportive for a more vigorous pursuit of MMR inquiry. However, “more theoretical discussion of the paradigm and its constituents remains very much on the agenda” (p. 168). 4.2.3 Purposes of mixing different paradigms In terms of research design issues, Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) propose a set of design issues for MMR studies. These dimensions are briefly introduced and locate the present study within this framework. Firstly, in this present study, three different research phases were implemented in close temporal sequence. Participants in the investigated school project completed a questionnaire survey before the school project. Then, a sample of three 11 th -grade secondary school EFL courses was selected for the elicitation of qualitative classroom data. At the end of the school project, participants again participated in a concluding 145 4.2 Towards mixed-methods classroom research <?page no="146"?> questionnaire survey. While these components were technically carried out in temporal succession, the design is referred to as ‘concurrent’ since these phases were not designed as conceptually dependent on one another. The data collected in the preceding quantitative-dominant questionnaire survey did not directly inform the operationalization of the qualitative-dominant classroom-based instruments, and neither did this qualitative-dominant phase directly affect the operationalization of the concluding survey. Regarding the integration of qualitative and quantitative data, the current study reflects a convergence of perspectives primarily at the level of interpreting research findings and making inferences. Caracelli and Greene (1997) refer to this as a ‘component design’ as opposed to an integrated MMR design. Besides these technical design issues regarding its implementation, MMR can be classified based on more conceptual issues. These include the priority or dominance of research components, the functions and purposes associated with the MMR design, and the underlying theoretical or ideological perspec‐ tive. In the present study, the overall research purpose and the research question (cf. section 4.1) require a naturalistic focus on the intact EFL classroom with a process-orientation on the learning and interaction processes as they unfold during the project. Thus, the following components of qualitative classroom-based research were selected as the centerpiece of the investigation and together reflect characteristics of an overall qualitative-dominant approach: non-experimental setup, an emergent design, and a hypothesis-generating purpose. Regarding the purposes of MMR, the above definition by R. B. Johnson et al. (2007, p. 123) mentions two general reasons for mixing qualitative and quantitative designs, namely increasing the breadth and depth of understanding in addition to the corroboration of findings and inferences. As outlined in section 4.1, this study’s overall research question was split into several sub-ques‐ tions, each aligning with different methodological components of the MMR design. This resulted in the use of different data and methods to address different sub-questions. An expansion rationale is often associated with MMR to extend “the breadth and range of inquiry by using different methods for different inquiry components” (Greene et al., 1989, p. 259). Another way of looking at this rationale is that using different methods and data can elicit different layers of the research object. In this study, these are referred to as the macroand micro-perspectives of the investigated school project. The school project, which is specifically characterized by its scope, attracting over 2,000 participants and engaging them in collaborative processes, constitutes the macro-perspective. This perspective is more than a mere backdrop to the study; 146 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="147"?> it impacts individual and group learning processes in multiple, powerful ways. The research question centers on the perceptions and implementation of tasks by individual learners during selected task sequences. If the project context forms the macro-perspective of the investigation, then individual learners’ task perceptions and performance represent the micro-perspective elicited through qualitative, classroom-based data. Furthermore, if qualitative and quantitative data and modes of inquiry are combined in this way, they do not just cancel out each other’s weaknesses and blind spots. Moreover, they help to understand better the complex issue of learner perceptions of tasks through the resulting multi-method analysis: “Words can be used to add meaning to numbers and numbers can be used to add precision to words” (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 45). More precisely, this rationale is of particular interest whenever we wish to understand both the exact nature of a phenomenon in individuals and its distribution in broader social contexts. This can be understood as the second rationale for this study’s mixed approach related to achieving complementarity between qualitativeand quantitative-dominant components. Greene et al. (1989) explain that a com‐ plementarity rationale in MMR “seeks elaboration, enhancement, illustration, [and] clarification of the results from one method with the results from the other method” (p. 259). In other words, complementarity refers to the principle of complementary strengths and non-overlapping weaknesses of individual research methods, which is often advanced in MMR contexts. Complementarity was achieved here through the investigation of different layers of the school project as the research object. The quantitative-dominant questionnaire surveys were used to guide the qualitative-dominant analysis by pointing towards salient features in the classroom data. 4.3 Research design: Overview While the preceding sections have addressed the philosophical stances underlying the combination of qualitative and quantitative paradigms and the inquiry logic of mixed-methods in classroom-based research, this section now turns to the concrete methods and instruments constituting this study’s research design. This study’s mixed-methods design combines the qualitative and quantitative procedures and instruments within the context of the investigated school project. Figure 4.1 provides a schematic overview of this study’s methodological design, structured in terms of the research phases (i.e., research development, data collection, and analysis) and the quantitative and qualitative research components: 147 4.3 Research design: Overview <?page no="148"?> Figure 4.1: Overview of the mixed-methods classroom-based research design. 148 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="149"?> The quantitative component comprises an online pre-post questionnaire survey among teachers and learners in the school project (cf. section 4.4). The initial learner (QS 1-L ) and teacher questionnaires (QS 1-T ) were distributed at the beginning of the project phase, while the post-surveys (QS 2-L/ T ) were administered for six weeks immediately following the project. Both questionnaire sets (QS 1-L/ T and QS 2-L/ T ) primarily involved closed items (Likert scale, multiple-choice, numeric, and checklist items) and some open-ended items. This research component thus yielded primarily quantifiable data, including demographic, experiential, and attitudinal indices about the respondents’ project participation. These data serve to describe the school project’s macro-perspective (see chapter 6). The study’s second component, and the centerpiece of this study, can be classified as classroom-based, descriptive-interpretive, and process-oriented. It involves an orchestration of observational, retrospective, and elicitation-based research instruments: - non-participant classroom observation, field notes, and videography of EFL lessons (cf. section 4.5.3); - user tracking and screen capture (Camtasia) for recording learners’ on-screen activity (cf. section 4.5.4) - semi-structured, retrospective learner interviews and verbal self-reports by teachers (cf. section 4.5.5) - written learner journals by eight randomly chosen focal students in re‐ sponse to individual lessons (cf. section 4.5.6) - classroom artifacts like teaching materials and learner texts (e.g., forum posts or glossary entries) (cf. section 4.5.7). These data types are combined in this study to triangulate research methods, data, and perspectives (Denzin, 1978, p. 29). Like the complementarity rationale for MMR (cf. section 4.2), triangulation is engaged to reduce possible research biases of single methods and data types, thus serving as a validation strategy. Research methods are selective in their focus and the type of data they yield, thereby painting different images of reality. This is more so in qualitative re‐ search where the researcher is considered a research instrument with their own subjectivity, modes of interpretation, and personal contributions to the research process (cf. section 4.7). Following a constructivist-interpretivist ontology that views reality as socially constructed, dynamic, and multilayered, triangulation is also performed to uncover different dimensions of a research object which any singular method by itself would be unable to capture. Thus, triangulation is a necessary means to capture the complexity of the technology-enhanced EFL classroom adequately (cf. section 4.5.1) and the multifaceted structure of 149 4.3 Research design: Overview <?page no="150"?> 14 The terminology ‘QS 1-L/ T ’ and ‘QS 2-L/ T’ refers to participant group (i.e., ‘L’ for learners, ‘T’ for teachers) and the timing of the data collection before (i.e., ‘1’) and after the project (i.e., ‘2’). This is not to be understood as a pre/ post-test survey design that would assess the success or efficacy of a particular treatment over another. learners’ task perceptions and performance (Müller-Hartmann, 2001, p. 212; cf. sections 2.3 and 3.6). It is further necessary for the research to penetrate the object of the investigation deeper and more holistically. This combination of methods is done in an integrative manner, so that each one fulfills a specific, complementary purpose associated with the research purpose and question (Chapelle, 1998, p. 29; Knorr & Schramm, 2016, p. 95). The observation-based data (i.e., classroom observation, field notes, videography, user tracking, and learner artifacts) allow for detailed reconstructions of overt learner behavior in technology-enhanced task performance. This behavior includes the learners’ choice of media and contents, operation of and interaction with ICT, task-related discourse participation, use of L1, duration of task com‐ pletion, and use of additional tools and task support. By contrast, introspectionand elicitation-based data (i.e., learner interviews, learning journals, teacher interviews, and verbal commentaries) provide insights into the covert dimen‐ sion of learner perceptions and interpretations of technology-enhanced tasks, which shape task behavior (Nunan & Bailey, 2009, p. 285). Such information involves three layers of data collection: Learners first construct perceptions of tasks and engage in mental learning processes; they secondly may or may not be aware of these perceptions and processes; and thirdly, they must be made susceptible to analysis through some form of transformation, which imposes further challenges on the research participants in terms of verbalization and can have an impact on the reliability of the retrieved data (ibid., p. 300). Taken together, these components of classroom-based research, including both the data of overt task behavior and data of covert task perceptions, represent the micro-perspective of the school project. 4.4 Online questionnaire surveys This study’s quantitative component of data collection procedures comprises a two-phase questionnaire survey among students (QS 1-L and QS 2-L ) and teachers (QS 1-T and QS 2-T ) in the investigated school project. 14 Questionnaires are suited to elicit and measure factual knowledge such as language learning biographies and demographic classification data, behavioral data about the things respondents are doing or have done in the past, and attitudinal data about respondents’ 150 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="151"?> cognition, opinions, beliefs, values, and interests (Dörnyei, 2009, p. 5). Question‐ naires also facilitate a systematic and resource-effective interrogation of many respondents, especially over distance and prolonged durations (cf. Riemer, 2016). However, while quantification is desirable to illuminate the spread or breadth of a phenomenon, data elicited through questionnaires can be superficial and less ‘thick’ than qualitative interview data (Dörnyei, 2009, pp. 6-7). Questionnaires were employed in this study to shed light on the macro-perspective of the school project, with its over 1,400 LMS-registered participants spread across different parts of Germany and 2,000 participants overall (online and offline). In terms of thematic research interests, the surveys targeted interest in the project’s subject matter, usage of digital media, EFL teaching/ learning practices, and demographic information. However, while the pre-surveys (i.e., QS 1-L/ T ) focused on prior knowledge and experience as well as interests and expectations toward the project participation, the post-surveys (i.e., QS 2-L/ T ) elicited evalua‐ tive project feedback regarding learning processes, task perceptions, project implementation, and perceived learning outcomes. The student questionnaires elicited their self-perceptions of language proficiency, motivation, and task difficulty, while the parallel teacher questionnaires addressed complementary aspects of instructional planning and implementation to corroborate research findings by considering multiple viewpoints (Denzin, 1978). While none of the surveys were employed as tests (e.g., to measure learning outcomes or attitudinal changes), these instruments did elicit learners’ perceived learning progress and outcomes from their personal perspectives (QS 2-L ) as well as their teachers’ (QS 2-T ). Table 4.1 provides an overview of topics, constructs, and themes addressed by the four questionnaires. A variety of primarily closed items were constructed using the questionnaire plugin in the LMS Moodle to elicit these data. Because minimal intrusiveness and a high response rate were desired, the LMS plugin was selected to distribute the questionnaires over potentially more powerful survey tools. The closed items in both surveys included single-choice questions, checklists, numerical questions, and a series of multi-item rating scales. The latter were used in all surveys to make evaluative judgments by marking one of the predefined and quantifiable categories of different degrees of attitudes, opinions, frequencies, or intensity. Different rating scale types were adopted in the surveys: Nominal scales for socio-demographic participant data (e.g., gender, fields of interest, school subjects taught), ordinal scales for Likert-type items on participant attitudes and perceptions (e.g., degree of self-confidence in ICT use, perceived learning outcomes, attitudes towards ICT usage and implementation), and interval scales for frequencies of ICT usage and classroom procedures. 151 4.4 Online questionnaire surveys <?page no="152"?> Content domains Constructs in QS 1-L / QS 1-T Constructs in QS 2-L / QS 2-T topic interest, project participation learners’ interest in U.S. culture and politics, political communication, expectations and concerns toward the project general experiences during the project, overall project evaluation, feedback digital media and web 2.0 availability at home and at school, usage patterns for learning/ teaching and leisure, digital literacy and skills, attitudes type and duration of LMS/ computer use, online learner-learner communication (QS 2-L ) and teacher-learner communication, evaluation of the LMS, learners’ attitudes towards the LMS, functions and func‐ tionality of the LMS, difficulty level of online tasks EFL teaching/ learning practices common EFL classroom practices, EFL motivation and attitudes (QS 1-L ), learner perception of classroom procedures (QS 1-L ), perceived proficiency and self-ef‐ ficacy (QS 1-L ), learning strategies (QS 1-L ), assessment practices (QS 1-T ) learner contributions to task design and implementa‐ tion, perceived competence development, assessment practices (QS 2-T ) English-speaking world personal contacts, stay abroad, significance of inter‐ cultural learning (QS 1-T ), materials for intercultural learning (QS 1-T ) — course information (only QS 1-T / QS 2-T ) number of weekly lessons, size, schooling track, age number of weekly lessons, size, schooling track, age demographic information age, gender, begin of EFL instruction (QS 1-L ), teaching experience (QS 1-T ), teacher education (QS 1-T ), taught school subjects (QS 1-T ) participation in pre-survey, age, gender, begin of EFL instruction (QS 2-L ) Table 4.1: Content domains and constructs of the four questionnaires. (Information in parentheses indicates in which questionnaires the items were included; no indication means the constructs were part of both questionnaires.) 152 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="153"?> 15 Whether Likert-type items, in fact, yield statistically computable interval data is a contested issue, but arguments in favor of this practice can be found in the research methodological literature (e.g., Kampen & Swyngedouw, 2000). For the purpose of this study, responses to Likert-type items were assigned numerical values, allowing for the calculation of a mean value. 16 For the four questionnaires, see Appendices B-E. The Likert scale items were specifically employed to indicate varying degrees of agreement with statements or (perceived) competence in selected ICT practices since individual answer categories could be assigned numbers and summed mathematically (Dörnyei, 2009, p. 27). 15 For example, a four-point Likert scale item in QS 1-T asked teachers to indicate their agreement on using digital media in their classes. One statement read, “I would like to use digital media more often in EFL classes” with the response categories “strongly disagree,” “somewhat disa‐ gree,” “somewhat agree,” or “strongly agree” [QS 1-T -DigMed_Einst03]. Such scale types are suitable for targeting mental variables that defy direct observation by allowing the researcher to break up question items into more fine-grained chunks (ibid., p. 23-5). The formulation of such survey items requires detailed a priori knowledge of the researched constructs and careful wording of equidistant response items to reduce rater subjectivity and ensure methodological rigor. For these purposes, several questionnaire items were borrowed from piloted, validated, and published research instruments, especially large-scale educational surveys like the PISA 2012 survey on “Students, Computers, and Learning” (OECD, 2015), whose items partly overlapped with the present study and which targeted the same age group among students both in Germany and internationally. 16 These instruments’ availability in English and German was advantageous as it allowed for the direct inclusion of validated items in the students’ first language, German (Harkness, 2008). Besides, while the present study was administered exclusively among the project participants, parallel results like those from PIA 2012 can serve as a means of comparison in the same national context. Besides closed items, all four questionnaires included open-ended questions in areas where the range of possible answers could not be predicted a priori and when potential responses were not to be influenced by the range and granularity of the provided response options, such as in the case of participant expectations toward the project or their overall participation experience (Porst, 2014, p. 67). The resulting data add value to the survey by allowing for more subjective and differentiated insights into the investigated constructs, including unexpected or more insightful data (Dörnyei, 2009, p. 36). In terms of respondent engagement, these items also served the purposes of raising participant motivation and 153 4.4 Online questionnaire surveys <?page no="154"?> 17 Participating schools were located in Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Branden‐ burg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony, and Schleswig Holstein. attention and providing space for the inclusion of idiosyncratic views (Riemer, 2016, p. 161). For these reasons, and in order to build respondent rapport (Porst, 2014, pp. 139-46), the opening and closing questions to all four questionnaires were open-ended and focused on respondents’ personal experience, such as the opening question in the learner pre-survey QS 1-L : “The project will begin shortly. What expectations do you have regarding the U.S. Election 2012 School Project? Please answer in bullet points and keyword phrases” [QS 1-L -UT_Erw]. Only subsequently to this item were learners prompted to answer a closed multi-item rating scale on their interest in different aspects of the project topic [QS 1-L -UT_Int]. Upon completing the design of a preliminary item pool, the questionnaires went through multiple feedback cycles in the piloting phase, which involved representatives of the school project organizers, teacher training institutions in Berlin and Brandenburg, doctoral colloquia at different institutions as well as voluntary teachers and students. While the first piloting cycles helped refine the item content and produce an item shortlist for the final questionnaires, the final piloting phases addressed pragmatic aspects of the survey administration (e.g., format, length, comprehensibility, etc.). The parallel questionnaires of the pre-survey (QS 1-L/ T ) were administered via the LMS in September and October of 2012 among registered project participants. It was announced repeatedly via the platform and participant newsletters. The post-survey (QS 2-L/ T ) was administered after the project conclusion starting in November 2012 for six weeks. All questionnaires included additional instructions how to complete them as well as information on the purpose of the survey and information on data privacy and anonymization so all participants, including legal minors, were able to give informed consent to their voluntary participation in the survey (Nunan & Bailey, 2009, p. 148). For all four questionnaires, the targeted population included all students and teachers registered on the LMS. Overall, these were 1,446 EFL learners and 111 teachers in twelve German Bundesländer  17 (cf. chapter 5.3 for a description of the school project context). Since the surveys were filled out voluntarily online, participants could self-select into the sample and drop out between the two surveys, resulting in a convenience or opportunity sample of the population (Table 4.2). Despite repeated attempts to increase the participation rate through personalized reminders, it cannot be ruled out that besides their enrollment in the LMS (i.e., accessibility to the researcher), other aspects like 154 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="155"?> motivation, willingness to participate, or time budgets may have contributed to the respondents’ self-selection (Dörnyei, 2009, p. 64). Therefore, this sample can elicit valuable information about the school project’s macro-perspective, but generalizations beyond this context must be evaluated carefully (Nunan & Bailey, 2009, p. 153). QS 1-L QS 2-L students Σ QS 1-T QS 2-T teachers Σ data sets (n) 402 252 1,446 61 42 111 return rate 28% 17% 100% 55% 38% 100% female 66% 68% 56% 80% 76% 75% male 34% 32% 44% 20% 24% 25% Table 4.2: Key features of survey respondents (QS 1-L/ T , QS 2-L/ T ). 4.5 Classroom-based data collection Moving from the study’s quantitative to the qualitative component, the fol‐ lowing sections introduce the methods of classroom-based data collection, beginning with a general reflection on the EFL classroom’s significance as a research context. The sections on the individual data collection methods each include a brief discussion of this technique, a rationale for its inclusion in this study, and a presentation of the respective research instruments employed. 4.5.1 The EFL classroom as research site and context The ‘classroom’ is a curious and amorphous discursive space, therefore—expanding and contracting under the pressures of different discourses that police its boundaries and construct its interiority in disparate ways. Warm, womb-like, nurturing. Over‐ heated, insular, stifling. Or the no nonsense heartland of education, where (real) teachers teach, children learn and researchers ought to, but don’t, research. (MacLure, 2003, p. 16, qtd. in Kaur, 2012, p. xi) As this quotation by MacLure indicates, (EFL) classrooms are subject to dis‐ course structures and power relations, yet also locally, culturally, and temporally situated, highly complex, and idiosyncratic spaces vastly different from directly controllable laboratory research settings. This complexity is sought to be captured in this present study by the approach of naturalistic, classroom-based 155 4.5 Classroom-based data collection <?page no="156"?> research to “observe and describe learning and teaching as they occur in intact classes; the point is not to intervene in the learning process, but rather to gain detailed information on existing phenomena” (Gass & Mackey, 2007, p. 164). In other words, this study’s approach is located within classrooms which have been constituted for teaching and learning rather than research (Nunan & Bailey, 2009, p. 7); it chiefly focuses on the processes of classroom discourse, behavior, and cognition rather than their products; and is thus rather descriptive than confirmatory in nature (cf. Ellis, 2012, pp. 21-49). Furthermore, such an approach typically adopts an emic perspective, focuses on a limited number of cases with little intervention introduced into the research field, in order to understand the researched phenomena as emergent from their sociocultural contexts and progress from research to theory in a data-driven manner (Ellis, 2012, p. 42). At its most basic level, the EFL classroom is “a physical space that serves as learning environment and is bounded in time; it is managed by a facilitator who normally has expertise in the FL [i.e., foreign language] and in FL pedagogy; and it is populated by groups of people who share the common purpose of learning” (Collins & Muñoz, 2016, p. 134). The choice of the intact EFL classroom as the research site comes with significant challenges. While experimental research under laboratory conditions allows researchers to exert direct control over variables and contextual factors, classroom-based research is less controllable. Indeed, foreign language research increasingly recognizes the “essential and irreducible complexity of the phenomenon of classroom language learning and teaching” (Allwright, 2006, p. 13). Edmondson and House (2011) define this complexity as intersecting variables relating to instruction, the teaching and learning context, personal factors of teachers and learners, sociopolitical factors, and underlying SLA research. A methodological approach that sets out to investigate phenomena within the EFL classroom should capture this complexity to generate better understandings of this context and improve the quality of institutionalized EFL instruction (cf. Caspari, 2016b, pp. 11-2). In this complex and locally situated interplay of factors that constitute classrooms, Graham Nuthall (2012: 3) aptly explains, tasks and other activities constitute the overriding organizational unit that structures learning and discourse. Indeed, tasks play a crucial role in facilitating successful learning according to sociocultural accounts of classroom learning where “higher mental processes (involved in learning from experience) are generated through the in‐ ternalization of culturally structured social activities” (ibid., p. 1). Such activities, however, are not just vehicles to convey conceptual knowledge to students. When enacted in the classroom, tasks both acquire a general structure (i.e., 156 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="157"?> schemata and mental scripts) and give rise to unique processes within those structural boundaries (ibid., p. 4). Moreover, task-based activity within the classroom is affected by public classroom tasks as designed and communicated by the teacher, semi-public peer relationships and interactions, and the students’ private and covert cognitive and emotional experiences in the context of the task. Because these dimensions are only partially observable, and because task-based activity is situated in local classroom cultures, the choice of the intact classroom is deemed essential for the present study. Furthermore, the type of classrooms investigated in this study is characterized by the inclusion of ICT. Collins and Muñoz’s (2016) above definition refers to the brick-and-mortar classroom where learning occurs face-to-face in a “physical space” and “bounded in time” (p. 134). However, the advent of ICT, wireless Internet, and mobile devices is breaking up these boundaries through new opportunities for synchronous and asynchronous communication, collaboration, and the introduction of target language discourses and artifacts into a virtual learning space (Legutke, 2005; T. Schmidt & Strasser, 2016; cf. chapter 3). As teachers and researchers alike, “we are challenged to reshape our notion of the classroom” (Legutke, 2005, p. 127). Teachers and learners today no longer necessarily inhabit the same physical space or engage in classroom activities at the same time, and so EFL classroom researchers “now have to go beyond the four walls of the traditional classrooms to conduct research” (Nunan & Bailey, 2009, p. 21). Finally, in addition to these features of factor complexity, intricate discourse structures, and technological enhancement of the EFL classroom, sociocultural research defines the foreign language classroom as a culture in its own right (Breen, 1985; Legutke & Thomas, 1991, 13-32). According to this understanding, the social and the psychological dimensions of learning are irrevocably linked and mutually engaged, as members of this culture—students, teachers, and potentially others—engage in interpersonal activity and mental processes and changes. It is crucial in this notion, which serves as a guiding principle for this study’s design, that the classroom context itself is not just a background to research or pedagogical practices, but directly and indirectly influences what is said, done, thought, and felt by its members. Therefore, classrooms as culture do not centrally focus on linguistic comprehension by itself, but on “the intersubjective construction of meaningfulness and the subjective reinterpretation of whatever may be rendered comprehensible” (Breen, 1985, p. 142). This culture will resist exposure from a single investigatory lens and instead require an equally complex orchestration of research methods, data sources, and participant perspectives (Müller-Hartmann, 2001, p. 206). 157 4.5 Classroom-based data collection <?page no="158"?> 4.5.2 Sample selection and access This section serves to describe the sample drawn for the classroom-based research component. Access to the field and underlying sampling procedures are sensitive issues in qualitative classroom research and, different than in the quantitative component, aim at identifying groups and individuals who can provide rich and varied insights into the researched phenomenon, while representativeness is less prioritized than in the quantitative surveys (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 126). The intention here is not to determine the scope and distribution of the phenomenon of learner perceptions of technology-enhanced tasks, but rather to achieve a thick description in an iterative research process until theoretical saturation is reached. Several theoretical and pragmatic considerations guided the selection of this study’s participant sample. From a theoretical perspective, secondary EFL courses should, of course, be willing to participate in the school project (i.e., the research context) and actively integrate the LMS in their regular EFL classes (i.e., the research setting) as well as represent the target group of project participants (i.e., advanced-level EFL courses at the upper secondary grade level, Sekundarstufe II). From a practical perspective, these courses had to be accessible to the researcher and, therefore, be located close to the researcher’s institution. Thus, the theoretical criteria entail elements of typical sampling, while the practical criteria introduce elements of convenience sampling to this study. In preparation of the research project, potential research participants were recruited by first seeking consent from the different gatekeepers involved in classroom research, including the state school authority (Niedersächsische Land‐ esschulbehörde), local school administrations, teachers, and students or legal guardians (see the discussion of informed consent and ethical considerations in section 4.8). Months before the school project, secondary schools in the Lüneburg district received an invitation to participate in the school project and the research project, especially those who fulfilled the theoretical sampling criteria. These teachers met for an information session and training workshop with the researcher. From this initial group, a purposive and typical participant sample (Dörnyei, 2007, pp. 127-8) was drawn, consisting of three 11 th -grade EFL courses taught by three teachers in two schools (Gymnasium) in the Lüneburg area. Table 4.3 summarizes key features of this sample, including the school, grade level, number and gender of students, and duration of data collection. Course sizes varied between 18 and 22 students. The learners were 17 years old on average and had attended EFL classes since grade three. All three courses were scheduled twice a week for 90 minutes. The learners in all three cases had been newly assigned to their advanced-level EFL courses just before the data 158 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="159"?> collection and had been learning together for only about two weeks. The school project was carried out in these courses for five weeks between September and November 2012 (interrupted by the fall holidays). Group School Grade Students (m./ f.) Lessons (weeks) 1 Gymnasium 1 EN 11 24 (13, 11) 20 (5) 2 Gymnasium 1 EN 11 22 (4, 18) 13 (5) 3 Gymnasium 2 EN 11 19 (9, 10) 16 (5) Table 4.3: Participant sample of the classroom-based research component. (EN = “erhöhtes Niveau” [advanced level]; m = male; f = female) Overall, the data gathered from this sample includes observational data (vid‐ eography, field notes, tracking, and video screen capture) from 49 lessons (or 24.5 90-minute double lessons), 24 verbal self-reports by teachers (three to seven minutes in length), 28 individual or small-group retrospective learner interviews (five to 13 minutes in length), and 48 learning journal entries from eight focal students (between 69 and 349 words in length). The subsequent chapters introduce these data types and the corresponding methods and instruments of data collection in more detail. 4.5.3 Classroom observation, field notes, and videography This study’s observational methods include direct observation by the researcher, field notes, and classroom videography, allowing the researcher to generate first-hand data by immersing himself in the research setting (Mason, 2018, p. 139). Whether technologically-mediated or not, observation differs from self-report accounts or testing by providing direct information regarding the research object and descriptive, contextual information, instead of relying on the subjective accounts of the participants themselves. Observation provides detailed insights into what happens inside the classroom, but by itself, it is unable to elicit the reasons for specific behaviors or establish causal relation‐ ships between variables and events (cf. Dörnyei, 2007, pp. 178-86). Despite their perceived directness, observation-based procedures reflect the subjectivity and intention of the observer, the selectivity of the research focus and recording devices, and the interpretive analysis of the collected data (Gniewosz, 2011, p. 99). As stated before, observation is suited for documenting externally perceptible information (i.e., verbal and non-verbal communicative behavior 159 4.5 Classroom-based data collection <?page no="160"?> and actions). However, underlying cognitions, emotions, and comprehension evade the scope of this method and must be illuminated through introspection (Schramm & Schwab, 2016, p. 141). In this present study, the researcher sat in on all lessons in the three sampled EFL courses for the duration of their project participation, four lessons per week. This observation followed the principles of non-participant, unstructured observation, which allows for the emergent development of research focus (Nunan & Bailey, 2009, pp. 259-75). Interactions between the researcher and participants were kept to a minimum, the researcher usually remained in the back of the classroom, and recording devices were set up before the lesson to minimize possible intrusions. During the lessons, the researcher took field notes, including a seating plan, and maintained an attendance list. These field notes served as informal documentation of contextual features that easily evade the videography focus (e.g., actions outside the camera scope and intangible aspects like the classroom atmosphere and the students’ moods). They also functioned as signposts of salient classroom events and interactions as well as possible critical incidents. This procedure helped to pre-structure the qualitative analysis of the classroom data and rendered the data corpus manageable. Both functions serve the production of a systematic and thick description of the research context. Field notes and researcher observations were further complemented with classroom videography. This approach is considered an essential component of the research design for two reasons. First, video data conserve classroom procedures and contextual factors and thus make them susceptible to repeated analysis long after the occurrence of the researched event(s), which frees the researcher of the pressure of live-coding and interpretation during the researched event. Second, video data capture interactions beyond their verbal structure as a multimodal process performed under the conditions of physical presence (Dinkelaker & Herrle, 2009, pp. 15-7). For these reasons, videography has figured prominently in L2 classroom research in the last three decades, especially in micro-ethnographic research (Ellis, 2012, p. 108), which relies on “audiovisual machine recordings of naturally occurring social encounters to investigate in minute detail what interactants do in real time as they co-con‐ struct talk-in-interaction in everyday life” (Garcez, 2008, p. 257). Such detailed analysis is only possible with repeated access to the videotaped classroom procedures, which justifies the additional costs and effort this form of data collection necessitates, including ethical considerations of videotaping students and classroom procedures (cf. section 4.8). In preparation for the videography and the qualitative data collection pro‐ cedures overall, a classroom research memo (cf. Appendix F) was created 160 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="161"?> detailing all procedures for the classroom-based data collection in this study. For classroom videography, it included a technical checklist of required recording devices, consent forms, and an overview of instructional phases to be recorded. Typically, two cameras were set up in the focal classrooms before the official start of the lesson. During plenary phases, a macro-lens camera recorded the en‐ tire class frontally, while a second camera recorded the teacher and chalkboard (or interactive whiteboard, respectively) from behind the students. An external microphone was connected to the frontal camera to record public classroom discourse. This set-up was altered during group and pair work phases to record a randomly selected learner group besides the general classroom procedures. The cameras were set up during analog lessons in the courses’ regular classrooms and during the technology-enhanced lessons in the computer lab, thus capturing the courses’ full project participation during regular class times. Lastly, just as direct observation reflects the observer’s selective attention and subjectivity, so does videography. It facilitates a selective view of reality, shaped by the choice and usage of the technical equipment. Likewise, these issues can also influence the success of videography. As Dörnyei (2007) aptly states: “There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Murphy (from ‘Murphy’s Laws’) was originally a classroom researcher and it was this experience which originally generated his rather gloomy worldview” (p. 187). Thus, as more technical devices are introduced into the research procedure, the greater the risk of unexpected mishaps and lost data. Additionally, observation is a social process and can itself influence the reality it seeks to observe. Besides the aspect of distraction and intrusiveness mentioned above, a less obvious aspect relates to the learners’ awareness of the researcher’s and the recording equipment’s presence, which can cause unwanted biases in learner behavior commonly referred to as the ‘Hawthorne effect’ (ibid., p. 53). These aspects add to the initially stated caveat of observational methods that they can only document visually perceptible behavior and therefore require triangulation with introspective instruments. Before addressing these, the next section first describes the methods of user tracking and screen capture, two approaches that technically belong to the domain of observational methods but are mediated by technology in multiple ways. 4.5.4 Tracking data: Video screen capture and LMS meta-data As sub-categories of observation, user tracking and screen capture were em‐ ployed in this study to reconstruct the learners’ interaction with the computer and the LMS in particular. In the context of CALL research, there are three types 161 4.5 Classroom-based data collection <?page no="162"?> of tracking. First, video screen capture software like Camtasia is used to record users’ on-screen actions by producing video files of this user behavior. Second, tracking software is used for logging user activities like keystrokes, mouse clicks, and web histories by producing some form of computer code (Fischer, 2007, p. 411). A third type, eye-tracking, whereby the user’s gaze movements are recorded and matched with on-screen content and behavior (O'Rourke et al., 2015), was not employed in this. User tracking is becoming increasingly common in CALL research to docu‐ ment minute processes of user-machine interaction (Fischer, 2007; Hamel & Séror, 2016). Studies of this type reject the equation of ‘availability = use’ re‐ garding the implementation of ICT as overly simplistic and investigate whether and how learners use technology in practice rather than exploring software functionalities in isolation (Fischer, 2007, p. 410). Regarding this study’s research interest, tracking has been specifically applied to investigate learner agency in technology-enhanced learning environments. For instance, by demonstrating learners’ use of ancillary software components and revealing sometimes poor decisions about courseware navigation and control, user tracking can highlight the need for learner training. Likewise, tracking has been employed to define different types of users in CALL environments and show discrepancies between students’ recorded and self-reported technology use (ibid., pp. 413-29). Screen capture, in particular, offers researchers innovative approaches to investigate the links between foreign language literacy development and lan‐ guage and technology-enhanced language learning tasks (Hamel & Séror, 2016, p. 138). Such software is capable of documenting and making visible the mo‐ ment-by-moment processes in which learners engage during task performance and thereby facilitate a “focus on the quality of the user-task-tool interactions at the computer, on the mediations with the task and the tools and on the various choices, paths (optimal, efficient, etc.) students make and take as they use [the computer]” (ibid., p. 153). The affordances of screen capture and user tracking, moreover, include their multimodality as they record visual, audio, and textual data and synchronize these for later analysis. In the present study, this extended beyond on-screen behavior as the software was applied in combination with webcams to capture learners’ facial expressions, gaze, and body language, which indicate users’ social interactions behind the screen or even instances of non-understanding (B. Smith, 2017, p. 453). Likewise, this method is comparatively non-intrusive as learners may quickly forget their screens are being recorded since no additional hardware is involved. 162 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="163"?> Figure 4.2: Video screen capture with webcam recording added in picture-in-picture format [2012-09-21_sc_NH_seq87]. This study integrated tracking in a twofold manner. The LMS automatically logged all registered users’ actions (e.g., signing in or out, accessing pages or assignments, submitting assignments, and posting in a forum). Users gave their consent to this practice during their registration and were informed that their user data were exclusively used for research purposes and treated confidentially. The generated user logs were used to identify active users and gather basic parameters of learners’ LMS actions and log times. More importantly, however, selected learners’ screen actions were recorded during technology-enhanced lessons using the screen capturing software Camtasia to collect on-screen process data of their task performances. Typically, one individual or a pair of students were selected at random at the beginning of a lesson. These focal students then worked with a computer or laptop with the screen capture software pre-installed. They were informed about the recording procedures, which also included webcam recordings of themselves and their verbal interactions. The resulting data are video recordings of these learners’ screens with the webcam recordings added in a picture-in-picture format (see example in Figure 4.2). 163 4.5 Classroom-based data collection <?page no="164"?> 4.5.5 Interviews and verbal self-reports During the entire phase of classroom-based data collection, qualitative inter‐ views were conducted with teachers and learners in all three focal classrooms. In particular, semi-structured interviews with focal learners were conducted immediately after each lesson, with teachers and learners after the school project, and all three teachers recorded oral self-reports after each lesson. One of the most common data elicitation techniques in qualitative research, qualitative interviews represent an introspective approach—an interactional ex‐ change to obtain descriptions and interpretations about the research object from the interviewee: “The research interview is an inter-view where knowledge is constructed in the inter-action between the interviewer and the interviewee” (Kvale, 2007, p. 1). Based on the understanding of knowledge as co-constructed and contextual (Mason, 2018, p. 110), interviews are a principled approach to construct knowledge and understandings of phenomena under the conditions of a specific situation and context rather than uncover objective truths. Interviews thus help respondents to construct data and knowledge during the interactional process. Unlike questionnaires, interviews do not yield generalizable data but situated knowledge. This objective presupposes that interviewers must skillfully bring relevant contexts into focus by relating the interview to specific experiences and attitudes rather than hypothetical questions. If interviews are processes of co-construction, then different interview types yield different results (Friebertshäuser & Langer, 2010, p. 438). Research methodological literature distinguishes interviews based on their degree of openness and control (e.g., open, semi-structured, or unstructured interviews), their function (e.g., expert interviews, focus interviews, narrative interviews, problem-centered interviews), or the type of introspection involved (e.g., con‐ current introspection, immediate or delayed retrospection) (Dörnyei, 2007; Friebertshäuser & Langer, 2010; Nunan & Bailey, 2009; Heinz Reinders et al., 2011; Riemer, 2016). Regarding the degree of openness and control, this study employed semi-structured interviews, since this interview type allows the researcher to broadly control the scope and course of the interview with the help of an interview manual while granting respondents to use their own categories and formulations and develop their own emphasis (Dörnyei, 2007, pp. 134-6; Heinz Reinders et al., 2011, p. 94; Riemer, 2016, pp. 163-5). The semi-structured learner interviews were typically conducted with one or several focal students immediately after a lesson and addressed their perceptions and performance of technology-enhanced language tasks. Also referred to as focus interviews, this interview type was used to reconstruct subjective attributions of meaning to experiences in specific classroom situations during the investigated lessons. 164 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="165"?> Due to their implementation immediately after the lesson, these learner interviews adopt the principle of immediate retrospection. Although, from a theoretical perspective, the gap between the investigated mental state (i.e., the task perceptions) and the act of introspection is closest in concurrent verbal introspection (e.g., in think-aloud protocols), this approach was not considered due to its incompatibility with the premises of naturalistic classroom-based re‐ search. Think-aloud protocols inadvertently would have disrupted the authentic classroom procedures and increased cognitive load for the learners due to the increased demands of verbalization in the L1, or the less proficient medium of the L2, while engaging in an L2 task. Such an approach additionally could have caused an observer’s paradox (Labov, 1972, p. 209)—if told to verbalize their task performance, learners might engage in different task procedures than they usually would. For these practical and methodological reasons, retrospective learner interviews were conducted immediately after the lesson in German and with elements of stimulated recall, such as presenting informants with their task outcomes or asking them to re-tell the lesson from their point of view. Likewise, immediate retrospection was preferred over delayed retrospection to ensure learners’ ability to describe what they did and thought during task performance rather than referring to generalized behavioral patterns or more stable beliefs (cf. Cohen, 1994, pp. 679-80). Finally, teachers’ retrospective oral self-reports complemented these learner interviews. All three focal teachers were given a self-interview manual before the data collection phase and were instructed to record their oral reflections on the proposed aspects on the same day after each lesson. The self-report guide addressed the relation between teacher intention and learner percep‐ tion and performance of tasks, namely between the task-as-workplan and task-in-process. To this end, teachers should recall and reflect upon instances where challenges in the task-in-process led to task modifications by the learners in general and divergent task perceptions by individual learners. This approach incorporates features of expert interviews (Meuser & Nagel, 2010): The three teachers were assigned the expert status based on the understanding that they are highly knowledgeable about contextual variables of the classrooms based on their experience in this field. Such expert accounts of the investigated phenomenon can carry a guiding or exploratory function so that these teacher accounts allowed to identify salient features of the learners’ task perceptions and performances and thereby pre-structure the data analysis thematically. 165 4.5 Classroom-based data collection <?page no="166"?> 18 In the literature, the terms learning log and diary can be found as well, although without a clear-cut distinction. These terms are used synonymously in this text. 19 For an overview of learning journals in SLA research, see Nunan and Bailey (2009, pp. 292-300) and Curtis and Bailey (2009). 4.5.6 Learning journals Besides retrospective interviews and verbal self-reports, learning journals were used as a third introspective data collection method in this study. 18 The learning journal is a written first-person account of learning experiences. Like interviews and oral self-reports, it is a form of introspection as it illuminates affective, cognitive, and emotional factors of the informant or even learning strategies and learner perceptions, which can otherwise hardly be recorded (cf. Bailey, 1991, pp. 60-1; Curtis & Bailey, 2009, pp. 68-71; Dörnyei, 2007, p. 156). Learning journals have a long tradition in SLA research investigating learners’ accounts of classroom procedures concerning language anxiety (Bailey, 1983; Gkonou, 2013), learning styles and strategies (Carson & Longhini, 2002; Ellis, 1989; Halbach, 2000), learner autonomy ( Jiménez Raya, 2006), divergent teacher and learner perceptions of classroom procedures (Block, 1996), and socio-psycholog‐ ical factors impacting language learning ( J. Huang, 2005). 19 The critical potential of learning journals for naturalistic classroom-based research, as described here, lies with the fact that they can facilitate the elicitation of retrospective learner data without obstructing the language class. Learners can compose their journal entries after the described event at their convenience. The informants can express their subjective descriptions and interpretations of events in their own words and thereby place the focus of collected data on aspects that are salient or otherwise important to them. Because this process is typically done in writing, journal data often stem from a state of heightened concentration and awareness (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 158). Also, when learners keep a learning diary at regular intervals over prolonged periods, the resulting data can reveal dynamic developments, changes, and the emergence of phenomena or mental states within the learner. However, the informants’ literacy skills and reflective competence pose possible limitations to this as to most other introspective approaches (Riemer, 2016, pp. 161-2). Regarding the phase of data analysis, Bailey (1991) distinguishes primary diary analyses, where the diarist performs the analysis himor herself, and secondary diary analyses, where the diary is analyzed and interpreted by someone other than the diarist. In this latter form, which this study adopted, “the learners’ journal entries provide both the data and an ‘emic’ (insider’s) view of language learning, while the researcher’s use of SLA theory and 166 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="167"?> 20 In the literature, artifacts have also been referred to as ‘texts’ (e.g. ‘learner texts,’ Legutke, 2009) or ‘classroom-related products’ (Caspari, 2016a). previous research can provide an ‘etic’ interpretation in the analysis” (ibid., pp. 70-1). In total, eight focal students in the three classrooms volunteered to keep event-contingent learning journals (i.e., for each lesson). The journals were not part of their curriculum but kept solely for the purpose of this study. All students initially confirmed they felt comfortable writing about personal learning experiences, and they were assured of their journals’ confidential treatment. This is relevant since two pre-conditions for effective journaling are that informants maintain a threshold of trust with the researcher (and the research project) and that their literacy levels permit them to describe their perspective with sufficient detail accurately. Accordingly, all student diarists chose to write their journal entries in German. Initially, the informants received a detailed question guide containing different question categories based on Breen’s (1987) model of learner contributions to task design (cf. section 2.3.1) along with various sample questions from which they could select whichever they deemed relevant in light of the respective lesson. Dörnyei (2007, p. 158) mentions that attrition and learner fatigue are among the main threats to learner journals as a research method. Hence, journal entries tend to become shorter as the research project progresses. Although this aspect should be mitigated by offering learners a choice between diverse thematic foci, this could nevertheless be observed in this study’s elicited journal data. Learners typed their entries using word processing software and emailed them to the researcher on the day of the lesson or, at the latest, the next day. 4.5.7 Classroom artifacts: Learner texts and teaching materials The final information source tapped in this study consists of classroom artifacts 20 collected during the investigated lessons. Terminologically, we are dealing with ‘documents’ rather than data here: While research data are created or elicited for the purpose of research, classroom artifacts are genuine products of classroom procedures and authored by those who act within the classroom context; they are only subsequently gathered and repurposed for the goal of scientific inquiry by the researcher (Legutke, 2016b, pp. 61-2). Classroom artifacts are not limited to written code, but can also include oral, graphic, and multimodal texts; they can be authored by learners, teachers, and other stakeholders involved in classroom procedures; and they may be created in preparation of, during, or as result of instructional procedures (cf. Caspari, 167 4.5 Classroom-based data collection <?page no="168"?> 2016a for an overview of categories and examples). In this study, various learner and teacher texts were gathered as supplementary information sources complementing the observational and introspective data. Following Caspari’s (2016a) blanket definition of classroom-related products, many of the classroom artifacts qualifying as such products can be subsumed under the data types previously discussed in this chapter. The following learner texts were collected or recorded during the classroom-based research: - monologic and dialogic oral learner texts like classroom presentations, debates, or role-plays recorded as part of the videography (cf. section 4.5.3); - digital written learner texts such as forum postings and online comments automatically documented via the LMS (cf. section 4.5.4); - written and multimodal learner texts either uploaded to the LMS or pub‐ lished on Web 2.0 platforms by the students, including highly complex learner products submitted to the student competition as part of the school project, for example, YouTube videos, websites and blogs, posters, multi‐ media presentations, poems, and role play scripts (Kaliampos & Schmidt, 2014; cf. chapter 5). In the context of the EFL classroom—and beyond, as the digital learner publi‐ cations in the school project demonstrate—these learner texts carry multiple pedagogical and research-related functions contributing unique insights to this study. Because learner texts are not created primarily for research purposes, many of their pedagogical advantages also apply to L2 research. For example, learner texts are expressions of learners’ individuality and the heterogeneity of the learner group. They challenge learners’ creativity by inviting learners to experiment with meaning, form, and function of linguistic and non-linguistic means, thereby escaping the heteronomy of the school context. They are also the object of reflection since they demonstrate the opportunities and limitations of learners’ ability to do things with language (Legutke, 2008, pp. 31-2). Learner texts thus facilitate a holistic depiction of classroom reality capturing the interconnectedness of contents, procedures, and persons (Legutke, 2009). Caspari (2016a, p. 200) argues that learner texts, therefore, possess a high degree of authenticity as genuine products of naturalistic classroom procedures. This is of particular relevance for the present study because learner texts can shed light on otherwise opaque learner competencies besides linguistic and communicative ones, such as creativity and text genre appropriateness. Likewise, a variety of teacher texts or instructional texts, respectively, were gathered in the school project. Again, many of these text types were 168 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="169"?> previously discussed in the context of classroom observation and online tracking procedures. They include: - teacher announcements and messages to the students via the LMS; - task instructions, like handout copies distributed during class; - administrative documents like class rolls; - oral self-reports on implementing planned classroom procedures (cf. section 4.5.5); and - evaluative feedback to learner texts via the LMS (cf. section 4.5.4). Taken together, these various forms of classroom artifacts are used in this study to complement procedural data of classroom observation and video screen capture, as well as the introspective data of interviews and learning journals with a product-dimension. It is through such documents that learners’ goal orientations and teachers’ pedagogical intentions often become comprehensible to outside observers of the specific classroom culture. 4.6 Data preparation, analysis, and interpretation After having outlined the data collection procedures and types of data resulting from these in the previous sections, this section explains which measures were taken to prepare the collected data for analysis and which analytical procedures were employed for both quantitative and qualitative procedures. 4.6.1 Quantitative procedures The analytic procedures for all four questionnaire surveys were the same. They involved data preparation for coding, computation of descriptive statistics for closed items, qualitative content analysis for open-ended items, and finally, the selection of items for the analysis. Upon completing the surveys and terminating their administration via the LMS, the raw survey data were exported from the LMS and prepared for the subsequent analysis. This step involved inputting data from parallel paper-and-pencil questionnaires administered in person during the project’s concluding student conference and assigning unique identifiers to each questionnaire dataset as well as each questionnaire item, which are also used to report the questionnaire findings in chapter 6. The raw data were subsequently coded (i.e., converted into numerical values). Accordingly, each of the values a variable could take was specified and documented in a separate codebook comprising the coding frames for each questionnaire survey 169 4.6 Data preparation, analysis, and interpretation <?page no="170"?> (i.e., questions/ descriptors, items, response options, and descriptive statistical results; 171 pp. overall). The converted data were then entered into Microsoft Excel for the subsequent statistical analysis. Statistical operations are, in Vygotsky’s terms, cultural tools allowing the researcher to gather information systematically about a research object and draw informed conclusions based on its results (Grum & Zydatiß, 2016, p. 319). In line with the research interest associated with the participant surveys, the survey data were summarized through descriptive statistics, which render the vast amount of numerical data manageable by revealing exceptionally high or low frequencies or trends (e.g., mean), and how many deviations exist from these identified trends (e.g., standard deviation) (Settinieri, 2016, p. 327). In contrast to inferential statistics, descriptive statistics are specific to the given sample and do not facilitate generalizations beyond the sample itself (Dörnyei & Csizér, 2012, p. 85). However, the survey analysis in this study exclusively relies on descriptive statistical procedures. The resulting figures reflect overall trends and proportions among the specific group of school project participants, referred to as the project’s macro-perspective, and to guide the subsequent qualitative analysis of classroom-based data. Because the school project represents the cen‐ tral focus of this study, and due to the primacy of the qualitative classroom-based component in the mixed-methods design, this study did not seek inferential statistical operations. This also relates to the sampling procedures of the surveys, which primarily relied on convenience and purposive sampling, driven by the respondents’ self-selection into the survey. Inferential statistical procedures, aimed at producing generalizable results about a particular population, would have required more principled sampling procedures and likely would have collided with the intended primary focus on the project and its participants (cf. Grum & Zydatiß, 2016, p. 321). In other words, the surveys’ underlying rationale rests on describing the research context and guiding the qualitative analysis, not on making inferences about ICT use in EFL in general. Likewise, since several of the survey items, such as item batteries on participants’ ICT use and attitudes, were drawn from large-scale educational surveys like PISA 2012 (OECD, 2015), it was assumed comparative data could be consulted if necessary. The analysis and interpretation of open-ended responses (i.e., open-ended items on participants’ interests and expectations, concerns; project experience and task perception/ evaluation) required a different, non-statistical approach. For these items, qualitative content analysis was performed, whereby broad response categories were identified, defined, and reiterated until categorical saturation. This approach of qualitative content analysis is described in more detail below in connection to the analysis of qualitative classroom-based data. 170 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="171"?> The resulting categories of the surveys’ open items are listed and described in chapter 6 (Table 6.1 and Table 6.5). Finally, this study only reports selected survey items and findings that directly relate to the research questions (cf. section 4.1) as well as the description of the research context and the population of the project participants. This focus was refined during the research process. Hence several items initially included in the surveys (e.g., on generally established EFL teaching or assessment practices) are not considered in the subsequent analysis. Besides, several items primarily served the purpose of the school project’s evaluation for the various stakeholders and funding partners involved (e.g., how teachers had learned about the project or the participants’ project evaluation) and are thus not considered here. 4.6.2 Qualitative procedures 4.6.2.1 Qualitative data analysis Data analysis is the central step in qualitative research. Whatever the data are, it is their analysis that, in a decisive way, forms the outcomes of the research. (Flick, 2014, p. 3) As the quotation by Flick indicates, decisions made at the level of qualitative data analysis fundamentally determine as well as shape what can be inferred from the data sources and research methods adopted in the research project, as discussed in the preceding sections. Qualitative data analysis, in general, can be understood as a move from meanings to representations, which typically involves the classification and interpretation of large amounts of text-based or multimodal materials to infer “implicit and explicit dimensions and structures of meaning-making in the material and what is represented in it (ibid., p. 5). Given the wide range of contexts and disciplines in which qualitative approaches are applied today, researchers have access to a proliferating amount of quali‐ tative methods and must critically assess which approach, or combination of approaches, they should engage in light of the research interest, data types, and the study’s objectives (Demirkaya, 2014, p. 213). Overall, qualitative approaches aiming at reducing the amount of data or their complexity, often through some form of coding, can be distinguished from approaches that expand the material through additional interpretations (Flick, 2014, p. 11). Major approaches which can be placed along this continuum, from the former to the latter pole, include Qualitative Content Analysis (Mayring, 2015), Narrative Interviews (Schütze, 171 4.6 Data preparation, analysis, and interpretation <?page no="172"?> 1983), Thematic Coding (Flick, 1996), or Grounded Theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Despite such differences, Dörnyei (2007, pp. 243-5) identifies four common characteristics of qualitative data analysis in applied linguistics. Qualitative approaches to data analysis, firstly, are language-based as most research data are typically transformed into a textual form, and analysis is mostly performed and presented through text. It secondly involves iterative processes as researchers move back and forth between data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Third, qualitative approaches attempt to combine the researcher’s subjective intuition with formalization in the form of ‘rigorous flexibility’ to leave an audit trail and facilitate intersubjectivity, although qualitative approaches can differ significantly in their degree of formalization. Fourth, the spectrum of analytical approaches ranges from specific methodologies to generic analytical moves like coding and memoing. Qualitative content analysis is among the most widely established approaches to qualitative data analysis. It was adopted for the analysis of the class‐ room-based data types discussed in the preceding subchapters as it allows for the joint analysis of different data sources, especially of large data corpora, is adaptable to different research foci, and is flexible enough to facilitate a combination of inductive emergence and deductive assignment of codes and categories during the analysis (Schreier, 2014). Initially developed in the first half of the 20 th century as quantitative content analysis to systematically describe the content of communications and large corpora of news and entertainment media, the method’s qualitative variant was developed by researchers in the social sciences to uncover deeper-seated, latent, and more context-dependent meanings of texts and interactions through interpretive-reconstructive analysis (Dörnyei, 2007, pp. 245-6). Whereas quantitative content analysis primarily operates with deductive, concept-driven coding frames, qualitative content analysis seeks to describe meanings as they relate to the context under analysis, which is ensured by the inclusion of data-driven, inductive codes reflecting the emic perspectives of the investigated participants and their intentions and per‐ sonal plans and motives (Schreier, 2014, p. 173). Therefore, qualitative content analysis is a popular analytical approach for complex investigation fields like the EFL classroom (cf. section 4.5.1), in which researchers seek to infer such intricate layers of meaning from complex collections of verbal and non-verbal, observational and introspective data (Burwitz-Melzer, 2016, p. 258). Despite the emergence of different variants of the method, all approaches subsumed under this label follow the general sequence of transcribing the data, coding for themes, looking for patterns, and building theory (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 246). 172 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="173"?> This study’s classroom-based component adopts inductive qualitative content analysis, in which the research data are used to develop codes inductively and thus determine the structure of the resulting coding frame (Burwitz-Melzer, 2016). This ensures that the coding frame matches the data and provides an accurate description of the material (Schreier, 2014, p. 171). With its data-driven coding procedures in addition to iterative and emergent theory-formation, inductive qualitative content analysis considerably overlaps with key features of Grounded Theory (Kuckartz, 2018, p. 82). Before outlining how this study implemented this method, the next section first introduces the transcription procedures. 4.6.2.2 Data preparation and transcription The recorded classroom data had to be processed digitally to render them available to the subsequent computer-aided analysis. Besides mostly technical measures of renaming, converting, and compressing files systematically as well as merging video files and synchronizing video and audio recordings, this involved transcribing the different data sources. Transcription is a necessary step in qualitative research to set down the verbal research material in writing. Recording and transcription serve the purpose of manifesting the ephemeral and elusive interactions as well as behaviors of research participants in a more permanent, yet significantly reduced form of written records (Kowal & O'Connell, 2014, p. 65). No matter the selected transcription convention or depth of detail, textual transcripts are selective and reduced approximations of the events and interactions they represent. Verbal (e.g., para-linguistic phenomena and suprasegmental characteristics) as well as non-vocal bodily movements and extralinguistic behaviors (e.g., gaze and gesture, body language, movements) are often stripped from the transcripts or only inadequately reflected in them: “the written record cannot be accepted uncritically as a reliable source of analyses accurately reflecting the mental, social, affective and cultural components of both individual and group performance” (ibid.). In this sense, transcripts are neither complete nor objective, and necessarily reflect the research interest, mediated by the individual choice of transcription framework (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 247). However, which convention is ideal? Indeed, the perfect transcription does not exist and, like the approach to data analysis at large, should be determined following the research interest and data types (Kowal & O'Connell, 2014, p. 65). Different transcription conventions omit and emphasize different aspects of the data, thus leading to different representations thereof and inherently risking to create a systemic bias in the process (ibid.: 72). For instance, conversation 173 4.6 Data preparation, analysis, and interpretation <?page no="174"?> analytic conventions like the Jeffersonian Transcript Notation ( Jefferson, 2004), GAT (‘Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem,’ Selting et al., 1998), and its English translation GAT2 (‘discourse and conversation-analytic transcription system’ Couper-Kuhlen & Barth-Weingarten, 2011) are commonly applied to represent the sequential characteristics of talk-in-interaction (e.g., including prosodic features and overlaps between speakers) from an etic perspective. The HIAT system (‘Halbinterpretative Arbeitstranskription,’ ‘semi-interpretative working transcription,’ Ehlich & Rehbein, 1976), popular in functional prag‐ matic discourse analysis, uses score notation which arrays semiotic events horizontally and represents simultaneous acoustic events as well as additional descriptions or annotations in parallel tracks on the vertical axis. An essential requirement for the present study was to reflect the complex arrangement of factors, speakers, and actions commonly encountered in intact classrooms as well as the focal students’ on-screen behavior (cf. section 4.5.1; Schramm, 2014). For the transcription of such nonverbal behavior, Mempel and Mehlhorn (2014, p. 159) argue that conventions should be practicable, capable of depicting relevant phenomena adequately and neutrally, yet be flexible enough to account for specific characteristics targeted by the research question. Biebigh‐ äuser (2014), in a study on intercultural and foreign language learning in virtual worlds, also employed screen capture and experimented with MoViQ (‘Movies and Videos in Qualitative Research,’ Przyborski & Wohlrab-Sahr, 2014), which also uses score notation with consecutive still images of the video material in one track and verbal interactions and other characteristics below the respective images to indicate their synchronicity. The author eventually dismissed this approach on the grounds of practicability and minimal analytical affordances for her study as students often remained on the same websites for extended periods or did not engage in observable behavior at their devices. Instead, a simpler, text-based variant of this transcription convention (TiQ, ‘Talk in Qualitative Research,’ Przyborski, 1998) was adopted with still images of the video track selectively added to the transcript when significant on-screen actions or learner behavior occurred. T. Schmidt (2007) took a similar approach in a study on pair work with computer-assisted self-study courseware, in which pairs of students were recorded at the computer along with their on-screen actions. Schmidt’s transcripts were arrayed in a table format with individual columns for time (i.e., class phase), on-screen behavior (i.e., description of software interaction), and student interactions (i.e., verbatim transcription of student dialog) to which still images of the software recording were selectively added. A third example, Dooly’s (2018) study on learners’ self-initiated technology use in ICT, employed pictorial transcription, which the author developed to 174 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="175"?> 21 For an overview of the notation rules, see Appendix A; for sample data transcripts, see Appendices H-J. 22 MAXQDA is a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software widely adopted in the social sciences (https: / / www.maxqda.de/ ). capture those moments of technology use and CMC in which on-screen actions rather than oral learner interaction are better suited to describe the observed task behavior. In the absence of verbal interactions, the author selected relevant still frames of previously identified critical learning incidents and added textual descriptions of the learning context or learner behavior based on her field notes. In the present study, a similar approach to the three studies cited above was taken: A modified vertical transcription convention based on Dresing et al. (2015) was adopted for all interview and videography-based data. 21 This is an or‐ thographic transcription with individual turns displayed as separate paragraphs or sequences, consecutively numbered and time-stamped. Non-verbal behavior was added as a textual description in double parentheses in the speaking turn in which it occurs or if it did not accompany a verbal interaction, as an independent turn. This procedure especially also applies to student-computer interactions and on-screen behavior. Students’ keystrokes, such as online search nodes or forum posts, are added within the textual descriptions in angle brackets. This level of detail in the transcripts was deemed enough, following Mempel’s and Mehlhorn’s (2014, p. 158) suggestion that because of the selective and reductionist nature of transcripts, researchers are advised to perform their analysis using coarse transcripts alongside the primary video data if both can be synchronized with analysis software. The MAXQDA software 22 facilitated such parallel access to transcripts and video files in the transcripts with the help of time-stamps. Furthermore, in order to preserve the multi-perspectivity of the recorded lessons, they had to be transcribed at least twice: once from the perspective of the macro-lens capturing the teacher and the public classroom discourse (e.g., to capture teacher-class dialog and task instructions by the teacher) and a second time from the perspective of the student camera(s) or webcam(s) to document minute instances of task performance. This latter perspective, in turn, involved the two video tracks of the webcam recording of the student(s) at the computer, and the screen capture documenting their on-screen behavior. Thus, all four video tracks (teacher camera/ macro lens, class camera, screen capture, webcam) were merged into a single, split-screen video frame with each video track sized according to the primary focus of the transcription, so that several split-screen videos of the same focal lesson were produced. For instance, for the recording of public classroom procedures such as teacher-student dialog or task instructions, 175 4.6 Data preparation, analysis, and interpretation <?page no="176"?> one file was produced with either the teacher camera in large format in the center and the other tracks added in a smaller format in the right-hand margin. By contrast, for the analysis of the focal students’ physical, verbal, and on-screen actions, another file was produced with the screen capture in the center and the other video tracks by the side. Accordingly, the audio tracks of the non-focal video tracks had to be muted. The classroom video was usually transcribed first, and, in a second step, the transcription of the focal student’s behavior and interactions were added. Finally, a segment analysis (Dinkelaker & Herrle, 2009, pp. 54-64) of each focal lesson was created based on the classroom transcript to identify and describe individual lesson segments and task phases as an orienting overview of the lesson. 4.6.2.3 Coding procedures and codes Once the interview and videography data were transcribed, the interpretative step of coding the data could be launched, adopting the methodological guide‐ lines of inductive qualitative content analysis. Coding refers to the assignment of labels to segments of the research aimed at reducing or simplifying the data and emphasize certain aspects as they relate to the research focus and broader topics or concepts. (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 250). It is thus a process of restructuring the data at the formal and conceptual levels, whereby the material’s original order is replaced with a systematic one based on paradigmatic similarity relationships, so that coded segments can be iteratively examined and compared, both between and within categories (Maxwell & Chmiel, 2014, p. 24). Coding relates to the common distinction in qualitative research between similarity and contiguity (Maxwell & Chmiel, 2014), which is highly relevant for the data analysis in this study. While similarity-based relations involve resemblance or shared features, identifiable through categorizing strategies independent of time and place, contiguity-based relations involve juxtaposition in time and place and are identifiable through the connections between things (ibid., p. 22). As mentioned above, coding is inherently a process of segmenting and rearranging the research data based on similarity relations so that aggregate data segments rise to broader concepts or patterns. This is a necessary step for systematizing the data analysis and developing condensed descriptions of relevant concepts found in the data. However, it may be done at the cost of disconnecting these concepts from the contexts from which they emerged (i.e., their contiguity-based relations), thus imposing “a uniform account on the actual diversity of such relationships” (Maxwell & Chmiel, 2014, p. 26). This is especially problematic given the highly situated nature of task perceptions and agency. Hence, analytic approaches to these constructs should recontextualize 176 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="177"?> the identified categories in situated contexts bound by time and space. For this reason, the coding procedures outlined below are followed by narrative case studies (cf. section 4.6.2.4), which emphasize contiguity-based relations of the data. Figure 4.3: Exemplary code memo on ‘usability.’ (The memo includes the definition and indicators, limitations an anchor example, discussion, and background/ research literature.) 177 4.6 Data preparation, analysis, and interpretation <?page no="178"?> For the actual coding of the data in this study, most of the central requirements for coding frames in qualitative content analysis (Schreier, 2014, pp. 174-5) were applied to the video and interview data using MAXQDA. The first requirement states that main categories should cover one concept only (i.e., unidimension‐ ality), although the coding frame as a whole usually covers different concepts and is thus multidimensional. Second, sub-categories within a main category should be mutually exclusive (i.e., mutual exclusiveness). Third, all relevant aspects of the material must be covered by a category to ensure that all parts of the material are equally accounted for (i.e., exhaustiveness). In preparation for the coding frame, a data sample was selected for the development and piloting of coding categories. These categories were created inductively during initial iterations of open coding (i.e., structuring), although prior knowledge of the related research literature and the study’s goals certainly influenced coding foci and decisions in this phase. Due to this inductive approach, the strategies of subsumption and summarizing then served to generate sub-categories (Schreier, 2014, p. 176). Subsumption involves the researcher reading the material and successively checking whether existing subcategories cover relevant passages; if this is not the case, subcategories may be modified or created anew. In successive summarizing, the researcher summarizes data segments first and then subsumes similar paraphrases into categories. Parallel to these processes of structuring and generating, the emerging categories were defined in memos by assigning concise names, adding descriptions including basic definitions and indicators for coding, selecting anchor examples, formulating points of discussion, and later connecting these categories to the research literature (Figure 4.3). Similarly, short summaries were formulated for coded data segments to facilitate better orientation during the analysis and to advance the aforementioned strategy of successive summarizing (Figure 4.4). Though these steps are presented here as linear, the actual coding process was iterative, beginning from descriptive categories on the surface level of the data and moving to higher-order coding in which preliminary categories were refined, merged, and hierarchized; from inductive emergence to deductive contextualization and validation. Finally, although qualitative content analysis strictly calls for a unified coding scheme applicable to all research data without further alterations or extensions after the piloting phase (Schreier, 2014), these principles were not adopted in this study. For practical and theoretical reasons, two separate but interrelated schemes were employed for the videography data and the interviews, because of their different foci (cf. Table 4.4). For instance, while the videography scheme captured procedural phenomena like instances of students asking for help or teachers modeling the LMS use on a projected screen, the interviews also 178 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="179"?> elicited reflections on (non-procedural) attitudes, experiences, and knowledge. Because of the subsequent focus on individual cases of the data, later changes to the coding scheme; and associated reiterations of the coding process were not rejected categorically in order to capture possible variances between the cases and their underlying data. Furthermore, the case study approach meant that the sequential and contextual emergence of phenomena was deemed more important than a fine-grained coding frame, so it was not necessary to divide the resulting codes into the smallest possible units. Figure 4.4: Overview of coded segments for the category ‘usability’ with summaries of coded segments listed in MAXQDA. 179 4.6 Data preparation, analysis, and interpretation <?page no="180"?> Classroom observation (videography, screen capture) Teacher role - classroom management (monitoring technology use; managing engagement; man‐ aging time and space) - task instructions (written instructions; oral instructions; online instructions; mod‐ eling technology use/ ‘show-and-tell’) - teacher-initiated interventions - scaffolding, teacher-as-resource (content; language; organizational matters; tech‐ nology and media; other/ unclear/ misc.) - teacher seeks or is offered help; classroom discourse Technology use and user interaction - hardware and web-access (Internet connectivity; school web-filter; hardware-related issues, misc.) - usability and design interaction (LMS login; LMS navigation; concerns about data privacy; misinterpretation of LMS affordances and functions; misc.) - didactic interaction, student-LMS (user interaction; self-initiated technology use; online task instructions; seeking task support) Learner-learner interaction at the computer - task-unrelated interaction - language-related episode - task-based interaction/ task content - technical advice) Introspection (interviews, learning journals) Implementation conditions - Technology (home access to technology; technical infrastructure at school; technical issues and usability; LMS affordances) - Classroom procedures (curricular implementation; time pressure; didactic imple‐ mentation; familiarity of participants with each other; misc.) - Project curriculum (structure; thematic framework; misc.) - Impact of the research procedures - Implementation conditions (misc.) Teacher engagement - Change of participant roles - Assessment and monitoring - Digital teaching competence (TPACK and digital teaching skills; common/ estab‐ lished teaching practices teacher beliefs) - Teacher engagement (misc.) 180 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="181"?> Student engagement - Motivation (project context; subject matter; materials, media, tasks; students’ low level or lack of motivation) - Task behavior and engagement (computer-mediated discourse; learning strategies and task performance; task behavior and engagement, misc.) - Demands and skills development (skills, demands; digital literacies; intercultural learning goals and objectives) - Student engagement (misc.) Table 4.4: Coding frames for classroom data (sub-categories in parentheses). 4.6.2.4 Focus on cases Exclusively relying on methods of categorization, as discussed above, may risk losing sight of the contextual embedment of the researched phenomena. Coffey and Atkinson (1996) aptly comment on this issue: Our interview informants may tell us long and complicated accounts and reminis‐ cences. When we chop them up into separate coded segments, we are in danger of losing the sense that they are accounts. (…) Segmenting and coding may be an important, even an indispensable, part of the research process, but it is not the whole story.” (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996, p. 52, ctd. in Maxwell & Chmiel, 2014, p. 27) To counter this, the selection of cases from the data corpus can help to recon‐ stitute the specific contextual connections and contiguity of the original data as well as the diversity of relationships observed in them (Maxwell & Chmiel, 2014, p. 26). Indeed, case study research, which stands in the tradition of ethnographic approaches and refers to the study of the particularity and complexity of single cases (Stake, 1995, p. xi), has been increasingly used in applied linguistic and foreign language pedagogical research since the 1970s (Caspari, 2016c, p. 67; Dörnyei, 2007, p. 154). In foreign language research in Germany, case study designs have begun to surge recently, with studies employing case-based designs to investigate intercultural and literary competences (Freitag-Hild, 2010; Steininger, 2014), task-based language learning (Kimes-Link, 2013), learner motivation in CALL (Grünewald, 2006) or service learning in EFL (Rauschert, 2014). Duff and Anderson (2015) argue that case study designs offer various benefits to qualitative research because of their focus on a bounded context in addition to their focus on describing phenomena in actual practices under authentic conditions: 181 4.6 Data preparation, analysis, and interpretation <?page no="182"?> One of the most compelling aspects of case study research is that researchers can describe and account for the many factors and contingencies (for example, social, cultural, political, geographical, temporal, interand intra-personal) affecting a single entity. When that entity is a person, moreover, it is possible to gain a nuanced first-hand perspective of the participant’s experiences and what they mean for him or her, in addition to the researchers’ and others’ perspectives on a person’s attributes, behaviors, or performance. The concrete presentation of the case within this kind of ecology of factors, interactions, and interpretations can provide a vivid illustration or exemplar of more abstract principles. (Duff & Anderson, 2015, p. 112) That is, case analyses are capable of capturing the uniqueness of the bounded contexts in which they are undertaken, yet at the same time gain nuanced understandings of phenomena in practice, which can uncover insights into the general structure of phenomena beyond single cases (Caspari, 2016c, p. 68). Because of their data-driven nature, case studies are considered suitable for exploratory interpretative research of uncharted territories, for the generation of hypotheses and theories as well as for the examination of the practicability of research findings in authentic application contexts, such as learner use and classroom implementation of CALL (Dörnyei, 2007, pp. 154-5). The preceding section described how the qualitative research material was decontextualized and reconfigured into a coding scheme in order to attain an overview of the participants’ salient themes and motives related to their perceptions and implementations of technology-enhanced tasks. Because these perceptions did not occur in isolation but instead emerged from the bounded research context of the investigated classrooms, the ‘decontextualized’ findings of the qualitative content analysis were eventually recontextualized in three focal cases (chapters 8-10). These cases consist of individual task cycles in the focal classrooms and are narratively presented in the temporal context of the lessons in which they occurred. In selecting multiple rather than a single case, this study furthermore subscribes to the argument that such a design provides multiple insights into the investigated phenomena and thus addresses issues of typicality and variation between and among cases (Duff & Anderson, 2015, p. 114). This may include the discovery of various components of the researched construct(s) of learner perceptions and performance of technology-enhanced tasks, the retrieval of different exemplars and possibly contradictory experiences, perceptions, and outcomes in the context of different learners, thus allowing for the presentation of the polyvocality of the recorded data and thereby reflecting the complexity of this study’s research focus (ibid., p. 116). The selection and sampling of these cases were guided by a series of pragmatic and theoretical research 182 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="183"?> 23 I was inspired to adopt this narrative format by Benitt’s (2015) reflection of her researcher role in her ethnographic study on cooperative action research in teacher education. considerations, resulting in a maximum variation sample of three task cycles in the investigated classrooms (chapter 7 illustrates these sampling decisions in more detail). Cases, finally, are defined here as select task cycles in the context of the school project. However, cases can be defined principally in different layers (Duff, 2008) so that the organizational and social entity of the investigated school project, the three classrooms selected for the case analyses, and the focal students and their teachers within these classrooms may all be taken to represent cases in their own right. 4.7 Reflecting on the role of the researcher Whereas quantitative research relies on rigid rules and procedures to guide the research process as objectively as possible while also minimizing or even obscuring the role of the researcher in light of reproducible, objective findings, this is fundamentally different in qualitative research where researchers are commonly considered as one, if not the most important research instruments in their own right: Qualitative research has no data-crunching software to impart an equation repre‐ senting results. Rather, analysis, interpretation, and meaning-making come from the researcher, using all of her or his personal and professional skills, training, knowledge, and experience as an instrument to produce a coherent authentic picture of the research as the researcher saw and experienced it. (Brodsky, 2008, p. 766) In acknowledging this consequential role of the researcher, and thus my own involvement in the various steps of research design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, I will give a narrative account of my own role in the design and implementation of this research project. 23 In doing so, my goal is to render transparent the multiple ways in which my decisions have shaped the processes and outcomes of this undertaking in explicit or more subtle ways. Our ‘meth‐ odological upbringing,’ Dörnyei (2007, pp. 311-2) notes, frames our thinking, first, by providing us with the tools which we use to answer a question and, more subtly, by influencing the way we conceive of research problems before we even act on them and determining our initial methodological orientations. As part of my teaching practice at various universities and as a secondary school EFL teacher, I recognized learner perceptions of technology-enhanced 183 4.7 Reflecting on the role of the researcher <?page no="184"?> tasks are profoundly contextual and subjective, and my curiosity about this field served as my primary guidance. Because the time frame for this study’s data collection was pre-determined by the investigated school project, I had to make consequential research decisions right at the start of my engagement with this topic. Despite the practical and theoretical support I received at colloquia, this led to the expectable consequence of my research question not being as refined at the start of the data collection phase as I would have hoped for at the time. Yet, reflecting on the iterative and inductive nature qualitative classroom-based research, I am convinced this jump in the deep end helped me keep an open mind about the issues I intended to observe and, in part, let the data guide my way to conceptualizing the research questions. Similarly, inherent in the notion of researcher-as-instrument is the fact that in qualitative research, it is not a statistical model or computer software which makes inferences, but the researchers themselves who develop and apply research instruments and procedures, digest, restructure, analyze, and interpret the research data using their skills, knowledge, and underlying goal orientations to draw conclusions from their engagement with the data (Wa-Mbaleka, 2020). At the same time, my roles in this research study and the investigated school project were manifold, as were my relationships with the different participant groups and stakeholders involved. While my personal experience within this project is unique, the fact that qualitative researchers adopt a complex, occasionally even conflictive configuration of tacit and interactionist roles in this process is nonetheless well recognized (Leckie, 2008). In terms of tacit roles, my responsibilities included those of the research administrator, manager, and ethicist. I was thus concerned with planning the individual steps and instruments of the data collection, coordinating student assistants who helped with the classroom videography, obtained and trialed necessary software and devices, and ensured ethics protocols of social research were followed throughout the process at my institution and the researched schools (cf. section 4.8). Regarding the interactionist roles of the researcher, my institutional role as a researcher and lecturer overlapped with my project-related role as a content developer and teacher liaison. As a content developer, I had co-taught a seminar with pre-service teachers who developed a pool of tasks for the school project, which were partially implemented into the LMS. As a teacher liaison, I conducted project-related communications with teachers about their partici‐ pation, provided expertise on implementing the task-based, computer-assisted project approach, and taught professional development workshops to prepare the school project. As a researcher, I was interested in how these teachers would implement both the LMS and the input from the workshops, and therefore 184 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="185"?> collected data about these aspects through the online surveys, in addition to visiting and observing the focal classrooms of the qualitative sample. These roles overlapped, in particular, during the qualitative data collection phase. As described above (cf. section 4.5.3), I was present as an ‘observer-as-par‐ ticipant’ (Baker, 2006) in the three focal courses during their project partici‐ pation. Although the reason for my involvement in these classes—collecting observational and additional introspective data—was clarified from the start, the focal school teachers had participated in my workshops and, as a representative of the school project and its co-developer, I offered them support when needed, partly to ease the pressure of the research participation. Consequently, teachers and students turned to me multiple times during class to solve usability and utility problems of the LMS, such as Ms. Pfeifer in the following sequence: 1 Ms. Pfeifer: Uhm/ (2) [to Kaliampos] Can we/ can we please make the material, uhm, visible for EVERYone because I think/ 2 Kaliampos: Yes. 3 Ms. Pfeifer: Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are just, uhm, if you click on it, but the interviewers need that material as well. 4 Kaliampos: Yeah. Wait, there are those grey brackets after (.) Okay, let me just see. If/ (.) if it’s not available to everybody, I just need half a minute to [change the setting]/ Excerpt 4.1: Classroom video-recording, Ms. Pfeifer’s course. [2012-09-21_vr_AP_seq26-9] Responding to these inquiries directly in a resourceful way was vital to me, not least because it would help me build rapport with the participants and gain informal insights into their handling of the LMS: “The researcher builds this bridge [i.e., between themselves and the participants] by a number of means, including demonstrations of empathy, nonjudgmental interest, caring, honesty, and openness” (Leckie, 2008, pp. 775-6). Interactions between the research participants and myself, such as those cited above, also point to how the participants were acutely aware of the data collection procedures and how this may have impacted the intact nature of their classrooms (Ricart Brede & Maak, 2014). As described above (cf. section 4.5.3), the researcher’s presence may alter the very setting they are investigating by creating unintended biases in the research participants’ behavior, commonly referred to as the Hawthorne effect (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 55). While some students noted during interviews, being recorded did not affect their behavior in class 185 4.7 Reflecting on the role of the researcher <?page no="186"?> 24 German data excerpts have been translated into English. The original German excerpts can be found in Appendix G. (Excerpt 4.2), others mentioned being initially nervous (Excerpt 4.3). However, while some students did seem to forget the context of the data collection while they were being recorded in class, several instances in the data were found of learners suddenly realizing their behavior was on camera (Excerpt 4.4). This didn’t make a big difference. So, I was fine with it. Excerpt 4.2: Retrospective interview, Justus. [2012-09-20_si-JS_seq4, transl.] 24 So, in the beginning, you were maybe a bit nervous because you knew every step would be seen. And above all, I’m not the smartest one anyway when it comes to something like this, but later I actually forgot it completely. Excerpt 4.3: Retrospective interview, Emma. [2012-09-13_si-ES_seq4, transl.] Oh right, I’m on camera ((both Melanie and Leonie chuckle. […])). Excerpt 4.4: Screen capture, Melanie. [2012-09-28_sc-MW _seq92, transl.] Such interferences with the intact classroom structure may also have been a result of imbalances of power relations. I can only assume the students’ perception of my role in the classroom was, at times, blurred as I constantly transgressed the boundaries of the hierarchical student-teacher relationship in the classroom. I was seen assisting teachers regarding the LMS use or the project curriculum, yet, at the same time, I sought to elicit reflective statements from the students, in which they were asked to provide critical accounts of the tasks in which they had engaged during class. I thus noticed more than once during the classroom-based research that I needed to remind participants of my researcher role and that I would handle whatever the students revealed to me during the interviews or in their learning journals confidentially. In reflecting on these delicate issues of research theory, responsibility, and ethics, my objective is to leave an audit trail of the research process (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 60) and lay bare potential biases which may stem from my direct and indirect engagement with the research field and participants (Legutke, 2016c, p. 390; Wa-Mbaleka, 2020, p. 39). 186 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="187"?> 4.8 Research quality and ethical safeguards Although a glance at the recent literature on MMR in the social sciences will reveal a supportive climate for the development and application of this third paradigm in research following the philosophical perspective of pragmatism, researchers will also attest, many questions regarding the how-to of MMR are still unresolved. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003, pp. 3-4) argued not too long ago, MMR is still in its adolescence as many scholars in the field continue to disagree on several key questions, among them the basic nomenclature, design issues, and the question of drawing inferences in MMR. These issues are inherently related to the question of how to set up adequate safeguards for research quality. While Teddlie and Tashakkori and others (e.g., Brown, 2014) call for a new set of terms and criteria for this research paradigm, this study follows Dörnyei (2007, p. 62), who is doubtful as to whether a new terminology will benefit the enactment of quality criteria. Specifically, because the present study is qualitative-dominant, it is argued as far as qualitative data elicitation and interpretation are concerned, those criteria which have been well-established within the qualitative paradigm should be considered. This chapter closes with a review of the research-ethical principles imple‐ mented in this study. Ethical research considerations have gained increasing attention in the social sciences in the past decades, and rightly so if the multiple personal contacts, shared meanings, and labor-intensive relationships under‐ lying social research are considered—especially in qualitative classroom-based research, which often deeply intrudes both research informants’ and partners’ professional and private spheres (ibid., p. 63-4). Research-ethical codices and guidelines are defined at different national and international levels relevant to this study, including standards by international professional associations like TESOL (Mahboob et al., 2016) and AAAL (De Costa et al., 2016), German national associations like the guidelines proposed by the German Research Foundation (DFG, 2013), and particularly the research ethics code debated within the German Society for Foreign and Second Language Research (DGFF, 2017). Besides these macro-ethical guidelines, researchers have also turned to micro-ethical recommendations (Legutke & Schramm, 2016; Miethe, 2010; Viebrock, 2015) and practice reports (De Costa, 2015). Underlying these documents is the premise that no physical or mental harm be done to informants during or as a consequence of their research participation. From this overriding precept, further principles are derived, namely those of informed consent and voluntary participation, the anonymity of research participants and confidentiality of research data and documents, and issues pertaining to the publica‐ 187 4.8 Research quality and ethical safeguards <?page no="188"?> tion of research results and building equitable research relationships (cf. DGFF, 2017, § 5; Legutke & Schramm, 2016; Miethe, 2010). These principles affected the design and implementation of the quantitative and qualitative components of this study in different ways, which will now be explored. The first principle, informed consent and voluntary participation, entails that research participants must be informed about the purpose and procedures of the research, their expected contributions, and potential risks. In Germany, this is partially controlled through state-level regulations. Before the study, permission by the state school authority (Niedersächsische Landesschulbehörde) to conduct classroom research (including classroom observation, video-recordings, and interviews with teachers and learners) was obtained. This written agreement clarified the research purpose and the necessity for conducting research within the classroom and the ethical safeguards to be implemented. Next, the school administrations of both participating secondary schools and the three course teachers were provided with this agreement and an outline of the research project. Subsequently, permission from these parties and written consent by the students or their legal guardians were obtained. The students’ consent form explicitly mentioned that participation in the study was voluntary and that they could withdraw their consent at any time—even after the data collection— without having to offer an explanation or being caused disadvantages. Miethe (2010, pp. 929-30) warns this principle can be threatened in subtle ways wher‐ ever informants are engaged in hierarchical relationships. Thus, consent forms were not collected by the course teachers, but exclusively by the researcher. Furthermore, Dörnyei (2007, p. 69) states, what kind or how much information respondents receive about the study can create unintended biases in their behavior. To minimize this issue, the student consent form only mentioned the study’s general purpose but withheld the detailed research questions. Regarding the questionnaire surveys, participants received a cover letter similar to the student and teacher consent forms mentioned above. Although a high response rate was deemed necessary, the voluntary nature of the participation was stressed. In most cases, no personal contact between the researcher and the survey respondents could be established, so the researcher’s contact information was included throughout the online survey. The second ethical principle pertains to the anonymity of the research participants and the confidential treatment of the research data and documents. In theory, this entails researchers take precautionary measures to prevent others from identifying their informants. As the two components of this study show, this principle structurally privileges quantitative over qualitative approaches (Miethe, 2010, pp. 930-1). While the datasets of the four questionnaire surveys 188 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="189"?> do not allow for the respondents’ identification, this is not the case with the qualitative data collected, which include videotapes and learner texts, amongst others. These data were instead pseudonymized rather than anonymized, meaning names and personal details, which could lead to the identification of individual participants, were altered or deleted for the analysis and especially the presentation and publication of the research (Legutke & Schramm, 2016, p. 113). Closely connected to this is the issue of data storage. It is of particular relevance whenever research data are digitally stored or even shared among re‐ searchers and, in some cases, readers. Thus, project participants were informed how their data would be stored and who would be given access to them, not least because this can improve the quality of obtained research data and the relationship between researcher and participants. Thirdly, achieving equitable researcher-participant relationships can also be derived from the no-harm precept since “by spending time and energy helping us, [the participants] are doing us a favor and it is our responsibility to try to make the cost-benefit balance as equitable as possible” (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 67). The primary precautionary measure taken in this regard was to minimize obstructions of the naturalistic classroom context (cf. section 4.5.3). That is, additional tasks for both teachers and learners were only imposed if necessary, and under no circumstances should the research procedures obstruct curricular goals. Moreover, teachers were offered professional development workshops after the research project. They were also provided with preliminary results of the study, even though this can pose a ‘vulnerability risk’ when participants misinterpret research results, relate adverse outcomes to their professional competence, or expect some form of therapeutic value from this procedure, which lies beyond the capability of classroom researchers (cf. Miethe, 2010, p. 933). 4.9 Summary This chapter set out to introduce and critically reflect on the methodological research design of this study. It began by outlining the emergent and exploratory research questions addressing the micro-, meso-, and macro-perspectives of learner perceptions, engagement, and agency in technology-enhanced tasks in the investigated school project. Then followed an introduction to the philosoph‐ ical stance of pragmatism and the inherent inquiry logic and purposes of mixing qualitative and quantitative methods. The resulting research design comprises the quantitative participant surveys among project participants, which are complemented by the centerpiece of this study, a multimethod, triangulated 189 4.9 Summary <?page no="190"?> approach to naturalistic classroom-based research. While the quantitative data on the project’s macro-perspective are analyzed with descriptive statistical analysis, the classroom-based data reflecting the mesoand micro-perspective are analyzed and interpreted using inductive qualitative content analysis and presented in the form of three case studies. Finally, the overlapping roles of myself as a content developer, researcher, and project manager in this research context were considered, and the indicators of research quality and ethical safeguarding in these processes clarified. The next chapter will introduce the research context, the U.S. Embassy School Election Project, present the curriculum, learning goals, participant statistics, and further illuminate the project’s blended-learning design. 190 4 Research methodological framework <?page no="191"?> 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project The U.S. Embassy School Election Project represents the context of this study and, following the sociocultural perspective on foreign language learning and the qualitative research paradigm in the social sciences, influences both the pedagogical procedures of the investigated agents and the adopted research procedures, including the subsequent analysis and interpretation. This chapter provides a detailed account of the project context regarding its different dimensions. First, this chapter will outline the underlying project idea and its overall structure (section 5.1). Secondly, the project’s goals and objectives are presented with a focus on TBLT (section 5.2.1), project-based language learning (section 5.2.2), interand transcultural learning (section 5.2.3), digital literacies and digital media competence (5.2.4) in addition to the project’s curricular implementation (section 5.2.5). Next, the overall project participation statistics are reported (section 5.3). Section 5.4 contains an analysis of the LMS platform designed for the project (section 5.4.1), the project curriculum as exemplified by the LMS course structure (section 5.4.2), and the corresponding learning formats (section 5.4.3). Finally, the BL approach taken in the design and implementation of the project (section 5.5) is analyzed using Neumeier’s (2005) model of BL environments. This final section connects the preceding conceptual and organizational considerations in the context of the project design and curriculum, as exemplified in the LMS course. 5.1 Project idea and structure The election project is unique in the German secondary school context for adopting a BL approach, the nationwide administration and inclusive, partici‐ patory design, its integration of a complementary teacher training program, and its underlying interinstitutional partnership. The project was initiated by the Public Affairs division at the U.S. Embassy in Berlin and funded by the U.S. Department of State. Operating from the perspective of public diplomacy (cf. Cull, 2008; Nye, 2008), the initiators sought to promote increased awareness and to extend the knowledge base of U.S. democracy as a participatory, dynamic discourse (U.S. Embassy Berlin, 2013): <?page no="192"?> The challenge […] was to take the emphasis away from the candidates and call attention to the process and the motivation and engagement of the American voters in the fifty states. Students were encouraged to dive deeper into the matter, go beyond their own preference (for Obama) and develop a better understanding of the 2012 presidential race, and, most of all, of how “America ticks.” This was no easy task. (Kohl & Schmidt, 2014) In so doing, the organizers drew on prior experience with a precursor to the election project implemented during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign in the Berlin and Brandenburg region adopting an offline, paper-and-pencil format with about 100 schools (LISUM, 2008). The core idea remained the same: Participating courses in Germany would adopt one U.S. state, explore its economic, sociocultural, and political framework, and eventually predict their state’s voting behavior on Election Day in the format of a mock election. In addition, participants were encouraged to take part in a school competition for creative project outcomes. This was accomplished by presenting their prediction in a creative and technology-enhanced format and publish it online on Web 2.0 platforms (Kaliampos & Schmidt, 2014). For the 2012 project cycle, however, this project was extended by focusing on using digital media and the set-up of an LMS for the administration of learning materials and facilitating collaborative learning processes within and across borders of the traditional brick-and-mortar classroom. On an organizational level, this was facilitated by a diverse institutional partnership. In terms of curriculum design, pre-service EFL teachers at the Institute of English Studies at Leuphana University developed technology-enhanced task cycles as part of a graduate teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) seminar, co-taught by the researcher. These materials were closely aligned with state curricula for EFL by the Berlin and Brandenburg regional school authority (Landesinstitut für Schule und Medien, LISUM). Dr. Karin Ernst and Katja Krüger of LIFE e. V., a non-profit organization supporting schools in implementing BL and inquiry-based education, brought technical expertise to the project and directed the instructional BL design (Kohl & Schmidt, 2014). They implemented the cur‐ riculum into an LMS (i.e., Moodle) and conducted hands-on teacher workshops on integrating the LMS course into EFL classes. In preparation of the active project phase, participants were recruited throughout the spring and early fall of 2012 through a nationwide series of accredited professional development seminars, in which project representatives and political science and history scholars, invited by the U.S. Embassy, briefed German EFL teachers on the election process, content-related matters, and the BL teaching methodology (cf. section 5.3 for an overview of participant statistics). Participation was free of charge 192 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="193"?> and non-selective. Participant courses were assigned ‘their’ state through a state lottery at the beginning of the 2012/ 13 school year, which also launched the active project phase. The courses were subsequently provided with a password-secured LMS course containing the complete project curriculum. This active phase continued until late October, one week before Election Day. Then, on the day before Election Day, representatives of participant courses cast their states’ vote at a concluding student conference hosted by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Berlin. A similar event for participants in northern German states was hosted by the Amerikazentrum Hamburg e. V. the day after the election. 5.2 Goals and objectives The development of the project curriculum was guided by several pedagogical principles to facilitate educational objectives, which are the focus of this section. These principles include task-based and project-based language teaching and learning, the development of intercultural communicative competence, and the promotion of digital literacies (cf. Kaliampos & Schmidt, 2014 for a detailed description of the project’s pedagogical framework). 5.2.1 Task-based language learning Firstly, the project curriculum was organized in terms of communicative lan‐ guage learning tasks, which are carefully sequenced, arranged as task cycles, and together can constitute a language learning project (cf. section 5.4.2, Table 5.3 for an overview of the tasks). The pedagogical principles of TBLT were outlined in section 2.2.2, which is why its central tenets are only briefly restated here in connection with the following sample task. The first task cycle, ‘The electoral system,’ entails a sequence of six activities, gradually introducing students to the key procedures in electing the U.S. president (activities 4-9 in Table 5.3). Learners are first prompted, with the help of a word cloud, to explain the key vocabulary of the electoral system in an electronic glossary (Analyze the word cloud, 4). This leads to a viewing comprehension task, in which learners deduce information about the phases of the election campaign from a stop-motion video (Stages of the election—learn from a video, 5), discuss findings in a forum, and add more content to the glossary. Students then form workgroups to investigate one of these phases more thoroughly using web-research, posting their findings to the forum (Group work: Individual stages of the election, 6), and discussing them face-to-face in a jigsaw puzzle format (Classroom work: Comparison and 193 5.2 Goals and objectives <?page no="194"?> discussion of results, 7). As a collaborative outcome, learners construct an online quiz about this topic in the LMS (Check your knowledge of the electoral system, 9) and compose a written response (opinion essay) on the role of the electoral college as an individual outcome (What is your opinion? 8). This task cycle engages learners in different types of language use. It integrates multiple language skills, such as writing in the glossary as well as for note-taking during the viewing, dialogic writing in the forum, dialogic speaking in the group puzzle, listening and viewing comprehension during the viewing of the video, reading comprehension during the web-research and the quiz, and more. It directs learners’ attentional resources to language form and forces them to meet linguistic challenges, primarily meaning-oriented communication. For example, they must memorize and apply the correct vocabulary of election procedures when explaining the meanings behind the terminology during the group puzzle; mobilize perception and language skills as well as lexical and syntactical knowledge to make sense of the video; and successfully process orthographic, grammatical, lexical, and text genre-related issues in order to contribute to the forum or compose the opinion essay. Thus, learners are intended to engage in holistic activity and, through their language use, attain a non-linguistic outcome, such as the compilation of political science terminology in a glossary, the gathering of research findings in a forum, the creation of an online quiz, or an opinion essay about the electoral college. Notably, these activities occupy different locations on the exercise-task continuum (cf. section 2.2.3). For instance, the glossary activity reflects an explicit focus on semantic meaning and may thus be located closer to the exercise-pole of the continuum. In contrast, the forum discussions may be located closer to the task-pole as they foster linguistic skills through engagement in communicative activity (cf. Ellis, 2000, p. 197). We must be cautious, however, in categorizing activities as tasks solely based on their workplans (cf. sections 2.3 and 3.6) as learners may invest differential energy in classroom activities or perceive them differently. At the same time, teachers may also implement tasks differently than intended, thus de-tasking them. 5.2.2 Project-based learning On a macro-level, the sequence of task cycles constitutes a learning arrangement, referred to as project-based learning (PBL). Specifically, the project character of the election project is achieved by the interconnectedness of the task cycles, the organ‐ izational context of the school competition, which entails a focus on the outcomes (i.e., mock election and competition entry) and the processes (i.e., simultaneous participation and collaboration of multiple learner groups on a shared LMS), and underlying pedagogical principles explained below. 194 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="195"?> Although the term ‘project,’ much like ‘task’ (cf. section 2.2.1), has recently appeared in inflationary contexts to virtually denote any extended classroom activity, project-based learning in EFL teaching refers explicitly to the interplay of various features, according to Stoller: Project-based learning should (a) have a process and product orientation; (b) be defined, at least in part, by students to encourage student ownership in the project; (c) extend over a period of time (rather than a single class session); (d) encourage the natural integration of skills; (e) make a dual commitment to language and content learning; (f) oblige students to work in groups and on their own; (g) require students to take some responsibility for their own learning through the gathering, processing, and reporting of information from target language resources; (h) require teachers and students to assume new roles and responsibilities […]; (i) result in a tangible final product; and (j) conclude with student reflections on both the process and the product. (Stoller, 2006, p. 24) PBL is grounded in the democratic, experiential, and social-behaviorist ideals of the American reform movement advanced in the works of Dewey (1916) and Kilpatrick (1918), who viewed the education of responsible citizens as a central function of schools, thus sharing many of the pedagogical antecedents with TBLT (cf. section 2.1.1). PBL promotes student-centered learning and learner autonomy (Fried-Booth, 2002), and cooperative learning (Stoller, 2006). From an interactionist perspective, it can be a source of comprehensible input and an opportunity to produce comprehensible output (Eyring, 1989). From a sociocultural perspective, it can be a vehicle for experience-based learning (Kohonen, 2001; Legutke & Thomas, 1991) and community-based socialization (Eyring, 2001). It also offers an avenue for the joint teaching of language and content in a modular structure (Stoller, 2002), which served as a guiding principle in developing the election project. Beckett and Slater (2005) propose a mediation tool that can help learners gain awareness of their development in the areas of language, content, and skills learning—learning dimensions that all too often remain unnoticed by learners themselves in PBL. Likewise, Legutke (2016a) maintains that due to the internal structure of projects, PBL is particularly suited to promote the development of communicative competence by requiring learners to carry out organizational and teaching functions in the target language. Despite the surge in practice reports exemplifying PBL in EFL contexts, projects still occupy a marginalized space in everyday classroom practice—a fact exacerbated by the standards orientation in the U.S. and Europe alike (van Lier, 2006, p. xiii). Likewise, an orchestrated research agenda on PBL in EFL pedagogy, especially regarding its outcomes in terms of communicative and project-related competencies (i.e., strategic, social, organizational, text-produc‐ 195 5.2 Goals and objectives <?page no="196"?> tive, and media-related competencies), remains to be formulated (Beckett, 2006, p. 7; Legutke, 2016a, p. 353; Stoller, 2006, pp. 35-6). Several PBL frameworks have emerged in the literature exemplifying how projects can be structured in a principled manner (Frey, 2012; Gudjons, 2015; Legutke & Thomas, 1991; Stoller, 2002). They generally distinguish different degrees of structuration by the teacher and propose a clear beginning and end of the project, a progression towards greater learner autonomy, and an outcome that often extends classroom boundaries. In keeping with Legutke’s and Thomas’s six-part model of EFL projects, Kaliampos and Schmidt (2014) identified the following phases of the election project: 1. In the opening phase, the project was initiated with a state lottery in which participating classes were assigned their U.S. state roughly two months ahead of the elections. It was also at this stage that individual e-modules containing general and state-specific materials and tasks were made available to each course. 2. In the topic orientation phase, the thematic framework was introduced to the learner groups. Students gained a first overview of the electoral system and were sensitized towards general campaign issues. 3. Depending on the actual implementation procedures on-site, the phase of self-directed research and data collection ensued relatively late in the project. It was geared towards the discussion and planning of the course product, including decisions regarding its form and content; an examination of necessary communi‐ cative and non-communicative competences; and identifying potential activities and tools that would facilitate task completion. During this phase, students researched their assigned state’s political history, demographic statistics, the current news media landscape, prevalent controversial topics in mass and social media, and participated in discourses with experts on their state and through personal contacts with partner schools and local citizens using information and communication technology. 4. In the preparation of data presentation phase, students then agreed on the form and content of their predicted election outcome, and planned and produced their contribution to the competition. A glimpse at these submissions reveals the accuracy and diversity of project outcomes. The participant groups submitted more than 70 contributions in the form of websites/ blogs, comics, newspapers, videos, songs, posters, and multimedia presentations. They predicted the election outcome correctly in 48 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia […]. 5. The presentation of results took different forms: learners presented their work in their courses and schools; all of the contributions were made accessible on Moodle along with an interactive feedback and rating function open to all registered users in the project. Many videos, blogs, and presentations were 196 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="197"?> publicly accessible through data-sharing and video platforms; students presented their work at concluding events in Berlin and Hamburg; and a number of local and national print and TV media reported on the project and the participants. 6. A final evaluation stage was undertaken in individual participant classrooms […]. (Kaliampos & Schmidt, 2014, n. p.) 5.2.3 Interand transcultural learning Learning a language is essentially both a process of becoming literate in the L2 so one can express personal meanings in the foreign language and a process of socialization into a new speech community (Kramsch, 1993, pp. 233-4). It is widely recognized that foreign language teaching and learning are inherently connected to the development of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) (Byram, 1997). ICC has been defined as a primary objective of instructed foreign language learning in European foreign language policies (Council of Europe, 2001, 2018). This notion is also prominently reflected in the Bildungsstandards, the educational standards for secondary education in Germany, formulated by the Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK, 2012). ICC entails the joint application of knowledge about one’s native and other cultures, attitudinal disposition to relativize and value different cultures, and critical cultural awareness to develop the necessary communicative skills to participate in foreign language contexts (Byram, 1997, p. 34). At the core of the attitudinal dimension lie the readiness to acknowledge and value different views and value systems and the ability to competently move between cultural insider and outsider perspectives (Bredella, 2010; Bredella & Christ, 2007). The election project targeted these competencies in various ways, most prominently in the target task to produce an informed prediction of the adopted state’s voting behavior and participating in the subsequent mock election. This task requires learners to perform a shift of perspectives from their own identity to that of their adopted state’s citizens, or from an outsider to an insider perspective on U.S. society, culture, and politics. The challenging nature of this task can be inferred from the overwhelming support among Germans for the candidate Obama and the often-stated disbelief of some of the purported values and policies of the Republican Party among Germans (Marschall, 2012). However, these oppositions can be exploited in the EFL classroom as ‘intercultural rich points’ (Agar, 1994). That is, counter-intuitive artifacts and phenomena of the target culture have, in Byram’s terms, the potential to create interest and curiosity, extend the knowledge base, and help to challenge learners’ perceptions of their own and the target culture (Kaliampos & Kohl, 2020). In the election project, 197 5.2 Goals and objectives <?page no="198"?> 25 Notably, this perspective has been pursued in the German-speaking context more prominently than in the international research literature (cf. Siepmann, 2016, p. 45). this objective was scaffolded by analyzing local media, sociodemographic data, and informal sources like social media discourses (Kaliampos & Schmidt, 2014). The above example illustrates how the election project addressed cultural differences from a transatlantic, intercultural perspective by juxtaposing both political systems and diverse political and value orientations. It should be noted, however, that the discourse on teaching culture in the EFL classroom has recently been extended by the perspective of transculturality and theories of cul‐ tural hybridity (Freitag-Hild, 2018; Hallet, 2002). 25 The notion of transculturality responds to current developments of digitalization, globalization, migration, and mobility, and stresses the inner differentiation, polyphone, cultural complexity, hybridity, and external connectedness of modern societies (Freitag-Hild, 2018). They thus reject the overemphasis on binary cultural comparisons as they fail to acknowledge the multiple cultural affiliations of individuals and, at the same time, implicitly affirm concepts of otherness and cultural difference (Siepmann, 2016, p. 86). Although the reported school project requires a perspectival shift from the learners’ cultural context to their adopted state, which itself implies a cultural binarism, the target task asks learners to develop a differentiated, non-monolithic understanding of the adopted state, acknowledging, among other aspects, sociopolitical pluralism. In this process, learners are guided to engage in a dialogic and reflective process on transcultural learning as they begin to question the matter-of-fact nature of their own cultural identities, while the mock election represents an opportunity to utilize their newly gained critical cultural awareness. In this context, the EFL classroom and the project context constitute a third space (Kramsch, 1993, 2009) in which learners experiment with conceptions of identity and cultural affiliations. What is more, this interand transcultural orientation represents fertile ground for advancing personal and curricular objectives associated with the global dimension of cultural and foreign language learning by emphasizing the global relevance, personal entanglements, and technological mediation of sociocultural discourses. Elections and democratic participation are civil rights in both the students’ and the target culture, and the campaign issues addressed by the project syllabus exemplify how the local is inextricable from the global. Global (digital) citizenship education thus carries both an empowering and a normative impetus by exposing personal responsibility for issues transcending cultural, political, and linguistic borders and by promoting individual and 198 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="199"?> 26 The normative impetus of global citizenship education, however, should not be accepted uncritically: “an unquestioned perception of the global dimension as positive and educationally desirable requires more theorizing. Whether ‘global’ is automatically good may be as disputable as the question who defines the concept of ‘citizen’ and from which cultural context” (Lütge, 2017, 26). collective agency (Volkmann, 2015). 26 In many ways paralleling Byram’s ICC model, Cates (1990) subsumes under global education the development of knowledge (about world countries and cultures, and about global problems, their causes, and solutions), skills (of critical thinking, cross-cultural commu‐ nication, cooperative problem-solving, conflict resolution, and the ability to see issues from multiple perspectives), attitudes (of global awareness, cultural appreciation, respect for diversity, and empathy), and action (following the call to ‘think globally, act locally’). Such an orientation likewise meets the goals for global education in TEFL proposed by the CrossCurricular Framework for Global Development, a state-issued support tool for curricular and pedagogical planning and implementation of global education in Germany (KMK, 2016b). 5.2.4 Digital literacies and digital media competence The initiators of the election project sought to implement an extensive focus on social media and Web 2.0 for various reasons. The election campaign was observed internationally for its use of social media for political communication, campaign organization, and financing (Cheney & Crystal Olson, 2010; Gainous & Wagner, 2014). Likewise, the use of Web 2.0 applications was considered authentic of the communication and entertainment practices in which learners engage outside the classroom (cf. MPFS, 2012). In terms of the educational approach, the digital technology focus and the use of the LMS were pursued as a pedagogical innovation (U.S. Embassy Berlin, 2013). It has been argued in CALL that learners need explicit training of such applications in order to master their use in formal learning contexts (Hubbard, 2013). What is more, schools must facilitate the acquisition of these skills to mitigate the second-level digital divide—the unequal distribution of participation opportunities in the digitally networked society, which stems from unequal skills and preferences for particular Internet use rather than unequal physical access to devices (van Dijk & van Deursen, 2014). In other words, the argument for this educational approach is inherently based on authenticity and pedagogy (cf. Chapelle, 2017). In the following paragraphs, the digital media competencies this project targets and helps develop are briefly discussed. 199 5.2 Goals and objectives <?page no="200"?> At the turn of the millennium, Shetzer and Warschauer (2000, p. 173) conceptualized digital media competence in their electronic literacy framework, which focused on “how people use computers to interpret and express meaning” and comprised the skills of communication, construction, and research in electronic environments. The New London Group (1996) proposed the influen‐ tial concept of multiliteracies, which acknowledges the multiplicity of media and communication channels in web-based environments and the increasing cultural and linguistic diversity in a globally connected world. More than solely connecting different modalities, this approach was born out of the belief that adequate literacy pedagogy is imperative to facilitate equal social participation and informed citizenship (cf. Cope & Kalantzis, 2000, 2009). This is coupled with novel technological affordances of Web 2.0, which were discussed in section 3.3. In light of these developments, and recognizing the multimodality and versatility of Web 2.0 applications, digital literacies can be thought of as an umbrella term with sub-literacies in the areas of language (i.e., print, texting, hypertext, multimedia, gaming, mobile, and code literacies), information (i.e., tagging, search, information, and filtering literacies), connections (i.e., personal, network, participatory, and intellectual literacies), and (re-) design (i.e., remix literacy) (Dudeney et al., 2014, pp. 2-41). Literacies in the 21 st century draw on multiple channels and application contexts. These principles are also reflected in the digital competence frame‐ works relevant for the German secondary school context, namely the European Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp) put forth by the Eu‐ ropean Union (Carretero et al., 2017; Ferrari et al., 2013) and the strategy paper for education in a digital world by the Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK, 2016a), which is based on DigComp. The DigComp framework is a valuable resource for the education context by guiding educational planning, implementation, and assessment. It comprises the five competency areas of (1) information and data literacy, (2) communication and collaboration, (3) digital content creation; (4) safety; and (5) problem-solving. These, in turn, are made up of more specific sub-competencies. Each of these competency areas is further differentiated into eight proficiency levels according to their cognitive challenge, digital task complexity, and the required degree of user autonomy, ranging from the foundation level (i.e., the most basic competence level) to the highly specialized level (i.e., the most cognitively challenging, complex, and independent use). The eight competency levels are formulated in terms of behavioral descriptors, using action verbs adapted from Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Anderson et al., 2001). Much like the CEFR for language learning, DigComp provides a framework that can guide 200 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="201"?> 27 “Due to the strong emphasis on themes such as globalization, interculturality, and international understanding, upper secondary foreign language teaching is still seen as having the pronounced functions of cultural mediation and creating intercultural linkages. Through this orientation towards literary and cultural studies, upper secon‐ dary foreign language instruction exhibits a distinct content-based dimension and can thus be understood as a type of Content and Language Integrated Learning.” (Heine, 2016, p. 189, my translation) the instruction of digital competences by helping make principled decisions, and it offers learners a tool for self-evaluation. The tasks and exercises of the project curriculum were classified according to this framework. An overview can be found in section 5.4.2 (Table 5.3). 5.2.5 Curricular implementation As a school project nationwide administered in the federally structured German education context, the election project faced a dual challenge in terms of curricular integration. On the one hand, the date of the election and the topic’s currency permitted only a limited time frame for classroom implementation, so that participants had to carry out the project in their regular curriculum between the beginning of the school year (i.e., August/ September) and the end of October. On the other hand, the project had to be integrated into 16 different state curricula. Although the Bildungsstandards (KMK, 2012) have set common EFL standards for all German states, this has created new challenges, such as state-wide graduation exams with state-mandated topics. Suffice it to say, teachers, especially, have come under pressure in this context in the wake of the accountability movement and standards orientation (cf. Harsch, 2016). It was thus seen as imperative that the election project directly cover relevant curricular goals and content (U.S. Embassy Berlin, 2013). EFL curricula for the upper secondary phase in Germany are characterized by an extensive content-orientation and a focus on topics and themes about issues of globalization and learning about culture: durch die starke Betonung von Themen wie Globalisierung, Interkulturalität und Völker‐ verständigung [wird] dem Fremdsprachenunterricht im schulischen Fächerkanon der Sekundarstufe II nach wie vor eine betonte Rolle als Kulturvermittler und interkulturelles Verbindungsglied zugeschrieben […]. Der Fremdsprachenunterricht der Sekundarstufe II weist in dieser literatur- und kulturwissenschaftlichen Ausrichtung eine ausgeprägte inhaltliche Dimension auf und kann damit auch als eine Art Content and Language Integrated Learning verstanden werden. (Heine, 2016, p. 189) 27 201 5.2 Goals and objectives <?page no="202"?> Although such topics are often directly linked to mandatory literary and non-fictional texts, this content orientation offers flexibility in instructional planning. The teaching guide for the 2008 election project exploited this by stating how the topic of the presidential election allows for multiple thematic emphases to facilitate the project’s integration in different contexts. For ex‐ ample, the topics “Personal relations in their social context” or “Gender issues” of the Berlin-Brandenburg curriculum can be connected to the candidates’ biographies, while their political background and agenda are more closely aligned with the topic “The challenge of globalization” (LISUM, 2008, p. 4). Adopting this same flexible approach, connections between the project curriculum and the 16 German EFL curricula were identified in a thematic analysis (Table 5.1). Indeed, these curricula offer various content-based paths for implementation. Several curricula directly address U.S. culture and society, such as “The American experience” in Lower Saxony or “The American way of life” in Saxony-Anhalt. Many curricular references to the themes of individual and society and politics can be identified across the board, for instance, “Current political affairs” in Bavaria, “Individual and society (civil society)” in Berlin and Brandenburg, “Dynamics of change (power and politics)” in Hesse, and “Aspects of political life and institutions” in the Saarland. Some of these curricula explic‐ itly mention the aspect of cultural diversity like “National identity and cultural diversity” in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, or “National identity and ethnic/ cultural/ language diversities (migration)” in Lower Saxony. Other curricula feature explicit references to current news events in the English-speaking world, such as “Current political and societal topics” in Hamburg or “Mandatory elective 3—current political topics” in Saxony. Yet, other curricula offer the possibility to connect the project to themes related to globalization, for example, with a direct focus on the U.S. as in “The U.S. and the world” in Hesse, or more generally as in “Global challenges of our time (political developments and their impacts on society)” in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Finally, some curricula emphasize the role of the media and its societal, cultural, and political impact, such as the topic “The media (and its impact)” in Thuringia or “The media (the influence of the media on public opinion)” in Lower Saxony. In sum, this brief survey highlights the election project’s adaptability to diverse curricular themes and its distinct content orientation typical of advanced secondary EFL curricula in Germany. 202 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="203"?> Land Curricular content focus BW T1: Contemporary public life and political culture of the U.S.; T2: Current political affairs in the U.S. BY T1: E11/ 12.3 Main features of the development of democratic systems; T2: Significance and impact of the media BB/ BE Q1: Individual and society (civil society); Q2: National and cultural identity (overcoming prejudice, ethnic and cultural diversity, nations between tradition and change); Q4: Challenges of the present (impact of the media) HB T1: Current life experiences in the anglophone world; T2: Representations of individual and society in literature, the arts, and the media HH T1: Current political and societal topics; T2: Target cultures: development and identity; T3: Arts, culture, media HE Q1: The challenge of individualism (USA); Q3: Dynamics of change (power and politics); Q4: The global challenge (globalization, civil society); T1: Political life and political issues; T2: The U.S. and the world MV T1: National identity and cultural diversity (USA: politics and government, superpower); T2: Global challenges of our time (political developments and their impacts on society); T3: Current issues in politics and society (media: role of the media; direct democracy: current political issues) NI T1: The media (the influence of the media on public opinion); T2: Beliefs, values, norms in Western societies: tradition and change (the American experience); T3: Individual and society (outsider and counter cultures); T4: National identity and ethnic/ cultural/ language diversities (migration) NW T1: Political, social, and cultural realities; T2: Global challenges RP T1: Area studies (politics—society—economy; current societal developments); T2: Content topics (current events) SL Q4: Aspects of political life and institutions; Q1/ Q2: Aspects of society SN T1: Command of fundamental linguistic and content knowledge from a selected topic in the area: The English-speaking world—history, politics, and society (political systems); T2: Mandatory elective 3—current political topics ST T: The American way of life, T: Challenges of our time; SH T3: Individual and society (inter alia, democracy); T5: Structural change (inter alia, regionalism) TH T1: Politics and economy; T2: The media (and its impact) Table 5.1: Curricular implementation of the U.S. Embassy School Election Project 2012 in the 16 German EFL curricula. (T = Topic in the curriculum; Q = Topic in the qualification phase; # = specification of the four semesters of the qualification phase, i.e., if specified in the curriculum.) 203 5.2 Goals and objectives <?page no="204"?> Descriptors in the Bildungsstandards Example activity Listening/ viewing comprehension: S can understand audio(visual) texts, pro‐ vided a representative variety of the target language is used. S can deduce overall meaning and individual details and contex‐ tualize them thematically. Watching a stop-motion video on the electoral process and deducing informa‐ tion on the individual steps involved in the process (Stages of the election—learn from a video, 5) Reading comprehension: S can under‐ stand complex texts about abstract topics. S deduce overall meaning and individual details, contextualize them thematically, apply bottom-up and top-down processes to understand even implicit meanings. Conducting a web-research about the can‐ didates’ stance on important election issues and collecting information in a wiki (Find out more about topics and issues, 19) Analyzing political cartoons about the election (Interpret a cartoon, 23) Spoken interaction: S can participate in conversation fluently, accurately, using ap‐ propriate register, according to the situation. S are ready to interact in a given communi‐ cative situation, even about abstract and less familiar topics. Spontaneously performing a role-play de‐ picting a TV interview with the candi‐ dates and their wives (Important aspects of the candidate's biographies, 11; How their spouses support the candidates, 12) Spoken production: S can give a clear and detailed presentation, justify their view‐ point, and explain dis-/ advantages of dif‐ ferent options. Giving a presentation about individual steps of the electoral process (Classroom work: Comparison and discussion of result, 7) Writing: S can compose texts on a wide va‐ riety of topics using appropriate register and genre conventions. S possess techniques and strategies of formal, informal, and creative writing. Composing a newspaper article on the first hundred days of the new presidency (The First 100 days of…, 21) Mediation: S can, with the help of strat‐ egies and resources, reproduce key contents of authentic oral and written texts in the other language, even about less familiar topics, using adequate register, in a situa‐ tion-specific manner, and for a particular purpose. Collecting information about the candi‐ dates from a German website during a web-research and applying it in an Eng‐ lish forum discussion (Important aspects of the candidate’s biographies, 11) Table 5.2: Comparison of functional communicative competence descriptors in the Bildungsstandards for EFL (Sekundarstufe II) (KMK, 2012) and sample tasks in the election project (task titles are given in parentheses). In terms of language skills and functional communicative competence, students at the end of the upper secondary school (Sekundarstufe II) are expected to reach the B2 level of the CEFR overall and the C1 level in selected receptive skill areas, according to the Bildungsstandards (KMK, 2012). This curricular goal applies to 204 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="205"?> 28 Grundkurs-level EFL classes aim at developing basic knowledge, skills, and strategies to use English as a lingua franca in domain-specific context that may include a particular focus on themes related to economy, technology, and science. Leistungskurs-level EFL classes aim at an advanced language proficiency and knowledge with a particular focus on the use of English as an expressive and creative means and an understanding of English in its sociocultural context (KMK, 2002, p. 8). both proficiency levels on which EFL classes at the Sekundarstufe II-level typically operate, the basic level (Grundkurs) and the advanced level (Leistungskurs, erhöhtes Niveau), 28 which together represent the target learner group of the election project. Specifically, the B2 proficiency level is distinguished from lower levels in that learners move from interaction about familiar matters of their immediate environ‐ ment to concrete and abstract topics, such as current affairs; from producing simple connected text on familiar topics to fluent and spontaneous interaction, possibly with native speakers, without strain for either party; from describing experiences and briefly giving reasons for opinions and plans to producing clear and detailed text on a range of subjects and justifying a viewpoint on a topical issue; from un‐ derstanding texts that mainly consist of high-frequency language to understanding authentic target language discourse in different media representations and literary prose (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 24). The Bildungsstandards adapt the can-do descriptors of the CEFR to the German secondary school context. By connecting these proficiency goals to example activities from the election project curriculum (cf. Table 5.2), it can be shown how this project targets the competences in the different language skill areas. 5.3 Participation statistics Overall, 148 courses participated in the project. One hundred thirteen of them enrolled on the LMS and worked with their private online course, while the remaining 35 courses used the materials from the publicly accessible demo course, for example, downloadable task instructions and PDF handouts. In total, 1,446 students and their 111 teachers enrolled in LMS courses on the platform (the number of participants in the 35 ‘offline’ courses cannot be determined definitively). LMS course participation and user activity on the LMS was constant throughout the active project period between the beginning of September and the end of October 2012, as can be inferred from Moodle meta-data on user behavior (cf. Figure 5.1). The average learner group size of the enrolled courses was 13 students but ranged from two to 33 students. This range can be attributed to some teachers making the participation voluntary so that only a subset of students in a course enrolled, while 205 5.3 Participation statistics <?page no="206"?> other teachers had parallel sections of a course enroll in a joint LMS course. The students were, on average, 18 years old. 44 % of student participants were male and 56 % female, reflecting a general trend in selecting English and other modern foreign languages as an advanced course (Leistungsfach) among German secondary school students (Roisch, 2003, pp. 135-40). 88 % of the students reported they had been receiving EFL instruction since elementary school. Regarding class grade, 95 % of all courses belonged to the Sekundarstufe II-level (42 % of all courses in grade 11, 44 % grade 12, and 9 % grade 13). Similarly, 78 % of the courses belonged to the Gymnasium, a secondary school type qualifying students for tertiary education. Other participant school types included vocational schools (berufliches Gymnasium, berufsbildende Schule, Fachoberschule), and comprehensive schools (Gesamtschule). Figure 5.1: LMS participation between July and December 2012. The primary y-axis describes all activities on the LMS (i.e., the sum of all registered views and posts by different user categories). The secondary y-axis describes all user logins to the LMS during the same period. Geographically, the project attracted participants from almost all parts of Germany. Participant courses were located in 12 out of 16 states (Bundesländer). During the project period, some regions and states emerged as particularly active. For instance, 76 courses (51 %) registered in Berlin and Brandenburg, 53 (36 %) in Northern Germany, including the states of Lower Saxony, Mecklen‐ burg-West Pomerania, Schleswig-Holstein, and the city-states of Bremen and Hamburg. Other participant groups were located in Hesse (12 courses, 8 %), 206 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="207"?> North Rhine-Westphalia (8 courses, 5 %), Baden-Wuerttemberg (4 courses, 3 %), Saxony (2 courses, 1 %), and Bavaria (1 course, 1 %). In sum, the project participants can be described primarily as advanced EFL learners of upper secondary and vocational school types with geographical core areas in Berlin/ Brandenburg and northern Germany. Most courses enrolled in the LMS and registered a private LMS course to work with the provided curriculum online. 5.4 Project Moodle platform: Functions and features The LMS Moodle, as opposed to its many commercial competitors, is based on the theoretical rationale of socio-constructivist pedagogy (Dougiamas & Taylor, 2003), meaning it is designed to provide “a set of tools that support an inquiryand discovery-based approach to online learning” as well as “an environment that allows for collaborative interaction among students” (Brandl, 2005, p. 16). Closely related to this are the principles of connected knowing and transformative learning. Connected knowers are ready and able to build on ideas of others and employ social interactions, and the digital tools facilitating such interactions (e.g., forums, wikis, and other Web 2.0 applications) to the advantage of individual and collaborative learning. Transformative learning refers to the fact that learners do not enter learning arrangements with a blank mind: “We need to test new learning against our old beliefs and incorporate it into our existing knowledge structures” (Cole & Foster, 2008, pp. 4-5). In this mode of learning, students examine their attitudes, beliefs, and competences, assess the ramifications of these dispositions, negotiate potential alternatives, and validate them by engaging in reflection on their learning (cf. Dougiamas & Taylor, 2003). As an open-source software project, Moodle can be installed on all operating systems supporting PHP (an HTML-embedded scripting language) without licensing fees attached. The platform’s layout is template-based, making it highly customizable to different usage contexts. Its content organization is modular. That is, Moodle courses typically feature a flat-view format in which contents are not nested in different sub-pages, and new content must be added by course administrators or course participants themselves. Courses can be structured according to pedagogical needs in a weekly format or different variations of topicor concept-based units if broader conceptual work around selected themes is desired, as was the case in the election project. In terms of content creation, different modules and tools can be added to a course like a glossary, wiki, forum, or quiz. Furthermore, Moodle’s built-in HTML editor 207 5.4 Project Moodle platform: Functions and features <?page no="208"?> 29 A comprehensive description of the functions and uses of Moodle can be found in numerous book-length user guides, including Cole and Foster (2008), Höbarth (2010), Hoeksema and Kuhn (2011), and Wiegrefe (2010). is a powerful content creation tool that can link to or embed any content uploaded to the server or available elsewhere online. Besides, external content and multimedia authoring tools can add additional interactive content, such as the well-known tools Hot Potatoes or H5P (cf. Brandl, 2005). 29 As an LMS, Moodle differs considerably from content management systems in that it does not just provide access to materials and contents as a purely ad‐ ministrative tool. It is used to structure and scaffold learning processes, present information to learners in small chunks, assess how much has been learned and how thoroughly, and, based on this assessment, to offer learner-specific paths and choices for further learning (Brandl, 2005, p. 19). In his review of the LMS, Brandl (2005) mentions these areas of pedagogical design in Moodle: - Course management: e.g., restricting access to course materials, keeping automatic log reports of students, looking up grades - Providing content and resources: e.g., through the different resource types in Moodle, the HTML text editor, or external multimedia authoring software and plugins, see above - Learning management: e.g., by setting conditions that define mastery or completion of a task, and step-by-step guidance for individual practice - Student-based and cooperative learning: e.g., through different interaction formats like building sub-groups in a course, synchronous interaction in chats, asynchronous interaction in forums or wikis - Feedback: i.e., almost all modules allow for the provision of feedback by the teacher or peers, both quantitatively and qualitatively - Assessment and testing: e.g., using modules like quiz, essay, or workshop; some facilitate automatic scoring and tallying with user-generated scales The following sub-chapters address these aspects in greater detail in the context of the election project. 5.4.1 The LMS Moodle: Structure, user interface, navigation Moodle’s basic organizing unit is the course page, referred to as ‘e-classroom’ in the election project. Course pages can be used in multiple ways to facilitate the LMS’s scalability to multiple pedagogical contexts and wide ranges of user numbers. In the election project, each participating course was provided with a copy of the e-classroom containing the project curriculum (cf. section 5.4.2). 208 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="209"?> These course copies were mostly identical except for the materials specific to the adopted U.S. state. The standard course page in Moodle features three columns: the content column in the center and ancillary blocks in the left and right margins. In the content column, the course sections are displayed consecutively according to their order in the curriculum. Each course section in the election project features a header (headline, image) and a summary (cf. Figure 5.2). Once users click on the section title, they can view the section’s activities and resources listed as links (cf. Figure 5.3). Thus, learners must click on the resource or activity links to read a task or resource, submit a product, insert information, and so forth, according to the resource or activity type (cf. section 5.4.3). The ancillary blocks were added to the course to facilitate several administrative, communicative, and pedagogical functions: - Activities: lists and allows navigation between all activity (types) in a course - Administration: administrative settings like switching to the editing mode (for teachers) - Blog menu: provides links for users to add new blog entries and view their previous blog entries - Calendar: displays course and site events, such as submission deadlines and activity time restrictions as well as dates relevant for the project and the election (updated by platform administrators) - Latest news: lists recent messages in the announcement forum - Messages: displays incoming messages by other users - Online users: displays currently logged-in users - People: displays a link list of all user profiles in the course - RSS feed: displays NPR’s politics news RSS feed - Upcoming events: displays calendar events in a summarized list In addition, teachers and students were assigned different roles within their course by default. While the ‘student’ role allowed learners only to navigate the course page and work on the provided activities, the ‘teacher’ role involved further administrative permissions allowing teachers to adapt the course ac‐ cording to pedagogical or curricular needs. For example, teachers can adjust the basic course structure by adding a time-restriction setting so learners can view the respective contents, but not work on them outside the set time. Teachers can also turn individual resources and activities, or even whole course sections invisible, thereby structuring the learning path and pace externally and preventing learners from exploring course contents ahead of schedule. Besides such administrative adaptations, teachers can essentially change or extend all parts of the provided course content. 209 5.4 Project Moodle platform: Functions and features <?page no="210"?> Figure 5.2: Screenshot of the LMS course page. (The middle column features the course contents, i.e., course sections; the boxes to the left and right contain additional tools for administration, navigation, and collaboration.) Figure 5.3: Screenshot of course section 2, ‘Getting started.’ (Activities and resources are displayed in linear fashion below one another as hyperlinks.) 210 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="211"?> Finally, the election project’s Moodle platform is designed to combine public and private learning spaces for facilitating different learning goals. The private e-class‐ room is password-protected and offers a safe learning space for participants of the same course. However, all e-classrooms are linked to a meta-course—the “Meeting Point”—to foster communication and collaboration of all project participants beyond classroom borders (cf. Figure 5.4). This meta-course contains the following sections: 1. General information: Besides the online surveys and a forum to commu‐ nicate project-related news and announcements, this section includes a database of experts in American studies and U.S. politics whom students can contact for questions about the election. 2. Meeting area: This section contains a forum for students who want to exchange their project experience or seek advice from peers, and one for teachers to discuss LMSor curriculum-related matters and exam ideas. 3. More links: The section features a list of updates on the election like current polls, news reports, or upcoming events. 4. Useful tools: Here, students can find useful Web 2.0 tools and resources like royalty-free stock photos and music, which they can use to present their outcome prediction. 5. Competition: This section contains the database where students submit their prediction and entry for the school competition. 6. By the way…: Here, participants can find databases for exchanging personal experiences in the U.S. 7. Tutorials: The final section contains links to the Moodle docs and various video tutorials for teachers and learners. All project participants are automatically enrolled in this meta-course and can move between private and public learning spaces at their discretion. Figure 5.4: LMS structure of private courses (‘e-classrooms’) and the public meta-course (‘Meeting Point’). 211 5.4 Project Moodle platform: Functions and features <?page no="212"?> 5.4.2 LMS course content: Project curriculum Having outlined the pedagogical principles and goals of the election project in the previous sub-chapter, the project curriculum provided to all participants in the form of an LMS course is now sketched. Course sections 3-6 are content sections and contain the project curriculum, while the other sections fulfill administrative purposes or contain additional resources complementing the content sections. Each section can be further divided into task cycles and individual activities, engaging learners in various procedures, and targeting different communicative and digital skills. Table 5.3 provides a detailed overview of all activities in the LMS course along with these components. First, however, the different course sections are summarized below: Section 1: Introduction. This introductory section is designed for course admin‐ istrative purposes and contains the course announcement forum (maintained by the teacher; forum postings are automatically forwarded as private messages and via email to all course participants). Like all other sections in the course, section 1 also includes teaching notes with instructions and tips to guide the classroom implementation. These notes are only visible to teachers. Section 2: Getting started. This section introduces learners to the project context and the LMS by asking them to customize their user profiles, share prior knowledge and assumptions about the election in a forum, and participate in a trial vote (“Who do you think will be the next President of the U.S.? ”). Section 3: The electoral system. This is the first content section of the curric‐ ulum. It introduces the procedures of electing the U.S. President and targets the acquisition of foundational knowledge required to make an informed prediction about the election outcome (i.e., the target task of the project). The six activities of this course section (activities 4-9 in Table 5.3) were described in section 5.2.1 as an example of a task cycle. The online activity formats here include simple assignments with guided web-research and a discussion of results in a forum, sharing of text-based and visual learner products (i.e., forum upload), as well as the collaborative construction of an interactive quiz to document learning outcomes. 212 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="213"?> Title Type Activity procedure(s): Learners… Lang. Dig. skills 1 Introduce yourself to the project user profile create a personal profile on Moodle to introduce them‐ selves to the community. W 2.6, 3.1, 4.2 2 Your knowledge & impressions about the U.S. election forum state and discuss prior knowledge about the campaign and the candidates in a forum. W 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 3 Trial Vote choice assess the current state of the election and cast a trial vote on who they think will win. R 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 Section 3: The electoral system 4 Analyze the word cloud asgmt./ forum/ glossary identify known and unknown election vocabulary in a word cloud. explain known vocabulary to co-learners (orally and in a forum). research unknown concepts and contribute written explanations to a glossary. S 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.4, 3.2 5 Stages of the electionlearn from a video asgmt./ forum view a video on the U.S. electoral system. identify the phases of the electoral process. explain this system by answering viewing comprehension questions in a forum. L, V, W 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1 6 Group work: Individual stages of the election asgmt./ forum conduct a web-research on one of the election campaign phases in groups, analyze their phase, and summarize their findings in a forum. L, R, V, W 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1 7 Classroom work: Comparison and discussion of result asgmt. analyze their campaign phase in expert groups and, summarize findings, and present them orally to co-learners. construct quiz questions about their phase for their co-learners S 1.3, 3.1, 3.2, 5.3 213 5.4 Project Moodle platform: Functions and features <?page no="214"?> Title Type Activity procedure(s): Learners… Lang. Dig. skills 8 What is your opinion? (Individual assignment) asgmt./ forum read and analyze opposing opinions on the role of the electoral college. evaluate the different viewpoints and compose a written response reflecting their own view. W 1.2, 3.1, 3.2 9 Check your knowl‐ edge of the electoral system quiz construct a quiz on the electoral system in Moodle using their questions (cf. activity 7) and fill it out online. R, W 1.3, 3.1, 3.2, 5.3 Section 4: The candidates 10 Warm-up: Discuss the Candidates forum discussion state and discuss prior knowledge about the candidates (positions, personal background) and their preferences in a forum. W 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 11 Important aspects of the candidate’s biographies asgmt./ choice/ forum conduct a web-research on the candidates’ biographies and positions. evaluate how these findings can be used in the cam‐ paigns to support a candidate or attack the opponent, and they present and discuss these findings in a forum. L, R, V, W 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1 12 How their spouses support the candidates asgmt./ forum conduct a web-research on the candidates’ wives’ con‐ tributions to the campaigns. analyze the wives’ roles and discuss findings in a forum. L, R, V, W 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1 13 Job vacancy for the First Lady! forum list, explain, and discuss characteristics required for the First Lady (if advertised as a job opening) in a forum. R, W 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1 14 Role Play: Job Interview with a First Lady Applicant asgmt. develop arguments and talking points for the two ‘ap‐ plicants’ for the position of First Lady. prepare their role and act out the role play (job appli‐ cation interview for the position of First Lady) sponta‐ neously. S — 214 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="215"?> Title Type Activity procedure(s): Learners… Lang. Dig. skills 15 Role Play: TV interview with America's first First Gentleman asgmt. develop arguments and talking points for the position of First ‘Gentleman.’ Learners prepare their role and act out the role play (TV application interview for First Gentleman) spontaneously. S — 16 Write an application as First Lady asgmt. summarize their findings on requirements for First Lady (cf. activity 13) and compose a résumé and CV. S 1.2, 1.3, 3.1 17 SPLIT-A Divided America asgmt./ forum explain the ‘partisan divide’ in U.S. politics. analyze the concept of the partisan divide by differen‐ tiating different electoral maps. compare and discuss their findings in a forum. L, R, V, W 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 Section 5: Campaign issues 18 Find titles for the cartoons glossary identify the campaign topics represented in political cartoons and formulate creative titles/ captions for them in a glossary. W 2.1, 2.4, 3.2, 5.3 19 Find out more about topics and issues asgmt./ choice/ wiki conduct a web-research on one selected campaign issue in expert groups. identify and compare both candidates' positions on the issue. summarize their findings and insert them into a wiki. L, R, V, W 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2 20 Election posters asgmt. design a campaign poster for each of the candidates' addressing the selected campaign issue (cf. activity 19). W 1.3, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 21 The First 100 days of… asgmt. compose a newspaper article on the first 100 days of one candidate’s presidency, addressing the selected campaign issue (cf. activity 19). W 1.3, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 215 5.4 Project Moodle platform: Functions and features <?page no="216"?> Title Type Activity procedure(s): Learners… Lang. Dig. skills 22 Stage Debate between Romney and Obama asgmt. develop arguments and talking points for the two can‐ didates. prepare their role and act out a debate between the candidates as a role play. S — 23 Interpret a cartoon asgmt. analyze a political cartoon (including description, anal‐ ysis, interpretation, evaluation). W — Section 6: The campaign in our state 24 Find out yourself and contribute to the discussion asgmt./ forum identify campaign issues in ‘their’ state and evaluate their significance for this local context. L, R, V, W 1.1, 1.2, 1,3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 25 Group work: Evaluate and sum up asgmt. analyze the sociopolitical structure of ‘their’ state. apply their knowledge from preceding project phases to develop an informed prediction of the state's voting behavior. R, S — 26 Contribute to the school competition asgmt./ choice design and produce a creative outcome/ product of their work (cf. activity 25) in their choice of format and medium. L, R, V, W 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 3,1, 3.2, 3.3, (3.4), 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 Table 5.3: Overview of the activities in the project curriculum (course sections 3-6). (type = activity or resource type in Moodle; task procedures = expected learner procedures; lang. = CEFR language skill areas (Listening/ Viewing, Reading, Speaking, and Writing); dig. skills = targeted digital skill areas in the DigComp framework [Carretero et al., 2017; 1 = information and data literacy; 2 = communication and collaboration; 3 = digital content creation; 4 = safety; 5 = problem solving]). 216 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="217"?> Section 4: The candidates. The second content section introduces both candidates, the Democrat Barack Obama and his Republican contender Mitt Romney, with emphasis on their personal backgrounds and biographies, their political platforms, and the role of their spouses. The potential role of gender in political and popular discourse is emphasized here, for example, when learners are asked to infer the spouses’ significance in the campaign as so-called character witnesses (activities 12, 13, and 16 in Table 5.3), when they discuss the role of the office of the First Lady by writing a fictional job application (activities 13 and 16 in Table 5.3Table 5.3), or when they reverse the roles of (male) President and (female) First Lady to describe the position of the United States’ first-ever First Gentleman (activity 15 in Table 5.3). The activity types here include online forum discussions, guided web-research, role-playing activities, and creative writing assignments. Section 5: Campaign issues. This section addresses the campaign issues of the election, which are picked up by both campaigns. As described in section 5.2.5, the whole range of campaign topics is of potential relevance here-from economic issues like the job market to social issues like gay rights and immigration policies, health, international relations, and other topics. It thus allows for a flexible and adjustable content focus. Also, this open structure permits special‐ ization in the adopted state since participants can pre-select those campaign issues expected to emerge as critical issues there. Besides information and filter literacies, this section fosters text-genre and target language discourse competences. For example, a key focus is on the analysis, interpretation, and creation of political cartoons, which are understood as an essential genre of political communication, particularly political commentary and satire (cf. Stavroudis, 2014). In terms of online activities, learners are again supposed to engage in a collaborative web-research and connect the DigComp competence areas of information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, and digital content creation in the context of a wiki. Section 6: The campaign in State X. The first three content sections converge in the final section of the curriculum, where the focus returns to the adopted U.S. state. While the goal of this section is clear-predicting the election outcome in the adopted state and presenting it in an informative, well-founded, and creative format—the path to this result is left open. The participants must negotiate both the format of the presentation and its content. The primary resource for this section, the state fact sheet, provides structural guidance. It highlights sociodemographic data, local and regional news media, social media profiles of state representatives, and data about the state’s voting history as potentially relevant for an accurate prediction of the election outcome (course section 8 217 5.4 Project Moodle platform: Functions and features <?page no="218"?> includes additional research materials, see below). Regarding the presentation format and its design, learners can also access a curated database of Web 2.0 tools in the meta-course (‘Meeting Point’). This database includes apps that can be used for presentation and visualization, podcasting, creating animated comics, timelines, and puzzles. The language focus in this final section varies greatly depending on the selected presentation format. Learner products submitted to the school competition included videos, posters, blogs and websites, comics, poems, and songs (cf. section 5.3). Most, if not all, of these formats share a high degree of authentic target language use in the sense that they are constructed for publication—either in the confined context of the LMS or even on publicly accessible Web 2.0 platforms like YouTube or GoAnimate. In terms of digital skills, this section addresses all five areas outlined in the DigComp framework, especially digital content creation and problem-solving. Section 7: Our results. This section provides a database where different learner groups or individual students can post their products so the course can decide which product to submit to the school competition. Section 8: More resources for State X. This section is used exclusively as a materials repository for additional, state-specific resources to facilitate the prediction of the election outcome. These materials are identical to the resources provided in the state fact sheets. 5.4.3 Tasks and activity formats In terms of learning formats, Moodle offers multiple options to accommodate learner preferences and allow for the customization of personal learning environments: “Moodle and [its] tools […] are potentially democratic tools which give learners a comparatively high level of control over the learning environment” (Stickler & Hampel, 2010, p. 56). Due to these different learning formats, Moodle can satisfy different learner preferences, such as social vs. individualized learning, self-regulated vs. other-regulated learning, preferences for perceptual modes, or synchronous vs. asynchronous communication—an especially relevant factor for advanced learners who have clear expectations toward their learning (cf. Stickler & Hampel, 2010, pp. 56-7). Hilgenstock and Jirmann (2005, p. 38, cited in Höbarth, 2010, p. 63) identify a set of pedagogical functions of LMS, which can guide the categorization of activity types in Moodle. Table 5.4 summarizes the activity types used in the election project along with their pedagogical functions: 218 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="219"?> activity type infor‐ mation com‐ muni‐ cation coop‐ era‐ tion/ collab‐ oration testing selfreflec‐ tion super‐ vision/ evalua‐ tion feed‐ back assignment • • choice • • • • database forum • • • • glossary • • • • quiz • • resource • wiki • • • • • Table 5.4: Activity types in the election project and their pedagogical functions (adapted from Hilgenstock & Jirmann, 2005, p. 38). The assignment module is widely used by teachers in Moodle to collect and evaluate any type of learner text or product, especially if they do not fit into any of the other activity types. Assignments can also be used to submit text-based answers directly if the text editor is enabled, or they can be used entirely without uploads, for example, to remind learners of face-to-face tasks. The assignment module is the standard activity type in the election project. Some assignments ask learners to submit texts (e.g., ‘What is your opinion? ’ 8), photos (e.g., ‘Election posters,’ 20), or videos (e.g., ‘Stage a debate between Romney and Obama,’ 22). Other assignments direct learners to contribute their findings to other activity types, for example, to forums (e.g., ‘Your knowledge and impressions about the U.S. election,’ 2) or a glossary (‘Analyze the word cloud,’ 4), thereby fostering active collaboration between learners. Furthermore, some assignments connect online activities like web-research to in-class activities like role plays (e.g., ‘Role Play: TV interview with America’s first First Gentleman,’ 15). The choice module can be used as a poll to collect student answers in a multiple-choice format, and student answers can be updated and published if desired. An anonymous choice was used in the election project to facilitate a trial vote at the beginning of the course (‘Trial Vote,’ 3) for administrative purposes to assign learners to sub-groups (‘Find out more about topics and issues,’ 19), 219 5.4 Project Moodle platform: Functions and features <?page no="220"?> and to select the contribution for the school competition from among several learner products (‘Contribute to the school competition,’ 26). The database module is used to collect data in a structured way within a shared repository. Here, it was used to collect learner products for the school competition (‘Contribute to the school competition,’ 26) as well as for socializing and communication in the Meeting Point meta-course, where students were encouraged to share their experiences with the U.S. (database ‘Adventures and Impressions as an Exchange Student in the USA’). The glossary module is used to collaboratively construct annotated word lists or collections of specific terms or concepts in a field of study. These are vocabulary items in a foreign language class or key concepts in a content-based class. In this project, the glossary was used to produce an inventory of political science concepts and terminology with user-generated definitions (‘Analyze the word cloud,’ 4). All instances of the glossary keywords were automatically linked to their definitions in the glossary to scaffold the learning process. Learners thereby effectively designed their learning environment. If maintained throughout the project period, the glossary became a record of classroom work and a valuable resource for exam preparation. The glossary is also used to collaboratively construct creative captions or titles for political cartoons about the election (‘Find titles for the cartoons,’ 18). The quiz module is a useful tool to collect information about learners’ skill and knowledge development in a particular course and can thus fulfill a vital assessment and diagnostic function. A quiz can incorporate different question formats (e.g., short answer, multiple-choice, etc.) and, through the provision of adequate feedback, support learners in assessing their learning and in developing greater autonomy. In the election project, the quiz was used for these functions by testing the students’ understanding of the U.S. electoral system (‘Check your knowledge of the electoral system,’ 9), but important dimensions of self-reflection and co-construction were added by having the learners themselves develop the quiz items. The resource module is a simple way to add textual and multimedia content to learning activities by constructing it using Moodle’s HTML editor. It thus carries the primary function of providing information to learners. Resource pages and links to embedded files or external websites were used throughout the project curriculum. The wiki module is used to create several interconnected web pages and can be created and edited by multiple users in a collaborative process. They can be centered around a greater topic or be more comprehensive, for example, in the case of encyclopedias. In the election project, this function was exploited in the 220 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="221"?> collaborative process whereby different learner groups researched, collected, and summarized campaign issues addressed by both presidential campaigns (‘Find out more issues and topics,’ 19). Similar to the glossary module, wikis can be used to facilitate a peer editing procedure. 5.5 Underlying blended learning approach Parameter Descriptors Mode focus on mode; distribution of modes; choice of modes Model of integration sequencing of individual modes; level of integration Distribution of learning content and objectives, assignment of purpose parallel or isolated Language teaching methods use of teaching methods in each of the modes employed Involvement of learning sub‐ jects (students and teachers) interactional patterns; variety of teacher and learner roles; level of autonomy Location classroom, home, outdoors, computer lab, institu‐ tional settings Table 5.5: Parameters describing and conceptualizing a BL environment for language learning and teaching purposes (Neumeier, 2005, p. 167). The methodological approach of BL is central to the design underlying the election project and its classroom implementation. BL was discussed above (cf. section 3.2) as a combination of face-to-face and online or computer-mediated learning and self-access learning, where learners can make important decisions about the sequence, content, and location of learning and other aspects (Graham, 2006). This approach is now applied to the election project. Researchers in BL found that a distinct BL methodology or pedagogy remains a desideratum (Whittaker, 2013a; Würffel, 2011, 2014), and various models of planning and implementing have been described (Dudeney & Hockly, 2007; cf. Neumeier, 2005; Pete Sharma & Barrett, 2007; Staker & Horn, 2012). Some of these models operate on a meso-level of curriculum planning (e.g., Dudeney & Hockly, 2007) or chiefly seek to describe the integration of modes from the learners’ perspective (e.g., Staker & Horn, 2012). Neumeier’s (2005) six-factor model allows a more detailed account of pedagogical and technological considerations 221 5.5 Underlying blended learning approach <?page no="222"?> unique to BL in the areas of instructional modes, model integration, distribution of learning content and objectives, language teaching methods, involvement of learning subjects, and location (cf. section 3.2.1). 5.5.1 Mode The focus on mode is the first parameter in Neumeier’s model. It includes the two primary modes of face-to-face learning and online learning and their respective sub-modes. The LMS course designed for the election project combines the modes of online or computer-mediated learning, self-access learning, and face-to-face instruction at the levels of course design. These modes include the following example activities and applications: - Online/ CALL: asynchronous technologies like forum discussions, custom‐ izing one’s user profile, writing and uploading learner texts, providing peer feedback, conducting web-research; synchronous technologies like class‐ room-based teaching (classroom discussions, jigsaw puzzles, role plays), chat discussion, creating a wiki, and contributing to a glossary - Self-directed learning: filling out a quiz, reading a text or viewing a video and responding to comprehension questions, writing a private blog entry, reflecting on one's learning process in a portfolio - face-to-face learning: Classroom discussions (e.g., in think-pair-share format), oral presentations, jigsaw puzzles, role plays, producing learner products (e.g., filming a video) Based on Kerres (2001), Neumeier (2005) stresses the significance of the lead mode as it guides the overall learning process, reflects the organization and sequencing of content, and represents the mode in which learners will spend the most time. Overall, the a priori selection (or gradual emergence) of a lead mode will provide for a program’s transparent structure and clear layout. The election project is based on a rationale to integrate BL in regular EFL classes in secondary schools. The project thus had to be compliant with EFL curricula (cf. section 5.2.5) and be integrated into local time budgets and schedules. In other words, it was clear the project was to be functionally added to EFL lessons on-site, so the lead mode of face-to-face instruction could be preserved. The three focal courses selected for the classroom-based research, for example, met for four lessons a week and devoted all EFL lessons to the project during their five-week participation. It is also clear that a focus on face-to-face learning should be maintained despite the work with the LMS because a majority of teachers and learners reported limited experience with the online mode. At the 222 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="223"?> very least, the online mode requires a certain degree of autonomy and sustained motivation on the learners’ part and principled methodological decisions by the teachers. Therefore, the selection of online work as the lead mode could have been perceived as overwhelming by the project participants. In addition, we should bear in mind that Neumeier discusses the selection of lead mode as a design decision made in advance to the program implementation. While this perhaps can be decided a priori in centralized BL programs within a single institutional context and learner group, a more complex picture emerged in this project. Apart from the mode chosen by the three focal courses, other teachers made the project participation entirely optional to their students, so in some cases, only a sub-group of learners participated in the project, mostly outside their EFL lessons, resulting in a different relationship between face-to-face and online phases. The selection of lead mode directly impacts the distribution of modes within a BL design. Neumeier (2005, p. 168) states this distribution is quantifiable in terms of the time spent in each mode, relative to the overall duration of instruction. Taking the three focal courses as an example, this seems straightforward on the surface. The teachers of courses 1 and 2 relocated their classes to the computer lab for one to two out of the four weekly lessons and met in their regular classrooms for the remaining lessons, while course 3 met in the computer lab for all EFL lessons during their project participation. It could be argued this reflects a greater engagement in CALL by course 3 and a more moderate approach to BL by the other two courses, whose strategy reflects a rotation model (Staker & Horn, 2012; cf. section 3.2.1). However, as described below, different modes can be blended even within a single setting, and the availability of digital devices do not automatically lead to their functional implementation in instruction—something that occurred in all three courses, for example, when entire lessons took place in the computer lab but did not incorporate digital media use. Staker and Horn (2012) also mention the choice of mode for individual phases of programs or lessons as a component of successful BL design. Again, the LMS course makes various suggestions on this choice, such as in suggesting to facil‐ itate learner discussions using the forum module, sharing learner products in a course-internal database, or selecting a topic for group work using the choice module. However, participants are not obliged to adopt these suggestions as they stand since, in most cases, participant courses also meet regularly face-to-face, and although an online forum discussion may have specific advantages over an oral discussion in certain contexts, the activity will also work in an offline, face-to-face mode. 223 5.5 Underlying blended learning approach <?page no="224"?> 5.5.2 Model of integration The choice of lead mode and the distribution of modes points towards the second category in Neumeier’s (2005) framework, the underlying model of integration. The first of two relevant parameters concerns the sequencing of individual modes. This aspect was broadly discussed above by outlining how the two primary modes were arranged in the participants’ timetable (cf. Whittaker, 2013a). As Neumeier (2005, p. 170) rightly points out, the number of possible combinations is infinite in theory, but pedagogical and pragmatic considerations limit these combinations to a feasible number in practice. A simple design may employ an alternating sequence of the face-to-face mode and only one online sub-mode (e.g., email). More elaborate designs, however, may draw on a multitude of sub-modes and arrange them in an overlapping or parallel order. The latter was the case in the election project since integrating the LMS into regular face-to-face EFL lessons was pursued as a core goal. In section 5.4.3, the different types of activities and resources, and their pedagogical functions were reviewed with regard to how they were employed in the LMS course, reflecting different sub-modes or technologies related to CALL. In all three focal courses, face-to-face and online phases alternated in accordance with the teachers’ lesson plans. Neumeier suggests in this context the sequencing of modes follow the goal of reducing transactional distance (Moore & Kearsley, 1996) among participants (i.e., teachers and students). This aspect, however, is perhaps negligible in the particular context of the election project where the BL design is mostly used to enrich the regular face-to-face classroom context. Furthermore, all three courses used the LMS not just during out-of-class learning phases (i.e., during homework assignments) or for self-access learning, but also during the face-to-face lessons, sometimes even simultaneously to classroom discussions. Hinkelman (2018) refers to this use as blended technol‐ ogies, understood as instances “when the face-to-face dimensions merge with the online dimensions such that it is no longer possible to distinguish between the two. It is neither face-to-face nor online, but a combination” (p. 135). One such example is the implementation of activity 18, “Find titles for the cartoons,” in course 1 (cf. chapter 8). During this lesson, students examined a glossary of political cartoons about the election campaign to which they were supposed to creatively invent captions or titles and post them as a comment below the cartoons. While learners engaged in this task, the teacher projected the glossary onto the classroom wall. Even as the oral discussion of results was already in process, learners continued posting creative suggestions to the glossary, which was then updated in real-time on the classroom wall. 224 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="225"?> The second parameter relates to the level of integration, in which compul‐ sory components in the BL design—whether whole activities, contents, or the mode of communication—reflect a high level of integration, whereas optional components reflect a low level of integration (Neumeier, 2005, p. 171). The combination of compulsory and optional components offers students a degree of flexibility and allows them to decide whether they consider an activity worth engaging in. In the election project, as in most other BL programs, the face-to-face components are obligatory. Many of the tasks in the project curriculum do, however, feature an open structure, so learners can make choices in the resources they consult, the applications they use, or the type of learner texts they produce. A discussion of an insightful example of such flexibility in the context of activities 10 (‘Warm-up: Discuss the Candidates’), 11 (‘Important aspects of the candidate's biographies’), and 12 (‘How their spouses support the candidates’); in focal case number 2 (cf. chapter 9), these activities were merged into a single task cycle where students were asked to research the candidates and their spouses in preparation of a role-play depicting these roles in a TV interview. Three focal students in the same course used different media to solve this task, ranging from Google search and news reports, to interactive timelines with multimodal content, to the candidates’ Twitter feeds. In addition, because the project was to be implemented in a multitude of institutional and local contexts, the LMS course was designed to allow for flexible classroom integration and recognize different media infrastructures on-site as well as varying degrees of ability and readiness to implement a BL program (cf. section 5.3). 5.5.3 Distribution of learning content The third category in Neumeier’s framework concerns the distribution of learning content and objectives in a BL environment, incorporated in parallel or isolated fashion (Neumeier, 2005, p. 171). In isolated incorporation, a skill would be acquired only in one of the two modes, whereas in parallel incorpo‐ ration, the acquisition of a skill or construction of knowledge draws on both modes. Regarding the election project, only limited statements can be made about this relation because of different implementation approaches on-site and because the project’s LMS course does not prescribe a single procedure. The three focal courses all applied a stronger focus on productive oral skills (i.e., dialogic speaking, oral presentations, creative production, e.g., in role-plays) in the face-to-face mode. At the same time, the preparation for such activities, including more extensive background research assignments, were relegated 225 5.5 Underlying blended learning approach <?page no="226"?> to the online mode. Likewise, longer writing assignments (e.g., “Interpret a cartoon,” 23) and asynchronous CMC such as forum discussions were instead often assigned as homework. 5.5.4 Language teaching methods The next category, language teaching methods, addresses the use of methods in each of the modes employed. While the underlying teaching approaches of the online and face-to-face mode are likely to influence one another, they are driven by different sets of factors. The methodology in CALL is expressed and incorporated through the design of the software and applications used, whereas the teacher’s influence is much more significant in the face-to-face mode, where aspects like teacher beliefs and subjective theories about learning, experience, and assessment of the situation impact the learning environment more than the choice of material (Neumeier, 2005, p. 172). The pedagogical prin‐ ciples underlying the project curriculum, most notably taskand project-based language learning, have been described above (cf. section 5.2). Accordingly, the LMS course is structured in task cycles reflecting the principles of TBLT (i.e., communicative orientation, focus on meaning, integration of language skills) and includes the practice of linguistic form in a functional approach. In developing the curriculum, we applied the principle of backward planning (Le‐ gutke & Thomas, 1991), taking the communicative goal and non-communicative outcomes of the project’s target task as the point of departure for pedagogical planning and constructing a sequence of tasks and exercises, which scaffold the learning process towards this goal. Likewise, the curriculum directly connects activities in the online mode (e.g., a guided web-research and forum discussion) to face-to-face classroom activities (e.g., a role-play or oral presentation). Although teachers on-site are responsible for micro-level lesson planning, the project curriculum, as expressed in the LMS course, promotes a task-based approach through its design. 5.5.5 Involvement of learning subjects The fifth category concerns different dimensions of student and teacher in‐ volvement, namely interactional patterns, participant roles, and their level of autonomy (Neumeier, 2005, pp. 173-5). First, the added possibilities of technology-enhanced learning environments have extended the range of potential interactional patterns beyond merely human-to-human interaction. Interactional patterns in BL can be distinguished by the role of the device 226 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="227"?> or network (i.e., interaction through computers, interaction with computers, interaction at computers, interaction about computers), the type of synchro‐ nicity (asynchronous vs. synchronous CMC), the role of the speaker (student vs. tutor/ teacher), the number of speakers (individual vs. pairs or groups), and the direction of interaction, especially in the context of human-machine interaction (machine-to-human vs. human-to-machine) (cf. Crook, 1994). There can be numerous and complex arrangements of interaction types within a single BL course, whether planned and intended by the teacher or not, and these interactional patterns profoundly shape the learning process and experience in the BL setting. In the election project, the LMS provides the infrastructure for interaction through computers, such as asynchronous interaction between students in a forum or a glossary, asynchronous communication between groups of students in the meta-course, student-to-computer interaction in a quiz, and so forth. However, the subsequent analysis of qualitative classroom data (cf. chapters 8-10) reveals the collaborative student-student and teacher-student interactions, simultaneous to the online interface, is just as relevant for the learning process. These interactional patterns, in turn, influence the teacher and learner roles, which the participants assume in the two primary modes and across different phases of the BL project. Roles are the norms and expectations towards incumbents of a particular position in a specific context (Widdowson, 1987). This context is a social space which, in the case of BL, can spread over multiple physical locations and different modes. It can influence whether teachers take on the role of an instructor, resource, aid, a partner in learning, or a facilitator of social and pedagogical processes. Accordingly, learners may exercise different degrees of agency, from recipients of information to peer teachers or even experts in a process or content area (Neumeier, 2005, p. 174). The election project further exemplifies how the complex integration of modes and learning spaces in BL requires students to move between these roles competently and seamlessly. In all three focal courses, for example, students alternated between relatively passive roles during teacher-led face-to-face phases or within the pre-structured LMS course with pre-selected self-access materials, and the more active role of peer teachers in problem-solving tasks involving the co-constructive process of collaborating on a wiki or a glossary. In producing target language products for the school competition and publishing them on online platforms like YouTube, they acted as authors, producers, publishers, and participants in authentic, real-life cultural contexts not primarily defined by the school context (Kaliampos, 2014b; Kaliampos & Schmidt, 2014). 227 5.5 Underlying blended learning approach <?page no="228"?> 30 Questionnaire item QS 2-S -DigMed_PCNutzEUArt01 (n = 242). 31 Questionnaire item QS 2-S -DigMed_PCNutzHausDau01 (n = 242). 32 Questionnaire item QS 1-L -DigMed_Handy01 (n = 390). 33 Questionnaire item QS 2-L -DigMed_Mood_Handy01 (n = 245). It is evident, however, that students will have to develop an awareness of these roles and concomitant demands first, as they cannot be expected to display this degree of autonomy without training. Indeed, Neumeier (2005, p. 175) mentions, learner autonomy underlies the success of BL approaches, specifically whether learners can handle different degrees of responsibility for the content and process of learning and whether they can adequately evaluate when to take action and when to direct responsibility to others. 5.5.6 Location Finally, learning can take place in different locations in the context of BL projects, and usually multiple locations will be integrated in a single BL environment. The program or teacher may determine some locations, yet the learners may select others. The distribution of modes in the three focal courses showed that part of or, as in course 3 (cf. chapter 10), all EFL lessons were relocated to the participating schools’ computer labs during the election project. In both schools, the layout of the computer lab consisted of desk rows with an individual computer and screen for each student and a projection screen in the front of the room—a layout also reported by 70.7% of students in the project survey. 30 While this may facilitate adequate access to software applications and the Internet for all students in a class, such an atomized layout negatively impacts collaborative group interaction processes during mixed online and face-to-face phases (Bradley & Lomicka, 2000). A second aspect to consider is the role of out-of-class learning, especially ubiquitous or mobile learning. Overall, 76.0% of respondent learners in the election project regularly accessed the LMS from home, albeit to varying extents. 41.7% of learners reported using the LMS for just up to 30 minutes weekly from home, 22.3% for up to 60 minutes, and 12.0% for over 60 minutes per week. 31 The LMS was also accessible through mobile web browsers and a Moodle mobile app, but the questionnaire survey revealed only 66.4% of student participants owned a smartphone at the time of the project, 32 and only 13.9% reported post-project having accessed the LMS with their smartphones. 33 * * * In sum, the election project can thus be described as a BL project with a complex integration of online and face-to-face modes offering flexibility in terms of classroom implementation in accordance with established teaching 228 5 Research context: The U.S. Embassy School Election Project <?page no="229"?> practices and institutional conditions on-site. Despite different approaches to implementation, the face-to-face mode is assumed to represent the lead mode due to the project’s integration into regular secondary school instructional contexts. The LMS course itself suggests a taskand project-based approach to EFL teaching by design. The LMS furthermore can allow for mobile and ubiquitous learning, although in practice, this option seems to have been limited by other factors. 5.6 Summary Chapter 5 introduced the overall framework of the U.S. Embassy School Election Project, which serves as the context of the subsequently reported research data and findings. Section 5.1 introduced the institutional partnership behind the project, its approach of a nationwide mock election of the U.S. President, and the project structure, including the school competition. Next was a discussion of the underlying pedagogical goals and objectives (5.2) with a particular focus on TBLT (section 5.2.1), PBL (section 5.2.2), interand transcultural learning (section 5.2.3), digital literacies (section 5.2.4), and the project’s curricular implementation (section 5.2.5). Afterward, key participation statistics were reported (section 5.3). The final two sections examined the use of the LMS Moodle for the project context. Section 5.4 introduced the customization of the Moodle platform for the project in terms of structure (section 5.4.1), contents (section 5.4.2), and learning formats (section 5.4.3). Section 5.5 connected the preceding conceptual considerations in an analysis of the underlying BL approach by applying Neumeier’s (2005) BL model to the election project. In the next chapter, the focus will shift towards the macro-perspective of the project—the quantitative participant surveys. 229 5.6 Summary <?page no="231"?> 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys The school election project represents a unique learning opportunity spanning all parts of Germany and their respective EFL curricula, various school forms, and vastly different implementation settings on-site. For many teachers and students, their participation in the project meant an unprecedented educational experience and a change of established EFL classroom procedures. To understand the extent and variability of this experience, as well as its implementation conditions, preand post-project surveys were administered online among teachers and students. In the study’s methodological framework, these instruments contribute to the triangulation of research methods, participant perspectives, and data sources, thereby allowing for a detailed exploration of the research field, deeper penetration of the research object (i.e., the school election project), and the identification of potential research foci for the study’s subsequent qualitative component (cf. chapters 8-10; cf. section 4.4 regarding survey instruments and underlying rationales). This chapter first introduces the findings of the learner pre-survey QS 1-L (section 6.1), which concentrates on the participating students’ expectations and interests asso‐ ciated with the project (section 6.1.1) while also addressing their attitudes, experiences, competencies, and standard practices associated with ICT (section 6.1.2). Supplemental results from the teacher pre-survey QS 1-T provide a detailed understanding of the conditions and pedagogical intentions underlying the project participation (section 6.2). Findings from both pre-surveys are complemented with figures from the PISA survey (OECD, 2015), from which several items were drawn, and which serves as a point of reference. The presentation of results from both groups’ post-surveys QS 2-L and QS 2-T are reported in the same sub-chapter, structured around the themes oflearner experiences and perceived learning outcomes (section 6.3.1), LMS use and changes to classroom processes (section 6.3.2), and perceptions of LMS curriculum and learner contributions to tasks (section 6.3.3). 6.1 Students’ pre-survey QS 1-L The learner pre-survey QS 2-L was administered at the beginning of the school project via the LMS to establish the participating students’ attitudes, skills, and experiences with the subject matter and ICT. The next two sections present the main findings from this questionnaire. <?page no="232"?> 34 References to individual questionnaire responses are given in square brackets; the numbers refer to the questionnaire ID, i.e., the consecutive numbering of the respondents. 6.1.1 Learner expectations and interest The pre-survey’s first section addressed the learners’ expectations and possible concerns toward the school project, and their interest in the subject matter, including U.S. culture and politics, political communication, and others. Learner interest is considered an important factor in pedagogy, pushing students to seek and create boundary-crossing and self-sustained learning opportunities (Barron, 2006). It is directly related to motivation and can influence how much time learners spend on a task and how intensively they engage (Dörnyei, 2002). In terms of developing ICC, this corresponds with the attitudes of curiosity and openness and the skills of discovery and interaction (Byram, 1997). Pedagogically, interest is crucial in developing learner agency and self-initiated learning activity, a precondition of effective learning in projects (Benson, 2007; Chik, 2018; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001; Mercer, 2012). In order to elicit data on learner interest in this school project, the first survey item asked students and teachers to formulate their expectations towards their project participation (Table 6.1). The open responses are coded in the categories of technology-enhanced learning (114 instances), general pedagogical aspects (196 instances), and interest in the subject matter (U.S. culture, politics, elections) (529 instances). While this survey item thematically spans the remaining parts of the survey and thus merits a qualitative analysis of its own, the limitations of this study only allow for a cursory overview of these responses. Table 6.1 lists the identified categories, along with their absolute frequency in the data. In terms of technology-enhanced learning, two motives stand out. First, the students underscore their interest in exploring novel approaches to teaching and learning associated with the LMS (47 instances), often described as new [338], 34 original and diversified [e.g., 226, 291], creative [e.g., 333], interesting [e.g., 264, 275], modern [e.g., 341], interactive [e.g., 377], or self-directed [e.g., 88, 228, 277] as well as learning with contents and materials not commonly part of EFL lessons [e.g., 215, 341]. Secondly, many respondents look forward to engaging in CMC through interaction, cooperation, and virtual exchange with other project participants (43 instances). For instance, they hope to connect with peers interested in the same topic [e.g., 61, 134] (including those in the U.S. [e.g., 154, 160]), express their opinion on controversial real-life issues [e.g., 120, 268], apply EFL skills in debates [e.g., 296], gain new perspectives and insights from online interactions [e.g., 48, 64, 151], and collaborate with other schools [e.g., 163, 219, 292], amongst others. Other themes emerging in this category include 232 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="233"?> students’ motivation to develop new skills and digital literacies, working with web-based materials and multimedia content, and exploring the functionalities of the LMS. No. of instances (Sub-) Category Students Teachers Technology-enhanced learning 114 18 Alternative pedagogical approaches, contents 47 6 Virtual interaction, cooperation, exchange 43 - Web-based materials and multimedia content 9 3 Digital literacy development 8 9 LMS usability 7 - General pedagogical aspects 196 24 Interest, motivation, fun 57 11 Informative value of the project 45 2 EFL learning 31 1 No or unclear expectations 22 - Opinion formation 18 - Currency and authenticity 14 5 School competition, project outcome 7 - Increased workload 2 - Relief for the teacher - 5 Subject matter: USA, civic politics, elections 529 23 Election, electoral system, government 241 5 Candidates, the president 68 - USA in general, culture of the USA 55 6 Adopted state, prediction 54 1 Understanding how Americans think, empathy 45 1 Election campaign 2012, election outcome 38 3 Parties and platforms 20 - Civic education in general 8 7 Total 839 65 Table 6.1: Students’ and teachers’ project expectations. (Survey items QS 1-L _UT_Erw, n = 367; and QS 1-T _Pro_Erw, n = 15; individual responses may refer to several categories and are coded multiple times.) Many responses point to broader pedagogical aspects of the project participation beyond the notion of digital literacies. Most often, in this category, students comment that the project meets their interests and raises their motivation (57 instances). They anticipate the project generally to be fun [e.g., 16, 184, 286, 315] 233 6.1 Students’ pre-survey QS 1-L <?page no="234"?> and suspenseful regarding its outcome [e.g., 23, 196, 219, 343], accommodating of learner interest on the elections [e.g., 176, 239] or inspiring interest for a topic students would not usually engage in [e.g., 112, 297, 364]. Many of these responses are linked to the thematic framework of the U.S., which is further discussed below. The students also highlight the informational value of the project (45 instances), as they are interested in who is going to become the next U.S. president [e.g., 230] or how the U.S. electoral system works [e.g., 43, 87, 217]. They want to gain an overview of U.S. politics [e.g., 328, 364] or generally stress their desire to learn new information [e.g., 100, 104, 227] and engage intensively in a topic [e.g., 75, 271]. Likewise, many identify the goal of improving their general foreign language skills (42 instances), for instance, by extending their thematic vocabulary [e.g., 201, 246, 387] and developing conversational skills [e.g., 23, 386]. Other motives relate to the opportunity to develop an informed opinion or the topicality and authenticity of the project’s content focus. Lastly, the largest number of responses refers to the project’s subject matter, including the United States’ cultural framework and civic learning (529 in‐ stances). Almost half of these instances refer to the learners’ interest in U.S. government, elections, and the electoral system in general (241 instances), with most learners mentioning they generally want to understand how Americans elect their president [e.g., 153, 255] so they can better follow the campaign [e.g., 158, 268] and understand politics in the U.S. [e.g., 150, 200]. Others express their interest in the person and office of the U.S. president (68 instances), such as their political platforms [e.g., 10, 308] and their personalities and biographical background [e.g., 37, 80, 169]. Besides generally seeking a better understanding of the U.S. and its culture (55 instances), many students are interested in their adopted state’s election outcome (54 instances), with many expressing an interest in learning more about their state [e.g., 62, 292] and hoping for an accurate prediction of their state’s vote [e.g., 269, 338]. Closely connected to this, students refer to the intercultural value of empathy, stating they want to understand how Americans think about the election (45 instances). These findings on learner expectations are mirrored by an additional item (Figure 6.1) asking learners to rate their interest in different aspects of the school project’s topic. Student interest generally is high, with more than four in five respondents reporting strong or moderate interest in the U.S. as a travel destination (81.10%), American English (90.05%), the outcome of the election (84.82%), and the culture of the U.S. in general (80.35%). The lowest rated items in this scale relate to knowledge about ethnic groups in the U.S. (52.49%), political news (53.23%), and U.S. media (62.44%), although still, more than half the respondents reported being very or moderately interested in each of these aspects. 234 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="235"?> Figure 6.1: Student interest in the subject matter, U.S. culture. (Survey item QS 1-L _UT_Int, n = 402; descriptor: “Take a look at this list of aspects of the project topic and indicate how much they interest you.”) These encouraging figures for learner interest in the cultural framework of the U.S. align with a high number of students with direct experience in the Eng‐ lish-speaking world, with roughly seven in ten students (71.69%) having visited an English-speaking country before [QS 1-L _Inter_Stay (n = 385)]. These visits include vacation travel, school exchanges, and language study trips, in which the U.S. emerges as the most popular destination after the UK [QS 1-L _Inter_StayUrl (n = 343); QS 1-L _Inter_StayExch (n = 337); QS 1-L _Inter_StaySprachr (n = 329)]. More than half (50.37%) of these students with direct experience in Eng‐ lish-speaking countries claim their travel has contributed to improving their English “fairly” or “a lot” [QS 1-L _Sprachkomp (n = 274)], and it appears plausible such experiences can have a lasting impact on learner interest, identity, and social processes and learning opportunities for intercultural learning beyond the classroom. A critical content area of the project, the survey furthermore addressed the students’ interest in political communication and awareness of political news. Overall, one in four (25.69%) students discuss politics with their friends and family “often” and nearly half (45.39%) “occasionally” [QS 1-L _UT_PolKomm (n = 401)], reflecting a widespread general interest in political affairs among the participants. This correlates with over a third of students seeking information about political affairs either “daily” (32.15%) or “every two to three days” (36.71%) [QS 1-L _UT_PolNews (n = 395)]. Asked which sources they use to keep up with political news, by media 235 6.1 Students’ pre-survey QS 1-L <?page no="236"?> type, most respondents named TV (84.08%), followed by roughly two thirds who named newspapers and magazines (68.91%) and the Internet (67.41%), with radio scoring lowest (56.47%) [QS 1-L _UT_PolQuel (n = 402)]. Additional online sources mentioned include news media outlets like newspaper and TV station websites, primarily in German. Several students also cited social media, like Facebook, Twitter, or Tumblr. Political or news blogs are hardly mentioned and are thus assumed to play an insignificant role here. Despite growing familiarity with online news sources, the student respondents thus rated traditional media like TV the most popular source at the time of data collection. In contrast to these motives of learner interest and expectations, a second open item addressed learners’ possible concerns [QS 1-L UT_Bed (n = 318)], which generally elicited fewer and shorter responses. Most participants left this field empty (81 instances) or explicitly stated they had no concerns (193 instances). Of the remaining responses, almost equal numbers mention the project’s learning demands (68 instances) and concerns regarding inadequate CALL skills or digital literacies (67 instances). The former, general learning demands, include concerns about exceeding linguistic and communicative foreign language demands of the tasks and resources (16 instances), content-based demands, and the project’s reliance on prior knowledge about the subject matter (20 instances) as well as distress over increased workload (20 instances), amongst others. The latter, CALL and digital literacies, involves statements on the structure and usability of the LMS (35 instances), concerns about data privacy and security (27 instances), and the effective implementation of CALL (15 instances). 6.1.2 ICT: Attitudes, experiences, self-confidence Regarding the role of ICT and Web 2.0, the survey addressed the availability of such technologies at home and school, respective usage patterns in leisure and classroom-based EFL contexts, and digital literacies and attitudes towards ICT. To explore the contextual conditions of the BL project, home and school access to ICT was elicited. This is an important factor in the discourse on so-called digital divides, meaning differential access to ICT between socio-demographic groups (Rogers, 2001). Research on digital divides distinguishes the impacts of unequal Internet access, skills/ uses, and resulting learning outcomes, also known as first, second, and third-level digital divides (Scheerder et al., 2017; van Dijk, 2012). Access, attitudes, skills, and practices regarding ICT collectively form digital capital, and different social groups have been demonstrated to engage differen‐ tially in online “capital enhancing activities” (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008). In the context of school-based learning, this can mean students with diminished 236 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="237"?> access to digital devices may have fewer and qualitatively inferior learning opportunities than their peers, including less time to complete assignments and fewer or less convenient technological affordances. Less access to technology may also result in fewer opportunities for informal learning, communication, and collaboration outside the classroom. Schools are recognized as institutions that may close this participation gap by providing access to these technologies, even beyond the classroom, for homework assignments and informal learning. Likewise, it is essential to recognize, beyond mere physical access, learners’ digital literacies and associated self-confidence and attitudes play an important role in determining how effectively they exploit learning opportunities linked to this blended learning school project. The following survey items provide some indices as to how these variables are present in this study’s research context, along with comparative results from international surveys as reference points. Regarding students’ access to ICT at home, the 2012 PISA survey (OECD, 2015, p. 35) reported almost universal access to computers across most surveyed countries. In Germany, which placed above the OECD average, 99.4% of students had access to a computer at home, and almost as many (98.6%) had an Internet connection in their households. In the survey among the school project partic‐ ipants, similar figures were retrieved with almost all respondents reporting available Internet access (98,78%), a computer (85.18%), laptop (89.19%), and printer (94.72%), while two-thirds reported access to gaming consoles (66.33%) and even fewer had access to tablet computers (20.60%) at the time of the survey. Overall, only 1.49% of participants had neither a computer nor a laptop available at home [QS 1-L _DigMed_Haus (n = 398)]. Two thirds (66.41%) of students possessed a smartphone at the time of the survey, and one third had a traditional mobile or feature phone (32.05%), leaving less than two percent (1.54%) owning neither [QS 1-L _DigMed_Handy (n = 390)]. Considering the parameter of location in blended learning, a parallel scale inquired about the (perceived) availability of these same digital technologies at the respondents’ schools [QS 1-L _DigMed_Schule (n = 398)]. While the reported availa‐ bility of computers (96.48%) and Internet access (95.73%) are almost at comparable levels as at home, those for portable and mobile devices like laptops (33.42%) and tablets (2.76%) are significantly lower. An additional item, educational or learning software, is reported by just over one third (34.92%) of the respondents. A significant limitation to these items is their lack of differentiation for type or quality of devices and web-connection besides their general availability. Although students almost universally report access to the Internet, it is unclear whether this includes broadband and wireless access, which can have tremendously different effects on learners’ engagement in technology-enhanced practices, as the qualitative analyses of the three 237 6.1 Students’ pre-survey QS 1-L <?page no="238"?> focal courses illustrate (cf. chapters 8-10). As a comparison, Germany ranked slightly above the OECD average regarding computer access in schools in PISA 2012 (OECD, 2015, pp. 63-6) with 98.6% of students reporting access to computers connected to the Internet at their schools and a student/ device ratio of 4.3, on average. However, in keeping with the notion of secondand third-level digital divides, it is necessary to look beyond mere physical access to ICT and consider the associated practices in which participants engage, how often they do so, in which contexts, and for what purposes. To this end, students were asked to state how frequently they engage in various digital practices in both school and extramural contexts, for both learning and leisure purposes (Figure 6.2-Figure 6.5). Respondents were considered frequent users if they reported engag-ing in a practice at least “once/ twice per week” (OECD, 2015, p. 41). The frequency of the project participants’ overall ICT use at home (Figure 6.2) differs vastly between different practices and purposes. For example, only about one in three respondents is a frequent single-player gamer (33.16%), and only one in five is considered a frequent multi-player gamer (20.45%). Frequent participation in CMC is substantially higher with text-based CMC (i.e., email and text chat) reported by over 80 % of the respondents. Concerning entertainment practices, this value is near 40 % for most items (i.e., browsing the Internet for fun, reading online print media, downloading multimedia content), except for streaming multimodal content, which emerged as the most common practice with 90.03% frequent users among respondents. Participation in social media discourse is at a comparable level (85.53%), but publication-oriented Web 2.0 practices, exemplarily conceptualized as “publishing and maintaining a personal website or blog,” is reported as the least frequent practice (6.73% frequent users). These figures are mostly consistent with those obtained in the PISA 2012 survey for adolescents in Germany (OECD, 2015) except for “browsing the Internet for fun,” which was the most frequent practice in PISA and ranked substantially lower among the school project participants. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the PISA scale was extended by two related items for the present study, “read online print media” and “stream audio/ video content,” which could plausibly be understood as components of the former item. In addition, PISA found that the average time German adolescents spent online during a typical weekday was 114 minutes outside the school and 14 minutes in school. This figure, which is almost at par with the OECD average, masks significant differences among the researched group, especially regarding gender, as the surveyed boys in Germany were estimated to spend at least 40 minutes per day longer online than girls (ibid., p. 41). 238 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="239"?> Figure 6.2: Digital media use at home for leisure. (Survey item QS 1-L _DigMed_NutzHaus, n = 401; descriptor: “How often do you use the computer or other digital devices at home to do the following activities? ”) Figure 6.3: Digital media use for leisure in English. (Survey item QS 1-L _DigMed_Nut‐ zEngPriv, n = 400; descriptor: “How often do you do the following activities for leisure in English? ”) 239 6.1 Students’ pre-survey QS 1-L <?page no="240"?> Figure 6.4: Digital media use in EFL classes. (Survey item QS 1-L _DigMed_NutzEU, n = 399; descriptor: “How often do you use the computer in EFL classes to do the following activities? ”) Figure 6.5: Digital media use for EFL-related schoolwork at home. (Survey item QS 1-L _DigMed_NutzEng, n = 397; descriptor: “How often do you do the following activities at home for EFL assignments? ”) 240 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="241"?> Besides general ICT practices at home, the learner pre-survey inquired which leisure practices students perform in English (Figure 6.3). These data suggest some of the most frequently performed digital leisure practices are often done in the students’ second language, English, confirming the aforementioned high levels of interest in Anglo-American culture (cf. section 6.1.1) as well as the dominant role of English as a global language online (Friedrich & Diniz de Figueiredo, 2016). The three applications with the highest number of frequent users include streaming English music (81.75%), participating in social media discourse and text-based CMC (54.00%), and watching English language films or series (54.75%). Meanwhile, those EFL practices with the lowest number of frequent users include reading print news media and magazines online (18.00%), reading manuals and instructions (12.25%), and engaging in video or voice chat with English-speaking partners (12.00%). Compared with these figures, the participants used ICT extremely less frequently in their EFL classes for formal learning purposes (Figure 6.4): The share of students who use ICT in class is considered a primary indicator of ICT integration in teaching and learning, “especially if this use is regular and occurs at least once a week” (OECD, 2015, p. 51). Very few applications are reported as being performed this frequently in the participating EFL classrooms. Only one item, “conducting web-researches for EFL tasks,” is confirmed by more than one fifth (20.81%) of the respondents as a weekly practice, while all other practices were reported by about one-tenth of the participants or fewer as a frequent classroom practice. Even if monthly instead of weekly use were taken as the criterion defining “frequent” uses, most practices would not reach a 50 % threshold, while stark differences could still be discerned between those practices associated with receptive language use (i.e., web-research or video and audio streaming) or Web 1.0 applications (e.g., office software) and substantially lower frequencies of use reported for those practices associated with productive language use and Web 2.0 applications (i.e., creating and maintaining a blog or podcast, using an LMS, or synchronous text-based chat). It is possible, however, that these relatively low figures of school-based technology use are higher in the context of EFL assignments performed at home, reflecting pedagogical decisions in blended learning to avoid digitally-mediated practices in the classroom and delegate them to the students’ homes instead. For instance, this is done in flipped classroom approaches due to difficult access to digital devices and Internet connectivity at school, pragmatic concerns, or pedagogical rationales to allow students more time and flexibility in receptive tasks (Mehring, 2016). This seems to be the case among the survey respondents (Figure 6.5). Among the students participating in the election project, more than half report they frequently work with office software 241 6.1 Students’ pre-survey QS 1-L <?page no="242"?> (50.63%), and more than 40 % frequently browse the Internet for EFL assignments (48.37%), check announcements on the school website (46.09%), and use email or chat to communicate with classmates about assignments (41.82%). While this may effectively complement EFL classroom practices in contexts with difficult ICT access, it may inadvertently contribute to widening the digital divide, especially in households where children share devices with other family members or where Internet connectivity is slow. These considerations aside, the fact that students generally use home computers more often than school computers for schoolwork is consistent with the overall PISA 2012 results, although German students on average used home computers less frequently for schoolwork than their OECD peers (OECD, 2015, pp. 58-9). Finally, the student respondents were asked to indicate whether they had done a series of ICT practices during the past school year [QS 1-L _DigMed_NutzEUPast (n = 323)]. Only one practice, “conducting online research (e.g., for presentations),” is confirmed by a majority of four out of five respondents (79.88%), followed by “creating slide shows (e.g., with MS PowerPoint)” (45.51%), “reading and writing emails” (31.58%), “reading online news (e.g., The Huffington Post)” (31.27%), and “streaming videos and podcasts (e.g., BBC, news)” (29.10%). In contrast, those practices associated with multimodal interaction and publication of learner texts via Web 2.0 applications are reported by one-tenth or fewer of all respondents (i.e., using CALL software, publishing texts in blogs or websites, synchronous text and video chat, production of podcasts). The picture emerging from both these items is that digital applications are far from daily, standard practices in the participants’ classrooms. Web-research tasks and office software seem to be recurring routinely, but more productive and interactive approaches associated with publishing learner texts online via Web 2.0 tools and engaging in telecollaboration are generally scarce. Notably, the proposed tasks of the project curriculum involve all these practices, so the project implementation can generally be considered an innovation of teaching and learning practices through blended learning for the majority of participants. Students’ attitudes towards ICT and their confidence in using these applications and devices significantly impact how they use them. Learner interest and self-con‐ fidence in using technology may affect the frequency and degree of engagement and learning with ICT. Thus, students were asked to indicate their agreement on four statements about their attitudes and experience with ICT (Table 6.2). Responses are considered to reflect positive attitudes if students indicated agreement or strong agreement. Student attitudes toward using computers are generally positive with an agreement at about, or substantially over, a 60 % threshold for each statement. The statement with the highest agreement rate, “I think playing and working with a computer is really fun” (i.e., item 2), additionally points to the motivational potential of ICT use and interactive or playful uses of computers. 242 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="243"?> Think about your experience with computers and indicate your opinion on these statements. M SD 1. It is very important to me to work with a computer. 3.12 0.83 2. I think playing or working with a computer is really fun. 3.38 0.70 3. I use a computer because I am very interested in it. 3.02 0.83 4. I lose track of time when I am working with then computer. 2.82 0.91 Table 6.2: Learner attitudes towards digital technologies. (Survey item QS 1-L _DigMed_Einst, n = 399; 1=“strongly disagree; ” 2=“somewhat disa‐ gree; ” 3=“somewhat agree; ” 4=“strongly agree.”) To elicit an indication of technology-related self-confidence, students were asked to assess how well they can perform a number of tasks involving ICT in general and Web 2.0 tools in particular. The results ranked according to self-confidence that learners can carry out the practices by themselves or with the help of someone (Figure 6.6), generally reveal high confidence levels for most digital technology tasks. The highest confidence rate was measured for creating a presentation (81.25%), which reflects this practice’s relevance in school-based learning contexts and its frequency during the previous school year mentioned above. However, the three tasks with the lowest combined self-confidence levels refer to practices involving Web 2.0 tools or social media and suggest a lack of experience or knowledge in these areas. Figure 6.6: Self-confidence of digital media use. (Survey item QS 1-L _DigMed_Komp, n = 400; descriptor: “How well can you do the following things with the computer or online? ”) 243 6.1 Students’ pre-survey QS 1-L <?page no="244"?> 6.2 Teachers’ pre-survey QS 1-T The perspective of the participating learners is further triangulated with selec‐ tive responses drawn from the teacher pre-survey, which was administered at the same time before or during the early stages of the project participation (cf. section 4.4). Although the number of teacher responses is significantly lower than in the learner survey, several findings contribute insights into the pedagogical intentions behind the project participation. 6.2.1 Teacher expectations and interest In terms of the teachers’ project expectations, their responses can be mapped to the same overall categories as those of their students (Table 6.1), with responses centering around the themes of technology-enhanced learning (18 instances), general pedagogical aspects (24 instances), and interest in U.S. culture (23 instances) [QS 1-T _Pro_Erw (n = 15)]. Regarding the first theme, technology-en‐ hanced learning, teachers not only mention the beneficial motivational effect of implementing the use of ICT [e.g., 53] and adopting innovative teaching approaches [e.g., 30] but as well their desire to improve their teaching skills associated with these technologies through their project participation [e.g., 20, 45, 49]. The second theme, general pedagogical aspects, involves motivation to engage in current [e.g., 50, 61] societal discourses with authentic materials [e.g., 60], which are perceived as potentially raising learner motivation [e.g., 30, 32, 46], especially regarding political topics and elections [e.g., 33, 41, 61]. An additional aspect unique to the teacher perspective is the perception of the project as facilitating pedagogical planning by providing teachers with a fully prepared curriculum [e.g., 15, 30]. Regarding the third theme, subject matter and intercultural learning, participants frequently highlight the promotion of civic education and raising awareness and understanding of foreign political systems [e.g., 1, 4, 60]. This theme also extends to promoting a differentiated understanding of the U.S. electoral system [e.g., 33, 60] and the U.S. cultural, social, and political framework [e.g., 1, 52]. Although only a few teachers mention concerns regarding their project participation [QS 1-T _Pro_Bed (n = 16)], those who do mainly focus on the demands of the project context—time pressure [e.g., 50], development of a competition entry [e.g., 52], curricular implementation [e.g., 61]—and especially on the technological and infrastructural demands of the blended learning format. These include concerns about the LMS’s usability [e.g., 4], aspects of data privacy and security [e.g., 15], limited teaching experience with ICT [e.g., 244 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="245"?> 41], insufficient technological infrastructure at school [e.g., 30, 60], and an impenetrable amount of teaching materials provided by the LMS [e.g., 91]. 6.2.2 ICT: Attitudes and experiences Regarding the school project’s blended learning format, the teacher survey also sought to elicit the conditions of the respondents’ project participation. One survey item inquired about the access to ICT available to the project course at their institution (Figure 6.7). The technologies covered by this question belong to the categories of computers, presentation devices, Internet, and media player devices. The responding teachers indicate a low availability of computers inside their classrooms. Portable devices, if available, are limited to laptops as none of the teachers reported access to tablet computers. This finding suggests, for most participating courses, a standard project scenario inside a computer lab, which usually requires room changes and preparatory administrative efforts by the teacher, and is likely characterized by a room layout with students sitting in rows behind computer screens. Participants with Internet access exclusively via a stationary computer may also have reduced technological affordances available as it has been shown that a lack of access to portable or mobile devices, on average, reduces the range of digital practices in a classroom and the situations in which such practices could take place (OECD, 2015, p. 67). In terms of presentation and projection devices, digital and analog overhead projectors are most prevalent, while only a third of teachers report access to interactive whiteboards in their project classroom. The reported numbers of Internet access, both LAN and Wi-Fi, are worryingly low (although it is unclear whether respondents may have only referred to access within their classrooms). This is especially problematic given the dependence of the school project curriculum, and especially the LMS, on stable broadband Internet access. The issue of Internet connectivity, furthermore, emerges as a significant confounding factor impeding effective and uninterrupted participation in technology-enhanced tasks in the subsequent qualitative case analyses of all three focal courses (cf. chapters 8-10). These figures complement the above-cited concerns voiced by teachers at the start of their project participation and are taken up again in the subsequent paragraphs to discuss teacher attitudes on ICT implementation. It seems plausible that such problematic infrastructural conditions can partly explain the perceived lack of teaching experience involving ICT stated by several teachers in the survey. 245 6.2 Teachers’ pre-survey QS 1-T <?page no="246"?> Figure 6.7: Project courses’ access to digital technologies at school. (Survey item QS 1-L _DigMed_Schule, n = 61; descriptor: “Which (mostly) digital technologies are available to your project class at your school? ) Whether, to which extent, and in what form teachers implement the use of ICT in their classroom depends on the physical access available at their institution, their didactic competence in using ICT, and (in the case of learners’ ICT use) is ultimately mediated by attitudes on ICT and deeper-seated beliefs about these tool’ affordances. Positive attitudes may lead teachers to seek training opportunities and create digitally-mediated learning opportunities in their classrooms. The Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989), a psychological model, argues teachers’ behavioral intent to implement technology in pedagogy hinges on their perception of both ease of use and usefulness, along with other potential external variables like social influence. Research has also conceptual‐ ized technology uptake by secondary school teachers as a function of internal (i.e., teachers’ ICT skills and TPACK, attitudes, beliefs, and implicit theories) and external factors (i.e., available time, access to ICT, school curricula and textbooks, administrative support, and policies), including aspects spanning both categories, most notably teacher education and access to professional training opportunities (Cárdenas-Claros & Oyanedel, 2016; Hong, 2010; Mei, 2019; Mumtaz, 2000; Nim Park & Son, 2009). To understand the project teachers’ attitudes on ICT implementation, they were asked to indicate their agreement to a series of ten statements (Table 6.3). The responses generally reflect highly favorable attitudes towards ICT implementation 246 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="247"?> with all except three items (i.e., items 5, 6, and 8) drawing agreement rates of 80 % and higher. Teachers expressly agree on the usefulness of ICT and would welcome a more frequent implementation in the classroom context (i.e., items 1 and 3). In terms of their affordances, teachers stress ICT can increase the perception of functional authenticity in TEFL (i.e., item 2) and, to a lesser extent, may generally increase learner motivation (i.e., item 9). However, the responses are mixed regarding the assessment of the teachers’ digital skills relative to those of their students, with 55.00% agreeing with the statement, “I can keep up with my students in terms of using ICT and Web 2.0 applications” (i.e., item 5). Consistent with this figure, the respondents would welcome training opportunities regarding pedagogical ICT implementation (i.e., item 7) and overwhelmingly support digital literacies development in preand in-service teacher training programs (i.e., item 10). At the same time, however, six in ten respondents disagree that their schools are well-equipped to facilitate technology-enhanced learning approaches (i.e., item 8), thus pointing to the external factor of infrastructure and ICT access discussed above. The image emerging from this snapshot of participant attitudes reflects the general interest and high favorability regarding the classroom implementation of ICT, understanding of its major affordances, but a potential lack of teacher training opportunities and external obstacles related to access. Indicate your agreement with these statements. M SD 1. ICT should be implemented as often as possible in TEFL. 3.18 0.60 2. TEFL should consider the learners’ media environment more than it has in the past. 3.20 0.63 3. I would like to use ICT more often in TEFL. 3.20 0.68 4. I often approach new developments regarding the Internet with skepticism. 2.20 0.86 5. I can keep up with my students in terms of using ICT and Web 2.0 applications. 2.52 0.85 6. ICT impact negatively on the learning behavior of students. 2.07 0.61 7. I would like to learn more about the pedagogical implementation of ICT. 3.18 0.79 8. I am satisfied with my school’s technological infrastructure. 2.25 0.91 9. The use of ICT raises learner motivation in TEFL. 2.95 0.59 10. ICT use should be addressed more frequently in preand in-service teacher education. 3.42 0.65 Table 6.3: Teachers’ attitudes toward digital technologies. (Survey item QS 1-L _Einst, n = 60; 1=“strongly disagree; ” 2=“somewhat disagree; ” 3=“somewhat agree; ” 4=“strongly agree.”) 247 6.2 Teachers’ pre-survey QS 1-T <?page no="248"?> How appropriate do you find ICT, including computerand web-based applications, to develop these areas of EFL? M SD 1. Listening/ viewing comprehension 3.66 0.51 2. Reading comprehension 2.90 0.72 3. Monologic speaking 2.23 0.67 4. Dialogic speaking 2.16 0.58 5. Presentation 3.57 0.62 6. Writing 2.90 0.68 7. Language mediation 2.92 0.71 8. Vocabulary training 3.36 0.66 9. Grammar training 2.93 0.83 10. Pronunciation training 3.07 0.83 11. Orthography 2.56 0.87 12. Sociocultural orientation knowledge 3.34 0.63 13. Dealing with cultural difference 3.08 0.69 14. Handling intercultural encounters in practice 2.82 0.89 15. Learning strategies 2.61 0.71 16. Media and technology use 3.66 0.51 17. Learning awareness and self-regulation 2.80 0.73 Table 6.4: Teachers’ perceptions of the role of ICT for TEFL. (Survey item QS 1-L _DigMed_EU, n = 61; 1=“very inappropriate; ” 2=“slightly inappro‐ priate; ” 3=“slightly appropriate; ” 4=“very appropriate.”) Furthermore, the survey elicited teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of ICT for the development of the project’s different skill areas (Table 6.4), which were adopted from the educational standards framework (“Bildungsstandards”) for secondary EFL instruction in Germany (KMK, 2012). In terms of ICT’s usefulness for developing the four language skills, the surveyed teachers perceive ICT most useful for the training of listening and viewing comprehension, with almost all teachers (98.36%) stating ICT is “appropriate” or “very appropriate” for training this skill, while reading, writing, and language mediation seem to benefit less from the use of ICT in their view. Meanwhile, those practices associated with spoken production rank lowest among all items, with less than 30 % of respondents indicating them as appropriate areas of ICT use. Regarding intercultural learning, teachers view ICT as useful for acquiring sociocultural orientation knowledge, with 91.80% stating ICT is “appropriate” or “very appropriate” for this area. However, fewer have the same favorable perception of ICT for the skills of dealing with cultural differences (83.71%) and handling intercultural encounters in practice (67.21%). Teachers also view ICT as generally less appropriate 248 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="249"?> for developing learning strategies and self-regulation, with the notable exception of direct training of media and technology use. The question emerges from these findings, in connection to the above-cited lack of ICT teaching experience, as to how far teachers are aware of the communicative and educational affordances for EFL learning associated with ICT use. Teachers may simply be unaware of such affordances due to limited training opportunities and exposure to pedagogical applications, and so these results contribute to the urgency of the teachers’ above-cited dissatisfaction with their institutions’ ICT infrastructure and their desire for a more robust consideration of ICT in the different phases of teacher education. 6.3 Post-project surveys QS 2-L and QS 2-T While both pre-surveys addressed the participants’ expectations and goals regarding the blended learning project, their general attitudes in the area of ICT for EFL, and habitual learning and teaching practices, the post-surveys aim to elicit participant evaluations and experiential data regarding their project participation (cf. section 6.1.1). Both post-surveys specifically address the processes and outcomes of the project implementation on-site, including the participants’ perceptions of learning outcomes and potential changes to established classroom procedures as well as user experiences with the LMS and associated technology-enhanced tasks during the project. Different from the preceding section, the results from the learner and teacher post-surveys are not presented separately from each other since both instruments are more closely interconnected. The following sub-sections integrate results from both surveys as they address learner experiences and perceived learning outcomes (section 6.3.1), LMS and ICT use during the project, and their impacts on classroom procedures (section 6.3.2), and participant perceptions and evaluations of the LMS curriculum (section 6.3.3). 6.3.1 Learner experiences and perceived learning outcomes Parallel to the open item in the pre-survey eliciting the participating students’ expectations toward the school project (cf. section 6.1.1), the post-surveys began with an open item prompting teachers and students to consider their project experience and describe one aspect they consider important (Table 6.5). The following discussion addresses the learners’ project experience in more detail. The open responses are mapped to mostly the same categories as those in the pre-survey, with students commenting on their experiences with technology-en‐ hanced learning (167 instances), general pedagogical aspects (168 instances), and learning about the subject matter (70 instances) (cf. Table 6.5). 249 6.3 Post-project surveys QS 2-L and QS 2-T <?page no="250"?> No. of codings (Sub-) Category Students Teachers Technology-enhanced learning 167 33 Alternative pedagogical approaches, contents 45 5 Criticism on LMS usability 39 4 Web-based materials and multimedia content 24 11 Virtual interaction, cooperation, exchange 21 3 Digital literacies development 9 5 Ineffective blended learning implementation 9 1 LMS materials too superficial 9 2 LMS usability (positive) 8 1 Moodle was hardly used 2 - Insufficient tech-infrastructure 1 1 General pedagogical aspects 168 36 Interest, motivation, fun 96 15 Informative value of the project 22 - Time pressure 14 6 ‘Project was boring’ 11 - School competition, project outcome 8 3 EFL learning 6 2 Currency and authenticity 6 4 Opinion formation 4 - Incongruence with curricular objectives 1 1 Relief for the teacher - 5 Subject matter: USA, civic politics, elections 70 9 Election, electoral system, government 38 3 Candidates, the president 14 1 USA in general, culture of the USA 5 1 Adopted state, prediction 5 1 Election campaign 2012, election outcome 6 - Understanding how Americans think, empathy 2 1 Civic education - 2 Total 405 78 Table 6.5: Students’ and teachers’ open responses to the project. (Survey items QS 2-L _UT_Erf, n = 203, and QS 2-T _UT_Erf, n = 41; descriptor: “We would like to know how you experienced the work in the school project. Please describe one aspect you consider important.” Individual responses may refer to several categories and are thus coded multiple times.) 250 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="251"?> 35 “So hatte ich einen ganz neuen Zugang zu den US-Wahlen und ich habe viel gelernt, ohne wirklich das Gefühl zu haben, zu lernen” [QS 2-L _UT_Erf, 19]. 36 “[…] man hatte Zugang zu Videos und Informationen, die man sonst so nicht bekommen hätte” [QS 2-L _UT_Erf, 63]. 37 “Nicht nur Texte, sondern auch Videos/ Bilder/ Artikel usw wurden eigenständig bearbeitet” [QS 2-L _UT_Erf, 133]. 38 “Es hat mir gefallen, dass man mit seinem Englischkurs eng zusammengearbeitet hat und durch das gemeins[ame] Erfolgserlebnis näher zusammengerückt ist” [QS 2-L _UT_Erf, 84]. In connection to the project context and its blended-learning format, students overwhelmingly commented on the novelty of this learning experience and the di‐ versification the project introduced into their EFL classes by “providing a completely new approach to the U.S. elections, which allowed me to learn a lot without actually feeling like I’m studying” [19]. 35 They characterize the project as different from usual EFL [e.g., 42, 77, 215], due to its underlying pedagogical approach [e.g., 183, 201], its openness to student creativity [e.g., 17, 196, 244], the diversity and quality of task formats [e.g., 61, 107], inclusion of diverse media [e.g., 150, 213], and increased opportunities for self-directed learning [e.g., 29, 128]. Likewise, participants positively mention the use of web-based and multimodal materials in the LMS, by stating the platform “provided access to videos and information one wouldn’t have gained otherwise” [63] 36 and “videos/ images/ articles were processed independently, so I […] could memorize the contents for much longer” [133]. 37 In the same respect, students laud the aspects of interaction, cooperation, and virtual exchange via the LMS both within their courses and with other schools. For instance, online cooperation with classmates allowed students to discuss with each other online [131], facilitated the administration of polls [44] and comparisons between student contributions [138], and overall “move more closely together as a class because of the joint sense of achievement” [84]. 38 However, many respondents also criticize the LMS’s structure, navigation, and overall usability in this respect. Many learners found the platform structure confusing [e.g., 38, 73, 21], making it difficult to find desired resources and tasks [e.g., 37, 68], thus causing inefficient processes and delays [e.g., 57, 108]. Students also criticized the implementation of the blended learning format in their classes, specifically when forum tasks led to artificial discussions by asking students to post a certain number of responses [e.g., 127, 173, 237]. In terms of general pedagogical aspects of the students’ project participation, references to the affective dimension of learning—motivation and fun—repre‐ sent the single most frequently identified sub-category. In many cases, this evaluation largely derives from the above-stated perception of the project’s novelty and variety of contents and materials as well as the project’s alignment with student interests on the U.S. election (see below), allowing learners to engage in a historically relevant and current topic in-depth [e.g., 45, 76, 208]. 251 6.3 Post-project surveys QS 2-L and QS 2-T <?page no="252"?> Likewise, motivation and satisfaction often stem from the participants’ positive perception of learning achievement [92, 143, 214], which is also reflected in statements about the general informational value of the project [11, 50, 210]. Finally, this perception of learning achievement manifests in responses stating what participants have learned about the subject matter, including information about the presidential candidates and their platforms [49, 74, 192], the political framework of the U.S. [6, 78, 200], and their adopted U.S. state [54, 199]. While a concrete measurement of learning outcomes lies beyond the capa‐ bilities of these online surveys, students were prompted to self-evaluate their learning progress in key skill areas of the project (Table 6.6). Echoing the encouraging responses about students’ insights into the subject matter, the majority of learners are confident of having attained important intercultural learning objectives. Roughly nine in ten respondents stated they “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree” on the first three statements in the table below, which correspond with the dimension of knowledge of self and other (i.e., item 1), the attitudes of relativizing self and valuing other (i.e., item 2), and the skill of interpreting and relating (i.e., item 3) in Byram’s (1997) ICC model. In terms of understanding different media genres, learners seem equally confident they developed strategies for comprehending and analyzing authentic video-based materials in English (i.e., item 6). Meanwhile, they are substantially less confi‐ dent concerning the other items associated with digital learning practices, as less than half consider having successfully acquired strategies for using the Internet for EFL learning (i.e., item 4) and only about a fourth stating they learned how to systematically obtain information from social media (i.e., item 5). While these results are sobering with regard to the anticipated outcomes in terms of technology-enhanced language learning, it is unclear in what form the desired affordances of the project were made available in all classes, given the frequently reported obstacles in terms of technological infrastructure and teachers’ limited experience with this approach to EFL (cf. section 6.2.2). Similarly, learning awareness, a hallmark of language learning with Web 2.0 and ICT (Reinhardt, 2018; Vandergriff, 2016), may not have been a central focus in many classes regarding the competencies in question, especially when implemented in informal learning settings. It is a paradox of often ubiquitous informal learning settings that learning achievements remain invisible to those involved in these settings precisely because of this ubiquity (Boud & Rooney, 2018). Selected indices about the students’ perception of the blended learning implementation in their courses are the focus of the next sub-chapter. 252 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="253"?> Please estimate your learning progress in the following areas by indicating your opinion about these statements. M SD 1. I developed a good understanding of the U.S. political system during the project. 3.41 0.63 2. I can relate to arguments of Democrats and Republicans (even if I don’t support them). 3.16 0.72 3. I can imagine well how people in our adopted state will vote (or have voted). 3.29 0.73 4. I developed strategies on how to use the Internet for EFL learning during the project. 2.40 0.86 5. I learned during the project how to research important contents in sources like Twitter, Facebook, or blogs to answer a question 2.03 0.91 6. I can comprehend English-language videos, such as the videos on Obama and Romney on Moodle, and gather information from them. 3.33 0.71 7. I learned how to exchange and collect thoughts and insights with co-learners online, e.g. in a forum. 2.71 0.96 8. I improved how to discuss political topics and processes in English. 2.96 0.75 Table 6.6: Learner perceptions of learning outcomes. (Survey item QS 2-L _Lern_KompEntw, n = 248; 1= “strongly disagree; ” 2= “somewhat disagree; ” 3= “somewhat agree; ” 4= “strongly agree.”) 6.3.2 LMS use and changes to classroom procedures One essential question in evaluating the school project is the extent and form of the participants’ actual LMS use in their courses. The registration data and the LMS meta-data clearly show only a subset of project participants registered their own LMS user accounts. At the same time, some teachers simply used the platform as a media repository for face-to-face teaching resources, leading to vastly different blended learning implementations. Overall, 148 courses were registered for the project by their teachers, yet only 111 requested their own LMS course (cf. section 5.3). In the post-questionnaire, 63.41% of the surveyed teachers report having used the LMS during the project [QS 2-T _DigMed_Mood (n = 41)] with over two-thirds of them also having used the LMS during EFL classes [QS 2-T _DigMed_Schul (n = 32)]. Asked about the duration of their classes’ computer use during the project, just over a fifth of the teachers (21.95%) 253 6.3 Post-project surveys QS 2-L and QS 2-T <?page no="254"?> indicated “(almost) no use,” while over a third (36.59%) reported a weekly in-class computer use of up to one hour, and 41.47% indicated even longer computer use [QS 2-T _PCNutz_EUDau (n = 41)]. Students worked on computers individually in the majority of classes that implemented computer use (58.82%), while in most remaining classrooms (38.24%) pairs of usually two students were required to share a device [QS 2-T _PCNutz_EUArt (n = 34)]. Regarding the LMS use for communication purposes, over a third of the teachers (38.09%) mention they frequently communicated with their students online during the project (i.e., at least “once or twice per week”) [QS 2-T _DigMed_KommLehr (n = 42)]. Compared with this result, students reported less frequent use of the LMS for communication with each other (i.e., for student-student interaction), as most students (57.94%) stated they “(almost) never” utilized LMS communication with their peers during the project and only one-fifth (19.32%) had done this at least weekly [QS2-L_DigMed_KommSuS (n = 233)]. Project participation and LMS implementation also influenced established EFL classroom procedures. As stated above, many participants accessed the LMS during class, and for a majority of participants, this required moving to their school’s computer labs (cf. sections 5.5.6 and 6.2.2). Additionally, both teachers and students report changes in the social configurations during EFL classes, stating that group and pair work increased on average, while teacher-fronted, whole-class activities (e.g., teacher-class dialog, whole-class debates) decreased. The surveyed students also state individual work increased, although the teacher questionnaire does not reflect significant changes in this category [QS 2-L _EU_SozVgl (n = 247)]; QS 2-T _EU_SozVgl (n = 41)]. In terms of the workload for homework assignments, neither group reports significant changes caused by the project participation, although on average, learners reported a slightly smaller workload [QS 2-L _EU_HADauVgl (n = 242)]; QS 2-T _EU_HADauVgl (n = 39)]. These influences perceived by the participants during the project, especially those regarding the social configuration, point to interesting changes in the classroom discourse and participation structure and the negotiation of participant roles in this context. These impacts, amongst others, are the focus of the qualitative classroom-based research of focal cases (cf. chapters 8-10). 6.3.3 Perception of LMS curriculum and learner contributions to tasks How both participant groups perceived and evaluated the LMS tasks and task formats is a crucial aspect that informs our understanding of the school project’s implementation and underlying pedagogy. In this regard, the two approaches of TBLT and CALL must be considered, the participants’ understanding of these 254 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="255"?> concepts, and how their attitudes and beliefs (mis-) align with the project goals. In a first step, one post-survey item asked students to indicate their perceptions of the various task demands in the school project (Table 6.7). This relates to the concept of task difficulty, whose controversial nature in SLA regarding the competing trade-off hypothesis (Skehan, 1998) and the cognition hypothesis (Robinson, 2001) was discussed above (cf. section 2.2.2.2). Likewise, Brindley (1987, cit. in Nunan, 2004, pp. 85-6) maintains, task difficulty draws on intersecting factors relating to the learner, the task, and the text. The importance of the context and conditions of the task may be added here, especially in blended or technology-enhanced learning. Please complete the following sentences. M SD 1. Overall, I found the EFL class during the project… 2.85 0.57 2. I found the linguistic demands of the materials on Moodle… 3.00 0.68 3. I found the content-based demands of the materials on M… 2.94 0.60 4. I found the level of usability of Moodle… 3.52 0.78 Table 6.7: Learner perceptions of task difficulty on the LMS. (Survey item QS 2-L _DigMed_ TaskSchwier, n = 236; 1=“very easy; ” 2=“easy; ” 3=“just right; ” 4=“difficult; ” 5=“very difficult.”) In terms of the school project in question, the objectives of TBLT, digital literacies, and intercultural learning were previously identified (cf. chapter 5.2). Consistent with these areas, the survey asked learners to indicate how they perceived the task demands of the LMS curriculum overall and specifically in the dimensions of language, subject matter, and usability (Table 6.7). Because it was unclear which tasks of the LMS curriculum learners had completed in their courses, the items focus on their general perception of the demand levels in the LMS curriculum. Still, while learners on average perceived their EFL class in general as well as the linguistic and content-based demand levels of the LMS materials to be “just right,” they perceived the demands associated with the LMS’s usability as more difficult with 41.70% of surveyed students saying it was “difficult” and 8.94% “very difficult.” This outcome echoes the learners’ open responses about their general impressions of the LMS and the project, where many claimed that usability issues turned their participation into a cumbersome encounter (cf. section 6.3.1). This evaluation of concurrent demand areas is further specified in an open item about both participant groups’ general impressions of the LMS tasks and materials [QS 2-L _DigMed_TaskEva (n = 183); QS 2-T _DigMed_TaskEva (n = 34)]. While most motives tend to align with the responses of the introductory open items of both post-surveys (cf. section 6.1.1), selected exemplary responses can add more substance 255 6.3 Post-project surveys QS 2-L and QS 2-T <?page no="256"?> to the above-outlined categories. In terms of usability, for instance, many learners would prefer an intuitive user interaction allowing for efficient navigation without the necessity for prior learner training, as this student proposes: Idea to work with platform is good --> should rather be as simple as Facebook, where you can quickly find groups or get notifications etc. Excerpt 6.1: Student survey response. [QS 2-L _DigMed_TaskEva_227, transl.] Others echo the distinction above between appropriate task-inherent demands on the LMS (i.e., linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural demands), and increased workload caused by the LMS’s structure: The tasks were quite simple in terms of the demand level, but it was always quite a lot of work to filter all the additional information from the Internet. Excerpt 6.2: Student survey response. [QS 2-L _DigMed_TaskEva_51, transl.] These usability-related demands were perceived as more difficult by learners who consider themselves generally less experienced in working with ICT, as the following respondent claims: Moodle is very confusing and difficult to use for a person who does not work much with new media. Excerpt 6.3: Student survey response. [QS 2-L _DigMed_TaskEva_160, transl.] Furthermore, in addition to such usability issues, some learners stressed that although they found the task formats compelling, technological obstacles at their schools often stood in the way of a seamless implementation of the LMS: Unfortunately, all videos did not work, thanks to our terrific school filter. Hence, we couldn’t use them as a resource, which I personally found very unfortunate. Excerpt 6.4: Student survey response. [QS 2-L _DigMed_TaskEva_145, transl.] 256 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="257"?> Despite these challenges, many learners provide positive feedback on affor‐ dances like the tasks’ interactivity and the possibility to contribute learner texts and engage in CMC with their peers: i liked the fact that we were able to communicate via moodle. i liked the many tasks where we could express our opinions and were supposed to write something about the candidates THUMBS UP! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Excerpt 6.5: Student survey response. [QS 2-L _DigMed_TaskEva_65, transl.] These aspects of compelling task content and learner motivation stemming from the multimodal character of the project curriculum were also lauded in the teacher survey, as this teacher’s response shows: - good selection with an interesting variety - especially audio/ video materials for students also very attractive Excerpt 6.6: Teacher survey response. [QS 2-T _DigMed_TaskEva_12, transl.] Nevertheless, several teachers problematized the lack of annotations and other input enhancement or scaffolding, especially in connection with authentic online materials featured in the LMS course, as the following two statements exemplify: - Very authentic materials, but too complex - didactic editing necessary; vocabulary aids and reduction - more didactic materials needed - Tasks should be oriented more towards core curricula (e.g., operators, typical formats, etc.) Excerpt 6.7: Teacher survey response. [QS 2-T _DigMed_TaskEva_26, transl.] Sifting through the materials and adapting the tasks more time-consuming than expected Texts were tricky because they were not annotated Tasks often were inefficient (redundancies; chat contributions instead of plenary discussions) Excerpt 6.8: Teacher survey response. [QS 2-T _DigMed_TaskEva_27, transl.] 257 6.3 Post-project surveys QS 2-L and QS 2-T <?page no="258"?> One central dimension of the learners’ task perceptions depends on the extent to which learners feel they can individualize tasks and make their own contributions regarding task procedures and foci as well as interpret its objectives to align with personal learning interests and intentions (Breen, 1987; Dooly, 2018; cf. sections 2.3 and 3.6). In the context of technology-enhanced language learning in general and the use of Web 2.0 tools in EFL in particular, Eisenmann (2017, pp. 162-3) argues, this individualization is supported by such affordances like ubiquitous access as well as flexibility and ease of information storage and retrieval, increased relevance through the authenticity of materials, the situatedness of learning and social interactions, and modification of tasks through the affordances of multimodality, non-linearity, and hypertextuality (cf. Reinhardt, 2019). Considering the LMS curriculum in light of these learning potentials, students evaluated the extent to which they could make choices in the learning process or modify tasks independently (Table 6.8). Although the proposed items are blanket statements about learner agency in the three broad areas of learning resources, content focus, and task outcomes or learner texts, the responses suggest learners could make meaningful choices about implementing the project in their courses. For instance, more than three out of five students said they could choose their resources (i.e., item 1) and intentionally emphasize different task contents (i.e., item 2) “rather often” or “(almost) always,” reflecting a perception of the LMS tasks by the majority of participants as open and susceptible to modification. Over four in five students (81.07%) felt they could influence the format and content of their course’s project outcome through their decisions (i.e., item 3). Could you modify or choose tasks and contents? Indicate your opinion based on your project experience. M SD 1. Was it possible for you to choose your own resources (texts, videos, websites, etc.) during the work online? 2.85 0.90 2. Was it possible for you to choose your own emphasis regarding the contents (e.g., campaign issues, biographical information, etc.)? 2.72 0.77 3. Was it possible for you to make your own decisions regarding the format or content of your project outcome/ your prediction? 3.19 0.82 Table 6.8: Learner contributions to task design. (Survey item QS 2-L _Lern_TaskGest, n = 244; 1=“(almost) never; ” 2=“rather rarely; ” 3=“rather often; ” 4=“(almost) always.”) Finally, a series of survey questions asked the students to reflect on their overall experience with the LMS during the project, taking into account most participants engaged in their first-ever LMS use. The first of these items asked students to indicate their agreement to a series of evaluative statements about the LMS’s design, 258 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="259"?> implementation, and affordances (Table 6.9). The responses confirm the learners’ high levels of motivation regarding the use of ICT mentioned before (cf. section 6.1.2): 85.20% “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree” the LMS use was positive for this project (i.e., item 1) and almost as many (84.83%) found the online materials used on the LMS more interesting than many textbook materials (i.e., item 3). The majority of students thought completing the LMS tasks was fun (i.e., item 4) and, in conclusion, would like to do such a project again in the future (i.e., item 2), despite common usability issues (i.e., item 4). Consider your experience with Moodle and the Internet during the project and indicate your opinion about these statements. M SD 1. The use of the LMS Moodle was positive for this project. 3.14 0.71 2. I would like to do more projects with such a learning platform in the future. 2.81 0.81 3. I found the learning materials online, such as the videos and websites on the candidates, more interesting than many textbook materials. 3.21 0.76 4. I found my way around the LMS quite well. 2.43 0.88 5. Completing the tasks on Moodle was fun. 2.65 0.77 6. I am happy the work with Moodle is now over. 2.38 0.77 Table 6.9: Learner attitudes on the LMS use during the school project. (Survey item QS 2-L _DigMed_MoodEinst, n = 226; 1 = “strongly disagree; ” 2 = “somewhat disagree; ” 3 = “somewhat agree; ” 4 = “strongly agree.”) As the project LMS had been created for the specific context of the school project, it was clear its use would be temporary, and continued implementa‐ tion of LMS would require schoolor state-based solutions. The post-survey asked both participant groups which functions they would like to keep going forward (i.e., forum, personal messaging, group messages, chat, polls, distri‐ bution of materials, submission of tasks and homework, quiz, glossary, and wiki). These functions generally elicited more favorable responses from the teacher group than from their students. Only two items—polls (55.92%) and distribution of materials (67.77%)—were mentioned by a majority of students [Q 2-L _DigMed_MoodFunkt (n = 211)]. In contrast, the majority of teachers would like to keep the functions of distributing materials (83.33%), submission of tasks and homework assignments (52.78%), group messaging (50.00%), and online quizzing (50.00%) [QS 2-T _DigMed_MoodFunkt (n = 36)]. In both groups, however, it remains unclear which of these functions they experienced in their 259 6.3 Post-project surveys QS 2-L and QS 2-T <?page no="260"?> classrooms and in what form, so low interest to use these features in the future could be attributed to the fact that many participants might not have realized the affordances emerging from these features’ pedagogical uses. Lastly, the survey asked whether participants, in principle, would like to use the LMS again in EFL. Again, a more favorable evaluation emerged from the teachers’ survey as almost eight out of ten teachers (78.79%) answered this question affirmatively, while only six out ten students (59.72%) did so [QS 2-L _DigMed_MoodWert (n = 216); QS 2-T _DigMed_MoodWert (n = 33)]. Overall, however, this indicates that most participants favor using LMS and welcome their implementation as a useful, worthwhile addition to EFL classes. 6.4 Summary The quantitative participant preand post-surveys advance the goal of triangu‐ lating multiple, complementary research methods, data sources, and participant perspectives in the mixed-methods design of this study (cf. section 4.2). While the subsequent analysis of critical classroom cases (cf. chapters 8-10) closes in on the micro-perspective of the school project, the participant surveys have elicited its macro-perspective and further allow for a detailed exploration of the researched field. This macro-perspective sets the focus for the following qualitative analysis and provides points of reference and comparison to analyze concrete classroom practices. The pre-surveys have uncovered insights into the participants’ interests and expectations of the project, prior experiences and attitudes regarding ICT in EFL and beyond, and information about the contextual conditions of their project participation. The results indicate learner interest in the school project’s subject matter, its blended learning approach, and the project context is high, especially for the educational affordances of the school project and the socio-collaborative and technological affordances of the LMS. Likewise, the participating students are, on average, interested in political discourse and seek information on political developments regularly. Consistent with the PISA survey’s findings for Germany (OECD, 2015), the project participants have almost universal home access to computers and the Internet. However, this figure could hide significant qualitative discrepancies between students of different socioeconomic backgrounds, commonly referred to as interrelated levels of the digital divide. Stationary computers were the most commonly available device at home. Students frequently use ICT for leisure practices, of which many are conducted routinely in their second language, English, such as 260 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="261"?> streaming of music and video content. This is also indicative of the reported high levels of learner interest in U.S. culture. Students report using ICT at school, although at substantially lower rates and often for less interactive and creative practices. For instance, students use home computers more often for schoolwork than school computers, and most ICT practices are not everyday components of EFL classes, especially those involving productive language skills and creation and publication of Web 2.0 artifacts. This disparity is problematic, given the students’ overwhelmingly positive attitudes towards ICT and the argument for functional authenticity, according to which communicative leisure practices should be reflected in some form inside the classroom (Bündgens-Kosten, 2013). Like their students, many teachers report highly favorable attitudes about ICT implementation, but at the same time cite substantial obstacles to ICT uptake: First, the technological infrastructure at the participating schools most frequently consists of a computer lab, yet school-wide wireless Internet access and availability of mobile devices are scarce. Second, a lack of ICT-related teaching experience and digital teaching competencies are reported as are limited training opportunities. Third, despite generally positive attitudes, many teachers do not believe in the efficacy of ICT for promoting spoken production, learning strategy development, and self-regulation. Based on the results of both pre-surveys, the school project, which heavily relies on the interactive use of the LMS and online materials, can be considered a change to established EFL teaching and learning practices in the surveyed classrooms. The post-surveys illuminate how the participants implemented the school project and LMS curriculum on-site, their perceptions, and the evaluation of this learning opportunity as well as how this has influenced standard EFL classroom practices. Participating students commonly expressed that the project’s blended learning approach promoted a form of engagement with the subject matter and corresponding learning outcomes, which would not have been expected in an analog EFL approach. Their self-evaluation of learning outcomes is high for content-based and intercultural learning goals, but substantially lower for informal digital literacy skills. This could be explained with an informal learning paradox or the fact that participants may simply not have engaged in the respective digital practices as part of their project implementation. In terms of classroom practices, teacher-fronted methods went down during the project, while collaborative group work went up, with possible impacts on discourse structures and participant roles. Regarding the participating students’ perceptions of the LMS curriculum, positive attitudes toward ICT and new task formats, as well as interest in the subject matter, are often clouded by persisting usability issues. It is therefore 261 6.4 Summary <?page no="262"?> unsurprising that among linguistic, intercultural, content-based, and usability demands, the latter stand out overall in the students’ evaluation. Likewise, many respondents suggest low usability has, at times, confounded full and effective engagement in the project tasks. Despite this critique, learners perceived the tasks as open and susceptible to individualization and confirm they could modify project tasks through their own decisions to align task procedures more closely with their interests and self-perceived learning needs. In other words, the tasks facilitated the learners’ sense of agency and its exercise within the project context (Mercer, 2011, 2012). With the project LMS implemented as a temporary intervention, it is encouraging that most teachers and students would favor the integration of ICT and LMS in their EFL classes in the future. 262 6 Macro-perspective: quantitative participant surveys <?page no="263"?> 7 Micro-perspective: Critical case analysis The following three chapters each introduce one critical case from the class‐ room-based research component of this mixed-methods study. The classroom procedures and teacher and learner perceptions in the three focal courses were carefully documented during their five to six-weeks long project participation, using a combination of observation-based and introspective methods outlined in chapter 4. Following the research question and this study’s overriding focus, technology-enhanced tasks represent the primary organizing principle of the subsequently analyzed cases. Each case has at its center a task cycle, which includes the various temporal representations of the task, from the theoretical task-as-workplan to the implemented and jointly enacted task-in-process, to the material and immaterial task-as-outcomes (cf. section 2.3.1). Such a focus on tasks implies a consideration of the interrelated phases of the task cycle, including the task initiation, instructions, interaction and behavior during the actual task phase, the report phase, and potential post-task requirements. In the three cases, the full task cycle usually involves the whole lesson and broader references to the teaching unit and contextual parameters. The selection of cases follows a series of principled sampling decisions: 1. Completeness of data sets: A complete data set of classroom-based intro‐ spective, observationand tracking-based data should be available for the focal tasks. This is not merely a pragmatic rationale in the naturalistic research context but a necessary condition for triangulating data sources and participant perspectives. 2. Fidelity to the LMS curriculum: The tasks should be adapted from the LMS curriculum with minimal modification by the teachers regarding the task-as-workplan. 3. Technology-enhanced tasks: The tasks should satisfy the criteria for tech‐ nology-enhanced tasks, meaning their enactment should involve the use of digital devices in the schools’ computer labs and be fully integrated into the lesson. In keeping with the naturalistic research approach, the researcher refrained from interfering with the teachers’ lesson planning. Nevertheless, adherence to the LMS curriculum was deemed a necessary condition for inclusion in this study. 4. Blended learning: The tasks should exemplarily reflect a full integration of online and face-to-face modes within a single lesson. In all three cases, students performed the tasks in some way online, yet other parts of the <?page no="264"?> task cycle, for instance, subsequent report phases, were done face-to-face with frequent references to the online learner texts. 5. Maximal variation and critical case sampling: Most importantly, the selec‐ tion of focal cases corresponds to the principles of maximal variation and critical case sampling. The first of these, maximal variation, is guided by an interest in representing cases with significant differences and variability in key characteristics, to allow for an insight into the overall range, variability, and commonalities between the researched groups (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 128; Grum & Legutke, 2016, p. 86). These sampling criteria do not necessarily respond to questions of representativeness, but rather to the cases’ relevance to the underlying research question. This is closely connected to critical case sampling, where the selected cases “offer a dramatic or full representation of the phenomenon, either by their intensity or by their uniqueness” (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 128). In this study, each case portrays different aspects of the observed classroom practice in particularly salient and comprehensive ways while also accounting for the variation between the learner groups. Thus, each of the three selected cases should originate from one of the three participant courses in the qualitative part of this study. Furthermore, the focal tasks should reflect different task types and skill foci. In the first case, the focal task ‘Find titles for the cartoons,’ where learners post suggestions for political cartoon titles online, facilitates written production, and reflects a hybrid of synchronous and asynchronous CMC. As learners posted their comments to the activity module, they repeatedly modified the task setting by extending the textual input that becomes available for co-learners completing the same activity. In the second case, ‘An interview with the candidates and their spouses,’ learners conduct a web-research on one of the candidates, their wives, or a journalist interviewing the couple to perform their character in a semi-improvised role-playing activity. This task emphasizes learners’ choice of media, self-guided exploration, comprehension, and evaluation of online resources and connects it to face-to-face oral production and interaction. In the third case, the task ‘The electoral system—individual steps’ asks learners to read online sources about the electoral process and collaboratively document their findings in a wiki-like forum. The learners post their findings to a forum as a preparation of the subsequent class discussion. In sum, the case selection is based on a series of pragmatic and methodological research decisions (i.e., completeness of data sets, triangulation), pedagogical decisions by the teacher (i.e., adaptation of LMS curriculum, facilitation of 264 7 Micro-perspective: Critical case analysis <?page no="265"?> blended learning), and the principles of maximal variation and critical case sampling achieved through task-external (i.e., diversity of participant learner groups) and task-internal parameters (e.g., task type, skill focus). In each of the three cases, considerable emphasis is placed on the task per‐ ceptions of focal students. Due to the premises of naturalistic classroom-based research, their selection was based on a combination of random selection and voluntary self-selection. In particular, two to four students per course volunteered to keep a learning journal (cf. section 4.5.6). Also, at the beginning of each lesson, one student or pair of students were selected at random to have their onand off-screen behavior recorded (cf. section 4.5.4). Based on the availability of their task perception data, these students were selected as focal learners. As outlined in the discussion of the research methods (cf. section 4.5), the primary data informing the three cases include observation-based classroom data (i.e., videography, screen capture, field notes, teaching materials, LMS meta-data) and retrospective introspection (i.e., oral teacher comments, learner interviews, and learning journals). These data sources are triangulated within the focal tasks and, as best as possible, for each of the focal students, allowing to trace their task behavior as their task-based activity unfolds, and to monitor their task perceptions during and after the lesson. To allow for a detailed insight into the reported processes and perceptions, critical data excerpts are cited directly throughout the case descriptions. Many of these excerpts, especially those representing verbal interactions during the classes, have been translated from German into English. All participant names and references to their identities have been altered for ethical considerations. The three case analyses are structured consistently. Each case is introduced with a contextualization of the focal lesson within the course’s project syllabus and a retrospective lesson plan. The case analysis is further subdivided into a theoretical description of the task-as-workplan and its key parameters, based on Ellis’s (2012) framework of task design and implementation. This analysis draws on insights gained from the teachers’ retrospective accounts of the lesson, the task materials, and the teaching notes of the respective LMS course section. The task-in-process is then examined based on the triangulation of the classroom-based data sources and the underlying coding scheme (cf. chapter 4). It is subdivided into the teacher’s task perception, a description of the individual task phases as they are implemented during the lesson, and the task accounts of the focal learners. The insights derived from these analyses are condensed at the end of the chapter using the task design and evaluation framework by Kurek and Müller-Hartmann (2017) (cf. section 3.4.2.3). 265 7 Micro-perspective: Critical case analysis <?page no="266"?> Task-external parameters Task-internal parameters Case Course Teacher Focal stu‐ dents Date LMS chap. LMS activity type Task type 1. Find titles for the car‐ toons 11-EN Gym. 1 Sophia Konig Alexander V. Melanie W., Leonie S. 2012-09-28 Campaign issues glossary + com‐ menting function cartoon analysis, commenting, class discussion 2. An inter‐ view with the candidates and their spouses 11-EN Gym. 1 Anke Pfeifer Francesca A. Jan S. Niklas H. 2012-09-21 The candi‐ dates page/ resources + external resources (web-research) web-research, role-play 3. The elec‐ toral system— individual steps 11-EN Gym. 2 Frank Linnebeer Justus S. 2012-09-20 The elec‐ toral system activity + forum, text editor web-research, forum discussion, class discussion Table 7.1: Parameters of the three selected cases and their focal tasks. 266 7 Micro-perspective: Critical case analysis <?page no="267"?> 39 The duration of one lesson is 45 minutes. All three courses were scheduled twice a week for a double-lesson (i.e., a 90-minute class). 40 LMS course section 5 (“Campaign issues”), activity 18 (“Find titles for the cartoons”) in the LMS curriculum (cf. Table 5.3 for an overview). 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ 8.1 Introduction Date Lesson topic 1 09-07-12 Introduction to the school project 2 09-11-12 Electoral system I: overview 3 09-14-12 Electoral system II: electoral college, comparison Ger-USA 4 09-18-12 Electoral system III: stages of the election 5 09-21-12 The candidates I: Obama’s and Romney’s biographies 6 09-25-12 The candidates II: role-play / ‘press conference’ 7 09-28-12 Campaign issues and party platforms 8 10-02-12 Immigration; final product (planning) 9 10-05-12 Vocabulary test; research on Arkansas I 10 10-09-12 Research on Arkansas II 11 10-12-12 Producing a video about the election in Arkansas Table 8.1: Sequence of the teaching unit in Ms. Konig’s course. This task analysis has a dual focus on two interrelated double-lessons 39 in Ms. Konig’s 11 th -grade advanced-level EFL course from September 21 and 28, 2012 (cf. section 4.5.2). The focal task, ‘Find titles for the cartoons,’ 40 which was enacted during the double-lesson on September 28 in the computer lab, is a continuation of the double-lesson one week earlier, which also addressed the text genre of political cartoons about the election. These two double-lessons represent the fifth and seventh classes of this course’s project participation (cf. Table 8.1). During the first of the two double-lessons (i.e., double-lesson 5, Table 8.1), the students discussed their analyses of several political cartoons on the presidential candidates, which they had prepared as a homework assignment in small groups in order to evaluate the impact of the candidates’ biographies on their campaigns. This second step, which Ms. Konig had planned as an online forum discussion, had to be aborted spontaneously because of incorrect <?page no="268"?> user permission settings in the respective LMS activity. One week later (i.e., double-lesson 7, Table 8.1), on September 28, political cartoons were addressed again in connection to the campaign issues and both candidates’ stances towards them. Here, the students had to post creative suggestions for captions or titles under a selection of political cartoons, each depicting a different campaign issue from the candidates’ points of view. As outlined in the discussion of research methods and data sources (cf. section 4.5), the primary data informing the following case include observation-based classroom data (i.e., videography, screen capture, field notes, teaching materials, LMS meta-data) in addition to retrospective introspection (i.e., oral teacher comments, learner interviews, and learning journals). All data sources are triangulated within the context of the focal tasks and lessons, respectively. Each lesson is briefly introduced with an overview of its phases (sections 8.2.1 and 8.3.1). The subsequent analysis is further sub-divided into a theoretical description of the tasks-as-workplans and their key parameters, based on Ellis’s (2012) framework of task design and implementation. The enacted task, or task-in-process, is then described based on the triangulation of the data sources above and the underlying coding scheme (cf. section 4.6.2.3). The insights derived from these analyses are ultimately condensed using the task design and evaluation framework by Kurek and Müller-Hartmann (2017) (section 8.4). 8.2 ‘Cartoon analysis and discussion’ 8.2.1 Formal task analysis The first of the two focal lessons, which took place on September 21, 2012, was planned around the presidential candidates’ biographies and the text genre of political cartoons (cf. Table 8.2). Ms. Konig explains in her oral commentary that the students had been assigned to choose one of six political cartoons depicting the two candidates and prepare a written cartoon analysis (i.e., an essay) with the help of a multi-page analysis guide on the LMS that included study questions, guidelines, and useful phrases [2012-09-21_ti_SK_seq2]. They were then supposed to discuss their findings in randomly allocated small groups, provide each other feedback, and then present their results in an oral class discussion. 268 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="269"?> Phase Procedure(s) Time Introduction, task initiation (pre-task) T opens the lesson, initiates the task by referring to the HW asgmt. (i.e., analyzing a political cartoon on one of the candidates), instructs Ss to discuss findings in groups assigned by the T. 00: 00: 00 - 00: 01: 21 Task phase: Group discussion of cartoon anal‐ ysis (while task) Ss meet in assigned groups, discuss cartoon anal‐ yses. T acts as monitor and facilitator, occasionally as participant in group discussions. 00: 01: 21 - 00: 09: 03 Report phase: Oral class discus‐ sion of political cartoons (post-task) T ends on-task phase by projecting the cartoons on wall, turning off lights; gives advance organizer about report phase and subsequent forum discussion task. Ss discuss analyses for each cartoon orally in class; 00: 09: 03 - 00: 54: 10 Task initiation II (pre-task) T instructs Ss to access LMS course, discuss the impact of candidates’ biographies on campaign; T shows the LMS activity via projector. Ss return to their seats, turn on computers, access LMS. 00: 54: 10 - 00: 55: 50 Task phase II: Forum discus‐ sion, candidates’ bios (while task) Ss access LMS activity; after several minutes, realize they cannot post comments to forum due to a setting error. T and researcher try to identify and solve the issue, though unsuccessfully; T aborts task format. 00: 55: 50 - 01: 10: 18 Task modifica‐ tion: Oral class discussion (while task) T instructs students to conduct discussion orally in class (instead of in forum). Ss make individual contributions, though mostly to the teacher, not each other. 01: 10: 18 - 01: 14: 40 HW instruction, debriefing T closes discussion, gives instructions on HW asgmt. for next lesson (i.e., collect impacts of candidates’ bios on their campaigns in a forum); dismisses class ahead of schedule. 01: 14: 40 - 01: 21: 08 (end) Table 8.2: Lesson overview, Ms. Konig’s EFL course, Sep. 21, 2012. (T =teacher; Ss = students; HW asgmt. = homework assignment) The dual goal of this task was to engage in a structured approach to cartoon analysis and understand the role played by the candidates’ personal and professional backgrounds for their campaigns. This was planned to lead to a second task, a forum discussion where the students had to discuss their first impressions of the candidates. The homework assignment was finally intended to connect the candidates’ biographies directly to the election campaigns by prompting students to comment in a forum about how they believe the biographies could be used by the campaigns to influence the election (cf. Table 8.2). This assignment was planned as a preparation for the next lesson, which would include research and analysis of 269 8.2 ‘Cartoon analysis and discussion’ <?page no="270"?> the candidates’ biographical backgrounds and a role-playing task in which students simulate a press conference of the candidates, their spouses, and their campaign managers. Adopting the task design and implementation framework by Ellis (2012), the car‐ toon analysis task is now described in terms of its design and planned implementation. Regarding the task design, Ellis distinguishes task focus, input vs. output, type of gap, openness, and complexity. (1) The focal task in this lesson is unfocused, as it does not explicitly address particular linguistic forms. However, descriptive language like prepositions, the simple present and present continuous, words for locations, colors, etc., linking words, and epistemic modal verbs and modal verbs of possibility are likely to be used in the analysis and interpretation of the cartoons. (2) It is output-prompting rather than input-providing as learners are asked to describe and analyze the cartoons in writing in complete sentences and paragraphs, and orally during the report phase, although the task does provide some input that learners have to read and understand verbally, visually, and culturally. (3) There are an opinion and reasoning gap involved, especially at the stage of interpretation of the political cartoons, as learners may have differential knowledge of the portrayed political and cultural content and may understand ambiguous aspects differently. (4) It is rather open to the extent that different readings and interpretations of the cartoons are explicitly encouraged in the task instructions and subsequent discussion, although the shared focus on the cartoons does set boundaries to the tasks’ openness. (5) It is a complex task with the cultural and political content of the cartoons referring to a different political and cultural context than the learners’ own and, for instance, learners may perceive inherent cultural symbolism as opaque and not readily accessible. Proceeding to the evaluation of the task’s planned implementation, the following parameters are distinguished. (1) The task itself is carried out in a small-group discussion format, although the preparatory homework assignment (i.e., written cartoon analysis) was done individually, and the subsequent report phase is conducted in an oral class discussion format. (2) The pre-task phase has no pre-emptive focus on form. Nevertheless, the preparatory homework assignment (i.e., the cartoon analysis with a multi-page analysis and self-as‐ sessment guide) does provide questions for self-evaluation addressing formal and structural aspects of the analysis such as a description of the cartoon’s publication context, its visual elements, message, and techniques, caption and textual elements, and the readers’ personal opinion and response. Likewise, it stresses using the present tense and provides a detailed word bank with useful phrases. (3) The task positions students as listeners and speakers during both the small-group discussion and the subsequent whole-class discussion, although the main focus is arguably on spoken production in response to the 270 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="271"?> cartoon analysis. (4) There is no explicit allocation of learner roles based on individual learner differences since the composition of discussion groups is decided at random through numbers printed on the learners’ handouts. (5) The task format with a preparatory homework assignment and discussion in small groups allows for strategic planning. (6) The self-selection and structure during the subsequent class discussion (i.e., the cartoons are discussed one by one, from the step of visual description to analysis and interpretation) facilitate opportunities for online planning of spoken production. (7) Although there is no direct task repetition, the teacher (8) announces two post-task-requirements, the class discussion and the subsequent forum discussion of the impacts of the candidates’ biographies on their campaigns. Both are directly based on the task, extend it in meaningful ways, and provide opportunities for learner reflection. 8.2.2 Ms. Konig’s task perception In her oral commentary about the lesson, Ms. Konig points out that she allowed students to meet in randomly assigned groups to share and discuss their home‐ work assignments, a political cartoon analysis. This was done, she explains, to provide an opportunity for the negotiation of the findings, strategic planning, and giving the students greater security before they would present their results in class [2012-09-21_ti_SK_seq2-3]. Regarding the subsequent class discussion about the cartoons, the teacher draws an overall positive conclusion. However, Ms. Konig expresses her dissatisfaction that the planned forum discussion could not be realized due to the technical problems caused by the respective activity module in the LMS (Excerpt 8.1). The description and analysis took a long time, but was also very detailed and for the students, in my opinion, very motivating. And (2) afterward, they were asked to post their first impression of both candidates [to the forum]. However, that’s when the technology failed. The forum could not be used so that this task was eventually done in class. The students’ reaction: “That’s much easier, anyway.” This expresses their skepticism regarding the platform once again, I think, because (2) there they’d have to do the task in writing and not just orally, and everyone would have to do it, not just a few in the course. But timewise and in terms of its efficiency, the class discussion can be done significantly faster, of course. Excerpt 8.1: Oral commentary, Ms. Konig. [2012-09-21_tc_SK_seq5, transl.] 271 8.2 ‘Cartoon analysis and discussion’ <?page no="272"?> In this regard, Ms. Konig raises the assumption that her learners hold skeptical attitudes towards the LMS and its use in class. One possible reason for this, she speculates, could be the increased degree of learner engagement required by the online activity compared with the oral class discussion. For one, the online forum, as initially planned, would have required all learners to participate rather than just a few who get nominated to speak in class. Furthermore, composing a complete cartoon analysis in writing may require learners to engage more fully in the activity than in an oral discussion. In terms of the task’s objectives, the pre-interview with Ms. Konig, which targeted her teacher beliefs (cf. section 4.5.5), reveals relevant insights, especially regarding the teaching of the competencies of text comprehension and inter‐ cultural learning (Excerpt 8.2). She stresses the relevance of text analysis and reading and viewing comprehension across professional fields. Her definition of ‘text’ exceeds merely written code and may include visual texts, films, and other exemplars from English-speaking target cultures or contexts in which English is used as a lingua franca. So, text analysis because that is what is also important in the exams and because I think it’s a key competency for ALL professions—whether they have to do anything with English or not—understanding texts in order to filter important information and make them available for further activities. Students often ask themselves, “Why do I have to know these stylistic devices? ” But when you work with political texts with propaganda embedded in them and when you sort of catch on to that, then I do think that’s an important competency for life. So, I think text analysis is very important to me, too. Excerpt 8.2: Pre-interview, Ms. Konig. [2012-09-11_ti_SK_seq16, transl.] Concerning the election project, Ms. Konig foregrounds the significance of text analysis, including the identification and interpretation of stylistic devices for the deconstruction of political propaganda. This aspect can be directly applied to the focal tasks in which political cartoons, the candidates’ websites, and other campaign communications are at the center of attention. When asked about typical teaching methods or approaches in her EFL classes, Ms. Konig mentions the ‘think-pair-share’ method and class discussions (Ex‐ cerpt 8.3), or teacher-class dialog, in the hope that through her role of a moderator and facilitator, these dialogs will turn into student discussions or student-student dialogs that do not necessitate the teacher as the primary audience: 272 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="273"?> ‘Think-pair-share’ without the ‘think’ ((laughs))—which is a great pre-con‐ dition. So, I like to have the ‘think’ already in pair work. In order to, well, have as many students as possible speak, including those students who are reluctant to participate in class discussions. Uhm. (5) Yes. Class discussions, always hoping that a student-student discussion will emerge from this instead of being facilitated by the teacher. Uhm, that means I like to try to (5) highlight conflicts or different opinions and contrast them so that the students must take a stand. Excerpt 8.3: Pre-interview, Ms. Konig. [2012-09-11_ti_SK_seq8, transl.] Both the dialogic methods of think-pair-share and class dialog, as well as the media focus on text genres and strategies for their analysis, are central in this lesson and reflect how Ms. Konig integrates the project participation and the LMS curriculum with her overall teaching beliefs in the context of a concrete task cycle. 8.2.3 Task implementation As mentioned in connection to Ms. Konig’s oral commentary, the first task of this lesson—the discussion of the homework assignment in small groups and the subsequent oral class discussion—went mostly as planned. Nevertheless, a critical incident occurred in the next phase and is the focus of the following analysis. Ms. Konig had prepared a follow-up task, a forum discussion in which the students were supposed to describe how the biographical aspects previously discussed in connection to the political cartoons may impact on the candidates’ campaigns (Figure 8.1). Figure 8.1: Forum discussion assignment, ‘Warm-up: Discuss the candidates.’ 273 8.2 ‘Cartoon analysis and discussion’ <?page no="274"?> As Ms. Konig finishes the task instructions and asks learners to access the forum and work on this task for the remainder of the double-lesson, several students appear puzzled about how to submit their comments. Apparently, an error has occurred, or the wrong user permission settings have been selected for the LMS forum. As a consequence, there is no text field or ‘submit’ button visible to the students. The following exchange (Excerpt 8.4) between Tim and Dennis illustrates this situation: 1 Tim: ((Scrolls to the bottom of the page and then back up. There is no ‘reply’ button available, i.e., the students cannot post anything.)) And now? (.) What can we write? ((Scrolls down and up again.)) 2 Dennis: Geh zurück. Geh zurück. Geh zurück. ((Points at the screen.)) Go back. Go back. Go back. 3 Tim: ((Clicks on the browser’s return button; returns to the forum’s main page. Both students reread the thread titles. Clicks on the second discussion thread.)) 4 Dennis: Nein, nein, nein, nein. “Impressions” [i.e., the title of the previous thread]. No, no, no, no. “Impressions.” 5 Tim: ((Accesses the first forum thread again. As the page is displayed, he reads aloud the drop-down menu at the page top referring to different display options, and a notification about the forum type.)) “First post your answer.” 6 Dennis: Wo? Where? 7 Tim: Joa. [confused] ((Both students stare at the screen.)) Yeah. [confused] Excerpt 8.4: Screen capture, Tim and Dennis. [2012-09-21_sc_TB-DF, English translations in italics]. In the meantime, Ms. Konig tries to identify and solve the problem at her computer in the front of the room. She also consults the researcher, who is present in the room, but neither can solve it. This lesson phase, lasting over 14 minutes, is relatively unstructured, as students try to figure out what to do, realize they cannot complete the task online, and wait for further instructions by 274 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="275"?> the teacher. What is more, as Ms. Konig tries to solve the issue, she accidentally deletes the cartoons embedded in the respective forum discussion threads. Faced with increasingly irritated students and a usability issue preventing the class from performing the forum discussion task entirely, she apologizes for it and spontaneously changes the task format to an oral class discussion (Excerpt 8.5). 1 Ms. Konig: Ok, uhm, we try to solve it this way. I added a new discussion topic, which is called “Impressions”/ Can you post to it? To the discussion topic? 2 Student 1: No. 3 Student 2: No. 4 Ms. Konig: OK, uhm. That’s a pity, but it can all happen so, please, TELL us your first impressions of the two candidates based on the cartoons we’ve dealt with. I’m sorry. I don’t know what went wrong. Excerpt 8.5: Classroom video-recording, Ms. Konig’s course. [2012-09-21_vr] Some spontaneous observations and conclusions are then discussed orally, but this alternative task phase is ended quickly after less than five minutes. Contrary to the planned online forum task, now only a few students were able to participate in the discussion. Due to the changed modality, this alternative approach provides fewer opportunities for strategic planning of language output and content, and the ensuing discussion only superficially addresses the proposed questions. Ms. Konig explains the homework assignment and closes the lesson roughly ten minutes ahead of schedule. 8.2.4 Learner perceptions The learner responses to this lesson, both in the learning journals and the student interview, addressed the LMS malfunction and the adjusted classroom procedures. Philipp comments in his learning journal on the LMS malfunction, which prevented the course from actually using the forum module for this task and eventually led to an abrupt end of the lesson (Excerpt 8.6): The goal of the task was that each course participant would eventually form their own opinion on Obama and Romney. We were then—originally— 275 8.2 ‘Cartoon analysis and discussion’ <?page no="276"?> supposed to discuss our opinions on the Moodle platform online. But un‐ fortunately, this became impossible because the teacher, disappointingly, had failed to make the discussion thread available for discussion. Even after what felt like the 274 th attempt, this didn’t work, causing us to lose about ten minutes of class time and eventually to discuss the topic “offline” as a class discussion. I would urgently advise the teacher to check the functionality of the platform before class from now on. Excerpt 8.6: Learning journal, Philipp. [2012-09-21_lj_PL_seq16, transl.] Like other students during the lesson, Philipp expresses his frustration at this situation and the wasted class time. However, he does not only direct this response at the LMS but explicitly criticizes the teacher and her perceived lack of preparation and digital literacy for this outcome. This reaction points to the risk that technological issues, inadequate preparation, and poor integration of technology into classroom procedures may impact learner motivation and engagement, the perception of participant roles, and the teacher’s authority negatively, as well as reduce the educational affordances that become available during technology-enhanced tasks. In the retrospective interview with the focal students of the lesson, the participants discuss how the task might have allowed for different affordances to emerge if it had been implemented as originally planned: 1 Kaliampos: Based on your personal impression, how would you say do you approach such a task where you’re supposed to write something on the platform? Are you exactly as (.) as thorough as when you write it by hand? Or are you more diligent, because maybe everyone can read it? Or aren’t you as diligent because, you know, it’s on the computer? 2 Tim: More diligent, surely, because everyone can read it. 3 Dennis: Yes. 4 Tim: Because at home during homework assignments, I actually never pay attention to spelling, except the teacher or so is going to read it. 5 Dennis: Yes. 6 Tim: And yeah, on the Internet when I search, for example with the ‘Word Cloud Glossary’ [i.e., a previous LMS task] I also searched for definitions of terms on the Internet and then 276 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="277"?> tried to/ so, for example, for some things, I didn’t know how to write them and then I tried to change it accordingly, so I didn’t end up just doing copy/ paste (2), and there I did check that everything’s accurate. 7 Kaliampos: Okay. And how do you guys do this? 8 Susanne: So, actually I always pay attention during homework that everything is more or less spelled correctly, because if I perhaps internalize it the wrong way, this is not good, like regarding exams, and so I’m actually writing in the forum the same way I do during homework assignments. 9 Kaliampos: Who has, candidly speaking, who has proofread it before submitting it? 10 Tim: Yes, I always do this. 11 Kaliampos: Yeah? 12 Tim: Yeah, on the Internet, when I know that everyone can read it, I reread it several times and think about whether everything’s correct. 13 Kaliampos: How do you do this? 14 Sarah: Yes, I also did this. You could also do (.) this word check and grammar check, and then I also did that specifically. 15 Kaliampos Mhm. Is this helpful, or does it tempt you not to pay as much attention to form from the start and then just rely on the grammar checker? 16 Sarah: Nah, I think it is helpful because that way, you can spot gross mistakes that you perhaps just haven’t noticed or so, they are then checked again, and I find this quite practical. 17 Kaliampos: And of course, you don’t have that normally when you write it into your notepad. 18 Sarah: No. Excerpt 8.7: Retrospective group interview, Ms. Konig’s course. [2012-09-21_si_seq52-69, transl.] The students in this exchange (Excerpt 8.7) discuss the affordances of written assignment modules in Moodle (e.g., glossary, forum) for language accuracy and their perceived focus on form during task performance compared to analog settings like writing homework assignments into an exercise book by hand. Tim stresses the online context pushes him to pay more attention to formal accuracy, 277 8.2 ‘Cartoon analysis and discussion’ <?page no="278"?> especially since other users can read his contributions (line 11), whereas this is usually not the case when he works in analog paper-and-pencil formats (line 4). Susanne, on the other hand, maintains she always tries to pay attention to spelling and grammar, since otherwise, she may internalize erroneous forms, which would lead to fossilization and eventually defeat the purpose of her doing the homework assignments. Nevertheless, both students agree that the spelling and grammar checker in the LMS text editor is a helpful ancillary tool they frequently use for written production. In this regard, Sarah reflects on how the task would have been different had the forum module functioned during the lesson (Excerpt 8.8), asserting her teacher’s impression that this would have required learners to engage more deeply with the task than in an oral class discussion: One could have actually/ so, in my opinion, the only difference would have been that everyone would have really HAD TO say or write their opinion. And (2) yes, that because of that, the answers would have been documented in writing and not just spoken. Excerpt 8.8: Retrospective interview, Sarah. [2012-09-21_si_SB_seq25, transl.] In comparing this task with the previous homework assignment—an analysis of a political cartoon that was done in a paper-and-pencil format—another student, Dennis, confirms this view by explaining that an online format would have led to increased fluency and complexity in his writing as he would have been required to formulate complete sentences and paragraphs rather than just jotting down keywords on a note sheet. He maintains that he would welcome such an approach as it would force him to engage more deeply in the task [2012-09-21_si_seq79-81]. Tim adds that when done online, he tends to access additional tools and resources to support him in completing the task, as he did for the cartoon analysis homework assignment [ibid., seq36-43]. In her learning journal, Susanne raises the argument that maybe the online forum format might not have been the best pedagogical realization for the planned learner activity and intended learning objectives since she got the impression during the small group discussion on the cartoons that most students seemed to have reached convergent conclusions and outcomes (Excerpt 8.9). That is, a forum discussion requiring each student to post a contribution likely would have led to redundancies and thus would have been inefficient: 278 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="279"?> We had to discuss our opinions orally, which we had formed based on the caricatures, and couldn’t post them to the forum. I liked it better that way since we all would have written the same, which we realized during the class discussion. Excerpt 8.9: Learning journal, Susanne. [2012-09-21_lj_SP_seq21, transl.] Her classmate Alexander, on the other hand, directly contradicts Susanne’s view by stating he would have preferred doing the activity in the planned forum format, citing an expected clearer structure of the discussion and the increased opportunity for the teacher to monitor the activity (Excerpt 8.10): In my opinion, the forum discussion would have had several advantages compared with the normal class dialog. The communication would have been clearer and more orderly. Furthermore, the teacher would have been able to get an overview at any time. Excerpt 8.10: Learning journal, Alexander. [2012-09-21_lj_AV_seq20, transl.] Both students express divergent views as to the procedural realization of the task. Susanne foregrounds the notion of efficiency in terms of required task time and avoiding redundancies in learner texts, thereby orienting to the outcome of the task in the form of a collection of opinions or statements about the candidates. Alexander, on the other hand, orients to the process of the task performance as he directly comments on the structure of the forum discussion and the affordance for the teacher to monitor this very process in real-time and potentially provide feedback during or after the on-task phase. His response can also be related to the role of the learning environment in this task. According to sociocultural views, the context—a “clearer and more orderly” forum discussion, in Alexander’s words—does not just serve as the backdrop to the learning activity, but as a source of mental development (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001). A more extensive focus on the process of the task, as suggested by him, is likely to lead to different learning activity and task engagement, not just delay the task outcome, as suggested by Susanne. After discussing this initial task cycle, the next sub-chapter introduces the focal lesson of this case and provides a multimodal analysis of planned procedures, implementation, and learner perceptions. 279 8.2 ‘Cartoon analysis and discussion’ <?page no="280"?> 8.3 ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ This case’s focal task, ‘Find titles for the cartoons,’ was implemented in Ms. Konig’s course on September 28, 2012, during a double lesson in the school’s computer lab. After having dealt with the structure and techniques of cartoon analyses one week before, the focus now shifted to a more creative and informal approach to this text genre. Presented with a collection of nine political cartoons about different campaign issues in an LMS glossary, the students had to post creative or thematically fitting captions or titles as comments below the cartoons. This was planned to lead to a more detailed class discussion about the two candidates’ platforms. The second part of the lesson then asked students to individually or with a partner conduct a web-research of the candidates’ stances on various campaign issues. Table 8.3 gives a schematic overview of the lesson’s phases. 8.3.1 Formal task analysis The focal task is directly adapted from the LMS curriculum. The LMS course section ‘Campaign Issues’ lists the task ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ as its first activity, intended as a warm-up to this section topic (see task instructions, Figure 8.2). The learners are expected to familiarize themselves with key campaign issues of the 2012 electoral campaign, represented by a selection of nine political cartoons originally published in major U.S. newspapers like USA Today or online platforms like Daryl Cagle’s caglecartoons.com platform. The task is realized in the LMS course through the glossary module, which allows the cartoons to be displayed in a list and offers users to post comments below the cartoons without having to open sub-directories or new tabs. While the glossary module in Moodle is typically used for compiling word or concept lists similar to a dictionary, either done by the students themselves or exclusively by the teacher or tutor, it is now adopted for its displaying and commenting functions. Entries can be searched and browsed, assigned categories, and their use reinforced through an auto-linking feature across the LMS course or platform, which are negligible functions in this task. Figure 8.2: Task instructions in the LMS, ‘Find titles for the cartoons.’ 280 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="281"?> Phase Procedure(s) Time Arrival/ start Ss arrive in the computer lab; T greets Ss, checks organizational matters and attendance. 00: 00: 00 - 00: 03: 30 Task initiation I: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ T initiates lesson topic, uses advance organizer to preview lesson, then immediately introduces the task ‘Find titles for the cartoons.’ 00: 03: 30 - 00: 08: 48 Task phase I: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ Ss engage in task, access the LMS, post comments below the political cartoons. T acts as facilitator, monitor; provides scaffolding, technological assis‐ tance, initiates focus on form. 00: 08: 48 - 00: 26: 21 Report phase: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ T terminates task phase, projects activity module on wall. Ss read aloud learner comments, discuss them in connection to cartoons and respective cultural and political symbols and context, focus on form. 00: 26: 21 - 01: 00: 28 Task initiation II: ‘Web-research campaign issues’ T initiates follow-up task on candidates’ stances on select campaign issues, provides advance organizer (topics, goals, procedures), introduces LMS activity module and forum using a projector, then assigns Ss different topics. 01: 00: 28 - 01: 07: 15 Task phase II: ‘Web-research campaign issues’ Ss conduct web-research on assigned campaign is‐ sues, take notes, submit findings to task forum. T again acts as facilitator and monitor, offering scaffolding, assistance. 01: 07: 15 - 01: 30: 12 Debriefing T terminates task phase, asks Ss to finish it at home, submit their findings online. T offers learners to send her their written cartoon analyses via email for feedback. 01: 30: 12 - 01: 32: 00 (end) Table 8.3: Lesson phase overview, course by Ms. Konig, Sep. 28, 2012. (T = teacher; Ss = students) In the teaching notes to the course section available to course teachers, the following instructions are provided (Figure 8.3), specifying the task’s objective, student and teacher procedures, and potential outcomes and extensions. Based on the task materials, the teacher’s plans, and the teaching notes, the task-as-workplan can be broadly described using Ellis’s (2012, p. 200) framework for task design and implementation analysis. (1) In terms of its design, the task is an unfocused activity as neither the written task instructions (Figure 8.2) nor the teacher’s oral instructions during implementation refer to specific linguistic forms. (2) The task is output-prompting as the students are primarily asked to post their suggestions for cartoon titles or captions into the LMS activity, although many such comments are likely to take up and remix words 281 8.3 ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="282"?> and phrases from the cartoons themselves or other learners’ contributions. (3) It includes an opinion gap since all learners are presented with the same materials but expected to contribute solutions, potentially reflecting different understandings or focusing on different aspects of the cartoon. (4) This is a rather open task with differential learner texts expected. Nevertheless, student contributions are also expected to converge to the extent that learners pick up the same motives to comment on or expand and modify each other’s solutions. (5) The task does not feature a high level of complexity since although the cartoons in the LMS activity relate to culturally and politically distant contents, the comments that the learners are supposed to submit can be short, simple, and recycle language and motives from the cartoons or co-learners’ responses. In Task 1, the students have to identify the most important issues of this year's campaigns. (…) As an introduction to this task cycle, we have provided a glossary “Find titles for the cartoons” with cartoons about the campaigns. The cartoons do not have a title yet. Ask the students to suggest suitable titles by commenting on each cartoon online. Discuss the suggestions in class and choose the most appropriate titles together. You, as the teacher, should now edit the glossary entry and add the title you all have chosen. (Note: a glossary entry can only be edited by the person who wrote the original entry—the course developer—or by a teacher.) You can also name the Cartoons to discuss respectively and open them for further studies. Figure 8.3: Teaching notes, task ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ in the LMS. The task can also be looked at regarding its intended or planned implementation (Ellis, 2012, pp. 201-2), including the following parameters. (1) The task is to be implemented as an individual activity, although some students, as the classroom data show, complete it in pairs, for example, if one student experiences technical or usability issues. (2) The task is implemented without a pre-task phase focusing on linguistic form. (3) It positions learners as both readers and writers. Although the main requirement for successful task performance is the formulation and submission of cartoon captions by the learners, the task report phase positions learners as speakers. (4) There is no allocation of learner roles based on individual learner differences or other characteristics. However, the teacher does mention retrospectively that the task provided opportunities for student-driven individual‐ ization as learners did not have to comment on all cartoons and the different exemplars reflected varying degrees of complexity and task demands in terms of visual literacy and cultural learning [2013-01-25_ti_SK_seq246-8]. (5) The task 282 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="283"?> allows for detailed strategic planning since it is done in writing with further resources like spell-checkers, dictionaries, and encyclopedias available online. (6) This also reduces the pressure for online planning, as learners do not have to adhere to different activities simultaneously. (7) Task repetition is not planned, and (8) the post-task requirement, the subsequent task report phase and class discussion, is based mainly on the task results (i.e., the submitted cartoon captions). 8.3.2 Ms. Konig’s task perception In terms of teacher intention, insights are primarily derived from Ms. Konig’s retrospective oral commentary about the lesson, where she describes the task’s implementation as follows (Excerpt 8.11): Thus (2) the lesson began with a focus on the campaign issues. For this purpose, the various cartoons on the learning platform were used in the computer lab. The students were asked to (2) formulate cartoon titles and enter them as a comment. It immediately became obvious that some cartoons were more easily accessible for the students than others. It was also clear that/ it was also evident that good students (2) favored the harder cartoons, for example, and also formulated better fitting titles. But eventually, all students formulated titles for several cartoons and thus fulfilled the task. (.) These [comments] were then discussed together with the help of the projector. So, I always asked which titles were especially suitable, which ones pose questions, why they are well-suited, and through this, the students elaborated on the campaign issues. Excerpt 8.11: Oral commentary, Ms. Konig. [2012-09-28_tc_SK_seq3-4, transl.] The students were instructed to look at the cartoon selection, formulate appro‐ priate titles, and post them as comments in the LMS activity module (i.e., glossary). Ms. Konig’s overall evaluation of the task is positive, stating that all students could formulate titles for several cartoons and thereby complete the task satisfactorily. The task report phase involved an oral class discussion of these results and a reflection on the titles’ appropriateness, meaning, and connection to the depicted campaign issues. Ms. Konig admits some of the cartoons may have been difficult to understand culturally, visually, and linguistically. As she further notes, the students’ results (i.e., their cartoon titles) reflected considerable heterogeneity in terms of com‐ plexity, creativity, and appropriateness, adding that proficient students favored 283 8.3 ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="284"?> 41 “Ich meine, da muss man sehr viel Hintergrundwissen haben, um die zu verstehen.” (“I mean, you need a lot of background knowledge to understand them [the cartoons].” [2013-01-25_ti_SK_seq140]). these more complex cartoons and contributed more apt title suggestions. In her retrospective teacher comment [2012_09_28_tc_SK], Ms. Konig notably does not mention any challenges or difficulties that participants experienced during the lesson, including poor Internet connectivity, technological malfunctions of the LMS, or any further usability issues and instances of misinterpretation of technological affordances. Presented with anonymized extracts from learning journals and student interviews during a stimulated recall interview, the teacher elaborated on this task’s visual, linguistic, and intercultural demands. The cartoons serve as a case in point that several materials of the project curriculum pose challenging demands for learners in terms of linguistic, cultural, and content-based com‐ prehension, since in most cases, the materials lacked any form of didactic modification, including annotations or other forms of input enhancement [cf. 2013-01-25_ti_SK_seq112-35]. Culturally, Ms. Konig notes, the selected cartoons required considerable political and intercultural background knowl‐ edge. 41 Her colleague, Ms. Pfeifer, adds that writing a systematic cartoon analysis is a highly challenging task in itself and requires learners to apply sophisticated approaches to visual literacy [2013-01-25_ti_AP_seq139]. Despite these challenges related to the medium and cultural meanings associated with the political cartoons, they were perceived as appealing to the students, and the resulting task activity as effective for learning about the campaign issues (Excerpt 8.12): I found this a very fruitful lesson. And it was fun to them [i.e., the students], too. Also, it just motivates them, as a medium. Appealing, but challenging. Excerpt 8.12: Oral commentary, Ms. Konig. [2013-01-25_ti_SK_seq152, transl.] Ms. Konig maintains the task setup with students posting titles or captions below the cartoons in a glossary as comments afforded reciprocity, collaboration, and creativity (Excerpt 8.13 and Excerpt 8.14). The students were able to post their own suggestions, read their co-learners’ ideas, reuse, expand, or build on them, and develop them further—an aspect Ms. Konig described as a motivating factor in this task: 284 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="285"?> So, [the students] were also able to refer to titles others had posted, or realize: “Oh, he had the same idea. I’m not entering this again.” So, no redundancies then. And then we projected them to the wall and discussed the titles and dug a little deeper into the cartoons. Excerpt 8.13: Oral commentary, Ms. Konig. [2013-01-25_ti_SK_seq219, transl.] And they [i.e., the students], I think, also liked this, that they could check what ideas the others had. (2) “Can I up the ante on this? Or can I think of something related to this? ” So, I believe the written interactions here were quite nice. Excerpt 8.14: Oral commentary, Ms. Konig. [2013-01-25_ti_SK_seq227, transl.] Although prior research on the campaign issues would have supported the learners’ comprehension of the cartoons’ complex and culturally contingent content, Ms. Konig maintains (Excerpt 8.15) her approach did make students curious about the issues, raised discussion questions, and motivated them to find out more about the topics [cf. 2013-01-25_ti_SK_seq215-33]. Maybe we could have done this the other way round: Deal with the cartoons only after the campaign issues, but on the other hand, I believe this also raised the students’ interest—where does this come from, which role does he play in the campaign, and so on. Excerpt 8.15: Oral commentary, Ms. Konig. [2013-01-25_ti_SK_seq227, transl.] In this regard, Ms. Konig explains she only realized in retrospect the individu‐ alization of demand levels, which each task afforded through the variety of cartoons included in the LMS activity, thereby allowing students to choose different materials within the same task, based on personal interests, motivation, and comprehension levels. She highlights how this form of differentiation was not enforced externally by her or guided by different labels or signposts. This approach crucially did not stigmatize individual students based on their choice of materials during the task report phase [2013-01-25_ti_SK_seq246-8]. 285 8.3 ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="286"?> 8.3.3 Task implementation: Initiation phase Shifting the focus from the intended task-as-workplan to its implementation during the task-in-process and the concrete learning activity emerging from this workplan, we can focus on these questions: How did this planned task activity unfold during the lesson? Where can we observe deviations from this workplan? Are they initiated by the teacher or the students, and what potential reasons can be derived from the observational and introspective data? How do individual students interpret and enact the task differently from each other? Moreover, how does the technology—or more precisely, the learners’ interpretations, and misinterpretations, of the various affordances of the technology—influence the task activity? While the written task instructions, due to the necessary adaptability of the project curriculum into different school contexts, define a relatively open space for learner activity, this space must be concretized during classroom implemen‐ tation, through teacher instructions and negotiation with the students. This goal can be achieved through increased teaching presence, which refers to the design and organization of learner activity (e.g., suggesting task procedures), the facilitation of discourse (e.g., signaling social affiliation), and instances of direct instruction (e.g., explaining task content and identifying task support) (Anderson et al., 2001). At the beginning of the lesson, the teacher initiates the topic of the lesson and foreshadows the upcoming task (Excerpt 8.16): 1 Konig: Uhm, at the end of last lesson, we had a look at one cartoon dealing with one of the different important campaign issues, and on our platform, there are more. So please, as we turn on the computers directly today/ ((Pause. Several students turn on their computers now. Konig waits for the computers to boot. Alexander is seen asking the researcher whether the screen capture software is already running.)) 2 Konig: System’s running? 3 Student: ‘explorarium’ oder so? [referring to the LMS’s URL.] ‘explorarium’ or so? 4 Konig: It’s still called ‘U S minus election dot explorarium.’ 5 Descript. ((Chatter in the classroom. Kaliampos continues setting up the screen capture software on Alexander’s computer.)) 6 Konig: So, we’re going to ‘Campaign issues’ [i.e., the title of this lesson's Moodle course section]. (6) Mine’s still working as well. And we’re going to deal with cartoons again in prepa‐ 286 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="287"?> ration for the exam, as well. Uhm, and your assignment, for now, is simply to find headlines for the different cartoons, expressing their topic, expressing their message. 7 Students: ((Students are seen accessing the LMS now.)) 8 Konig: ‘Campaign issues’ [i.e., one of the course section titles]. Mine’s slower than yours. ((Walks to the side of the room now and looks at the students’ computer screens.)) (4) The log-in/ ((Walks to the back of the room. Chatter is heard in the background. Repeats the URL of the LMS)) U S minus election dot explorarium dot D E. Uhm, campaign issues, and then it’s called ‘Find titles for the cartoons.’ 9 Jonas: ((Turns around to Konig.)) Are we supposed to write in the comments or/ ? 10 Konig: Yes, in the comments. So, have a look at the different cartoons (.) and find titles expressing their topics, writing them down as a comment. ((Students are still logging in to the LMS and accessing the task.)) 11 Student: Wo sollen wir hin? Where are we supposed to go? 12 Konig: ((Walks to the side of the classroom again, still looking at the students’ computer screens. Repeats the directions to find the task.)) ‘Campaign issues.’ And then the assignment is/ 13 Student 2: (unintelligible student question) 14 Konig: Yeah, ‘Arkansas Hamburg’ [i.e., the course title], ‘Campaign Issues.’ And then the assignment is called, ‘Find titles for the cartoons.’ (12) [Repeating the task instructions] Now you’re supposed to find titles, proper titles, (.) for each cartoon. Excerpt 8.16: Classroom video-recording, Ms. Konig’s course. [2012-09-28_vr_seq5-18] In this extract, Ms. Konig begins the lesson by introducing its overall topic, “cartoon” and “important campaign issues” (line 1), which she links to the previous lesson’s focus. She only briefly announces the task (“simply to find headlines for the different cartoons, expressing their topic, expressing their message,” line 6), and subsequently repeats this instruction twice (lines 10 and 14). She does not initially determine how the students should submit their comments—neither what form they should adopt for the titles nor, more generally, whether titles and captions are understood to be the same. Only 287 8.3 ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="288"?> when one student asks for clarification whether the titles are to be posted as comments below the cartoons (line 9) does she expand the task instructions minimally (line 10). Furthermore, several instances can be observed in which the teacher adopts aspects of direct instruction (or telling) to direct the students’ use of the computers, though in a fragmented and highly indexical manner. This indexicality, typical of task-based, technology-mediated discourse, can be seen as a multimodal speech exchange system “in which verbal and non-verbal elements and task-completion actions are inextricably intertwined” (Seedhouse & Almutairi, 2009, p. 325) and which involves physical actions, gaze, and shared focus (cf. section 2.3.3). In line 1, she instructs the students to turn on the computers, then spells out the URL of the LMS (line 4 and again in line 8), directs learners to the correct LMS course section (first in line 6, and again in lines 8, 12, and 14), and the LMS activity link (lines 8 and 14). This parallel use of the projector and indexical language describing on-screen behavior synchronizes the teacher’s intended task and the students’ activity. Throughout this sequence, Ms. Konig monitors whether the students’ computers and Internet connection function properly (lines 2, 6, and 8). However, important task instruction components are missing here. It remains unclear what precisely the cartoons depict or what campaign issues they address. The LMS activity where the cartoons can be accessed and commented on includes a written task instruction, which the teacher completely ignores during her oral task instructions. It remains unaddressed whether students are supposed to read and follow these instructions. It is unclear whether students are expected to research further information online to enhance their understanding of the cartoons, whether the teacher or the LMS provide further scaffolding for this task, and where this could be accessed. In the same respect, the relation between the students’ contributions remains unaddressed, and formal task characteristics are vague, such as the tasks’ duration or whether students should cover every cartoon in the selection. In terms of the task objective and outcome, the format of the task report phase is unclear, as are the criteria for successful task completion. The result of this introductory sequence is an unclear distinction between task instructions and directions regarding the design interaction with the LMS, meaning, aspects of software navigation and operation. While Ms. Konig’s direct task instructions would require students to listen carefully and watch her projected on-screen actions, her directions to access the online task imply that students follow these steps simultaneously on their computers. 288 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="289"?> 8.3.4 Task implementation: Task phase Regarding the teacher roles and behavior during the task phase, the classroom data demonstrate how Ms. Konig adopts the roles of facilitator and monitor throughout this phase. These teacher roles are foregrounded in the literature on both TBLT (van den Branden, 2016; Willis, 1996) and CALL (Healey, 2016; Son, 2018; Sturm et al., 2009; A. Wang, 2015). The teacher as facilitator organizes classroom interaction, inspires and helps to maintain learner motivation to engage in meaningful and sustained learner activity, but may also directly support and scaffold learner activity, and act as a language resource or skilled conversational partner to learners in carefully balanced pre-planned and spon‐ taneous interventions (cf. van Avermaet et al., 2006; van den Branden, 2016). As a monitor during the task phase, the teacher keeps learners on track by ensuring they do the right task and are clear about its objectives, encourages all learners to take part in the task, is forgiving about language form errors, notices if and when learners switch to using the L1, and carries out tasks of classroom management (Willis, 1996, pp. 53-4) cf. sections 2.2.2.3 and 3.1.2). In terms of technology use, these roles may additionally involve the teacher in guiding learners through their interaction with the teaching material and software, and support collaboration with other learners both online and face-to-face (Sturm et al., 2009). In other words, the technology-enhanced learning environment requires the teacher to execute additional technological and social functions as part of the facilitator and monitor roles (A. Wang, 2015). For instance, the technological function may involve the teacher in sup‐ porting and modeling the use of technology for a particular task, highlighting different types of affordances emerging from this use, and closely monitoring students’ technology use. This is crucial during the initial phases of tasks since otherwise, learners’ task engagement may be impacted negatively, leaving learners frustrated and unable to attain intended learning objectives and solve the task successfully (Hampel, 2006). Likewise, the public nature of the task, which requires students to contribute their suggestions for cartoon titles by name and interact with peers online, highlights the social function to establish social cohesion, create a relaxed and communicative atmosphere, and thereby motivate participation and activate language output (A. Wang, 2015, pp. 158-9). Ms. Konig executes both these functions during the task instruction phase described above and the subsequent phase of task performance. Initially, she provides instructions on finding the online activity in the LMS course and submitting contributions during the introductory task phase (see above). Later in the task, she moves toward monitoring the students’ technology use and task performance by walking through the seating rows and looking at the 289 8.3 ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="290"?> students’ computer screens [2012-09-28_vr_seq28, seq78] or asking whether they experience the same Internet connectivity issues as she does [“Is yours as slow as mine? ” 2012-09-28_vr_seq33]. In the same respect, learners approach her directly on numerous occasions during their task performance to seek technological assistance. For instance, in the following sequence (Excerpt 8.17), Tim expresses his frustration with the LMS as he seems unable to log in with his user credentials. As Ms. Konig registers the issue, she seems unable to solve it immediately and instead suggests Tim continue in pair work with Dennis. 1 Tim: Ich krieg‘ die Krise, ey! (unintelligible) This is driving me crazy! 2 Konig: ((Konig walks to the side of the room again and talks to Dennis and Tim.)) What’s wrong? 3 Tim: (unintelligible) and now, the Internet (unintelligible) ((Shows Konig something on his screen.)) [Apparently, Tim was unable to sign in to the LMS.] 4 Konig: It’s so complicated with you as well? 5 Tim: Well, it must not have worked. 6 Konig: ((Looks at his screen for 3 seconds.)) Okay, then work with Dennis [i.e., the student sitting next to Tim]. Excerpt 8.17: Classroom video-recording, Ms. Konig’s course. [2012-09-28_vr_seq21-6] During this task phase, the teacher directs several such technology-related ques‐ tions directly to the researcher [2012-09-28_vr_seq18-20, seq52-66, seq82-8], raising the question how these situations would play out in entirely naturalistic settings without the presence of an expert in the classroom. Finally, this task phase is also characterized by a repeated focus on form facilitated by the teacher, initially in response to her monitoring of learner language in the LMS activity module. Upon launching the task phase, Ms. Konig walks through the seat rows, observes the students’ on-screen behavior, and then initiates a focus-on-form episode by reminding the class of the capitalization rules in English (Excerpt 8.18): 1 Konig: ((Walks through one seating row, looking at the students’ computer screens. Then turns to the whole class, standing in the middle of the row.)) Okay, uhm, you’re supposed to 290 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="291"?> find titles. In titles, in English, almost every word is spelled with a capital letter except for (.) prepositions. 2 Marco: [ Jokingly] Sorry! 3 Melanie: Dunn dunn. ((Scrolls up to their previous comment without capitalization. Both Melanie and Leonie laugh. Scrolls back down to the opened text field for cartoon #3.)) 4 Konig: [Ironically] Do we have to pay attention to language also? At least a bit. Articles and prepositions are the only exceptions. ((Walks back to the front of the room again.)) Excerpt 8.18: Classroom video-recording, Ms. Konig’s course. [2012-09-28_vr_seq28-31] Although some students immediately respond to their teacher’s remarks or check their written contributions for accuracy (lines 2 and 3), Ms. Konig’s monitoring of task performance leads her to repeat this focus on form twice during the task phase [2012-09-28_vr_seq53, seq89-92]. 8.3.5 Focal student: Alexander Upon Ms. Konig’s task instructions and directions to access the activity in the LMS course, Alexander opens the glossary module. He first scrolls through the glossary, skips the written task instructions at the top of the page, and briefly stops at each cartoon to read it [2012-09-28_sc_AV_seq33]. As he reaches the end of the list, he scrolls back up and begins to enter a caption in the commenting field. Excerpt 8.19, drawn from the lesson transcript, depicts this initial part of the task phase: Apparently, poor Internet connectivity is causing usability problems for Alexander during the task. As the transcript of the screen capture reveals, this issue largely prevents him from fully engaging in the task. The slow Internet connection is also why the intended technological affordances of immediacy and reciprocity of the commenting function are not realized, as Alexander’s comment fails to be logged by the LMS. The social affordance of technologically-mediated interaction and collaboration through learner com‐ ments cannot be realized either. Instead of building on already submitted comments, Alexander’s co-learners’ contributions are delayed in appearing on his screen. The student is visibly upset about this as he realizes his idea has already been posted by his seating neighbor and turns to him, ironically stating, “But that was MY idea! ” (Excerpt 8.19). 291 8.3 ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="292"?> 1 Alexander: ((Scrolls back up to cartoon #1 and clicks on the ‘Comment’ link once and then a second time after realizing the com‐ ments section fails to open immediately. Two previous student comments appear. Alexander reads them but then scrolls down to the next cartoon. There, he clicks on the ‘Comments’ link again, but due to the slow Internet connec‐ tion, the comment section fails to open immediately. Scrolls further down after three seconds, then tries it again with cartoon #3, and after a two-second delay, the section opens. Types into the text field under #3 <political differences>, while the cogwheel loading animation is still moving. Then, upon clicking on ‘Save comment,’ the previous two student comments appear, but Alexander’s comment is not logged. Sees that the previous comment, submitted by his seatmate to the left, Philipp, reads <On differences and Similarities>. Laughs and turns to Philipp, jokingly)) But that was MY idea! Excerpt 8.19: Screen capture, Alexander. [2012-09-28_sc_AV_seq34] During the remainder of the task phase, Alexander visibly struggles with these technical issues: He sighs [ibid., seq49], looks away from the screen for an extended duration [ibid., seq51], and has to pause the activity entirely for over a minute as the command to refresh the page causes a painstaking 67-second delay [ibid., seq41]. In addition, the poor connectivity appears to cause a technical malfunction in the LMS, so every time Alexander clicks on a button or link, the page simply jumps to the very top without performing the action [ibid., seq50]. 292 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="293"?> After multiple attempts at clicking on buttons, he decides to log out of the LMS and log back in, yet the technical issues persist [ibid.]. He eventually seeks help from Ms. Konig and the researcher, but they cannot resolve the connectivity issue. When the malfunction finally disappears, only two minutes of the task phase remains. Ms. Konig announces the end of the task phase after roughly 20 minutes. During this phase, poor Internet connectivity and the resulting malfunction in the LMS prevented Alexander from participating in the task for 13 mi‐ nutes, while connectivity issues and multiple time lags also characterized the remaining seven minutes. The student submissions to this task and the LMS meta-data alone would suggest Alexander did not engage in this task to the same extent as his co-learners, since he was only able to post two comments overall. Nevertheless, despite his visible frustration with this situation, he shows initiatives to participate in the classroom discourse both during the task and the report phase. For instance, he gives feedback to Philipp in the L2 [ibid., seq49-50], seeks help from the teacher and the researcher to solve this technical problem [ibid., seq51ff.], volunteers to read out student comments posted under the first cartoon [ibid., seq98], and contributes to a language-related episode by extensively explaining the vocabulary item “to conquer” by referencing the historical context of William the Conqueror [ibid., seq219-21]. Considering these overwhelming technical problems, it is surprising Alexander does not mention any of these issues in his learning journal and instead chooses to comment on the LMS affordances specifically for the tasks devised by the teacher in this lesson [2012-09-28_lj_SS]. According to this entry, he perceives the technological affordances of the glossary module to facilitate increased efficiency and effectiveness since it allows learners to collaborate indirectly by reading each other’s comments and referencing them (i.e., collecting ideas, expanding contributions, getting an overview of the task outcomes, and avoiding double contributions). He further notes that the use of the projector for the display of the task outcomes made the learner contributions susceptible to classroom discussion and additionally served as linguistic and thematic scaffolding during the task phase. In his words, it “made the classroom discourse easier” [ibid., seq2, transl.] and rendered it “much more fluent” [ibid., seq30, transl.] since students could refer to and read off the projector rather than having to transfer the task outcomes to the chalkboard manually. Finally, Alexander mentions the accessibility of the task independently of time and place as an additional affordance connected with the follow-up task (i.e., a research task on campaign issues and the candidates’ stances on them) [ibid., seq32]. 293 8.3 ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="294"?> 8.3.6 Focal students: Melanie and Leonie The second pair of focal students whose task behavior was recorded during this lesson are Melanie and Leonie, who share a computer for this task. After briefly asking what they are supposed to do after the teacher has launched the task phase, Melanie, who controls the mouse for most of the task phase, accesses the LMS activity. Like Alexander, the two girls do not read the written task instructions and scroll past them directly to the political cartoons, based on their intuitive use of the LMS and the oral task instructions repeated by Ms. Konig several times. Melanie quickly scrolls through the cartoons, and there is initially only very little, highly indexical interaction in German between the two students. These fragmentary interactions, however, indicate that the cartoons are visually, culturally, and linguistically challenging for the students. For example, Melanie wonders whether the figure in the second cartoon is supposed to be Barack Obama [2012-09-28_sc_MW-LS_seq28-9]. While both students stare at the third cartoon, which depicts Obama and Romney as synchronized swimmers—a commentary on the perceived similarities of their policies—Leonie observes that “no one is going to understand this” [“Das schnallt doch keiner,” ibid., seq31-2, transl.]. Upon reading the alphabetism “GOP” in cartoon number six, she asks what it stands for. Leonie does not know, either, so Melanie quickly initiates a Google search [ibid., seq35-7]. Finally, both students appear to fail to understand that the last cartoon depicts a visualization of the idiom “to put one’s foot in one’s mouth.” Both students look at it only briefly and scroll back to the top of the list after Melanie’s interjection “Hä? ” [“Huh? ”, ibid., seq41] remains without reaction. After briefly skimming all cartoons, Melanie scrolls to the top again, and the two students look at each one in more detail, trying to formulate fitting titles or captions and exchanging their ideas. Upon clicking on the ‘Comments’ button below the first cartoon to post their title suggestion, the students notice that this opens a dropdown list of their co-learners’ contributions. The students read these comments before posting their own and adopt this strategy for the remaining cartoons. Melanie even verbalizes this strategy as she begins to explain the content of cartoon number six to Leonie, but then abruptly suggests, “erstmal alle [Kommentare] laden” [“let’s first load all [comments],” ibid., seq122]. In this case, other students’ posts seem to function as a clue to comprehending the content and message of the cartoon. 294 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="295"?> 1 Melanie: (… ) Die grenzen sich ja gar nicht voneinander ab. They [i.e., the depicted candidates, Obama and Romney] are not distinguishing themselves from each other at all. […] 2 Melanie: ((Points to the screen and reads out one submitted com‐ ment)) ‘Same arguments.’ 3 Leonie: (unintelligible) 4 Melanie: ((Points mouse cursor over the submitted comments. Marks one comment that reads ‘two sides of the same medal.’)) Das ist gut. This is good. 5 Leonie: Mhm. […] 6 Lena: [Sitting next to Leonie and Melanie] [Melanie]! Siehst du, jetzt geht’s. ((Points at her screen.)) Hier (unintelligible) wurde aber nur zum Anfang der Seite gegangen. [Sitting next to Leonie and Melanie] [Melanie]! You see, now it works. ((Points at her screen.)) Here (unintelligible) only went to the top of the page [i.e., probably experiencing the same technical issue as Alexander]. 7 Melanie: ((Laughs. Looks back to her screen.)) Uhm. (7) ‘NO differ‐ ences.’ ((Points mouse over a comment by a fellow student, which reads ‘political differences.’)) (2) Pretending (.) to be (2), uhm, ‘unterschiedlich’ [different]? ((Looks at Leonie. Points mouse cursor towards ‘new browser tab’ button, but then turns to the right to Lena)) Lena (2), sich unterscheiden, unterschiedlich sein? Pretending to be…? 295 8.3 ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="296"?> […] Lena, ‚sich unterscheiden,‘ ‚unterschiedlich sein‘? Pre‐ tending to be…? […] Lena, ‘to differ,’ ‘being different’? Pretending to be…? 8 Lena: Was willst du? What do you want? 9 Melanie: Unterschied/ Also, ‘pretending to be…’ Differ/ I mean, ‘pretending to be…’ 10 Lena: ‘Different’? 11 Melanie: Ja, aber das klingt so langweilig. ((Turns back toward her screen.)) Yeah, but that sounds so boring. Excerpt 8.20: Screen capture, Melanie and Leonie. [2012-09-28_sc_MW-LS_seq63-79] Likewise, the students use prior posts as input to develop their own contribu‐ tions, often by building on and developing fellow students’ posts further [ibid., seq66, seq75, seq112, seq132]. Excerpt 8.20, for instance, shows Melanie and Leonie looking at a cartoon depicting the two rival candidates for U.S. president as synchronized swimmers who share the same speech bubbles as an ironic comment on the similarities between their policies. Prior posts by co-learners include, “The same arguments,” “Of Differences and Similarities,” “two sides of the same medal,” and “political differences.” As the students read through the posts, Melanie marks Lisa’s post and praises it (line 4), then reads Alexander’s post, but changes it to “NO differences” as she reads it aloud (line 7). She then states her idea, a modification of the post she has just read, “Pretending to be different” (lines 7-11). In a later sequence, the students look at a cartoon which portrays the GOP as a mammoth, while Mitt Romney is trying to fit a saddle on it, which is labeled “UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE” but is obviously too small for the animal, thus expressing the missing fit between policy and party. The students laugh at a co-learner’s post, “just the right size,” then take this as a cue for their own post about the saddle’s size, “XS Universal Health Care” [ibid., seq131-44]. Melanie also confirmed in the retrospective interview (Excerpt 8.21) that the social affordances of the commenting function, namely the reciprocity and collaboration arising from the joint participation in the online task, allowed for social scaffolding and division of labor: 296 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="297"?> 1 Kaliampos: What is your impression of the platform and working with it? 2 Melanie: Well, sometimes it didn’t work in class, and that’s, of course, a little unfortunate, but that way, you have a better overview, I think. And actually, it’s pretty good when you can see what the others have done if you’re a little lost at the moment. 3 Kaliampos: Mmhm, so you complement each other and maybe even get more done than working on your own? 4 Melanie: Exactly. Excerpt 8.21: Learner interview, Melanie and Leonie. [2012-10-02_li_MW-LS_seq57-60, transl.] Partly coinciding with these instances are examples where co-learners’ postings cause amusement and laughter by Melanie and Leonie. On multiple occasions during the task phase, the two girls read other students’ posts and laugh [ibid., seq112, seq132, seq148], even turn around to these posts’ authors to seek eye contact [ibid., seq112] or state that they find someone’s post funny [ibid., seq48]. This behavior reflects positive affective task engagement and is a source of motivation. However, Melanie notes in the interview that the public nature of the activity—the fact that students posted their solutions publicly visible for others and everyone was called to post their solution, not just a few students as it is custom during classroom discussions—put pressure on each student and precluded a freeride approach to the task [ibid., seq12-22]. The recording of the two students’ collaborative task performance shows how online tasks may come with social-ethical challenges. In two instances, student posts become the source of ridicule as Melanie, Leonie, and Lena are seen poking fun at another student’s contribution and making condescending comments about her [ibid., seq145-6, seq166-9]. These incidents raise the question to what extent the pressure to participate, due to the semi-public nature of the task as described by Melanie, requires social safeguards and discourse rules such as netiquette (Excerpt 8.22). 297 8.3 ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="298"?> 1 Melanie: ((Scrolls down to the next cartoon.)) 2 Leonie: ((Reads aloud the speech bubble in cartoon #2)) ‘Good opener in games…’ 3 Melanie: ((Clicks on the ‘Comments’ link. Previous comments appear with a slight delay again. Marks part of the second student an‐ swer by Lisa, which reads, “he’s pretty good with multitasking … for a guy.” Reads aloud: )) ‘…for a guy’ ((Starts laughing.)) 4 Leonie: [Lisa] ist so witzig! [Lisa] is so funny! 5 Melanie: ((Reading the comment below)) <he loves to puzzle>. ((Pre‐ pares to type in a new comment.)) Too many jigsaws (2) but no/ (6) no picture'? 6 Leonie: [hesitantly] Joa. [hesitantly] Yeah. 7 Melanie: ((Types in her suggestion: <To many jigsaws>))/ Schreibt man das so? […] Is this how you spell that? 8 Leonie: [affirmative] Mhmhm. 9 Melanie: Jigsaws ((continues typing, <but no final pictures> and submits the answer.)) Excerpt 8.22: Screen capture, Melanie and Leonie. [2012-09-28_sc_MW-LS_seq46-54] (Sections of the screen capture are cut out and enlarged for readability.) 298 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="299"?> 8.3.7 Task implementation: Report phase Ms. Konig launches the task report phase after roughly 20 minutes by projecting the glossary module on the wall and calling on the students to read aloud and discuss the different solutions [2012-09-28_vr_seq115-7]. In the retrospective interview, Ms. Konig describes this discussion as intensive and concentrated (Excerpt 8.23): But the discussion was very intensive and very concentrated; it was focused on the front [of the classroom]. I just stood at the side, but it [i.e., the LMS module] was projected to the front. The attention was clearly focusing on the front. Also, several questions were raised that we have continued to pursue since then and which were clarified during the research, respectively. Excerpt 8.23: Teacher interview, Ms. Konig. [2013-01-25_ti_SK_seq219, transl.] In his learning journal, Alexander points out the affordances added by this procedure, namely how it made the class discussion “viel flüssiger, da man die Ergebnisse nicht extra an die Tafel oder auf eine Folie schreiben musste” [“much more fluent, because the results did not have to be written on overhead transparencies or the chalkboard,” 2012-09-28_lj_AV_seq30]. Despite these per‐ ceived benefits of the projector, its use does cause confusion during the lesson, as Ms. Konig and the students must refresh the website multiple times during the discussion since the LMS does not automatically update the submitted learner comments [e.g., 2012-09-28_vr_seq101-13, 143-5, 163-4, 190-4, 207, 265]. The teacher’s role during the report phase is that of a moderator who typically calls on individual students to read out all comments regarding a cartoon and then poses questions regarding the political and cultural symbolism and references of the cartoons, divergent learner understandings, or the learners’ intended messages. In all instances, the students respond directly to the teacher. At numerous points, the discussion addresses references contingent on the U.S. political, social, and cultural framework, such as when the students clarify the meaning of ‘GOP’ [ibid., seq220-2], the idiom ‘to put a foot in one’s mouth’ [ibid., seq265-75], the deportation of immigrants to the U.S. [ibid., seq122-32], or the American dream and the DREAM Act [ibid., seq216-20]. In some instances, the teacher asks individual students to explain their posts by describing their underlying rationale [e.g., ibid., seq158-9]. Likewise, she asks individual students which posts they think match the cartoons best [ibid., seq115, 149, 167, 205, 234], thus eliciting descriptions and elaborations on these posts [e.g., ibid., seq168-85] and, in passing, integrating both blended learning 299 8.3 ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="300"?> modes by allowing time and space for the discussion of CMC in a face-to-face sequence. In this context, the students also frequently comment on the quality of their co-learners’ posts, such as their creativity, by praising [ibid., seq122, 196, 202, 210, 247, 251, 287] or criticizing them [ibid., seq118, 255, 260]. In Excerpt 8.24, Mario and Jonas provide positive feedback to Lisa, whose comment on a cartoon depicting Latinx Americans’ perception of a televised statement by President Obama about Congress’s failure to pass immigration legislation, as follows: “‘Sorry this Dream Is Not Available in Your Country at the Moment, Please Try Again Later.’” 1 Mario: I like the one of [Lisa] because I think everyone knows the situation when there suddenly appears this message on YouTube. And, well, I think it’s quite related to the normal life, so it fits quite well between them. 2 Jonas: Yeah, I agree, too. Because it’s/ he’s [Obama, who is depicted in the cartoon] speaking through the television. It fits, ‘cause that’s what you see/ maybe not on television, but you see it on, yeah, on the phone or on the computer, saying that kinda stuff. 3 Ms. Konig: “Please hold the line.” 4 Jonas: Yeah. So, that’s/ Because it’s/ he’s trying to sell something off the TV. Yeah, you can see it on TV, the people trying to sell their products or whatever and then. ((Laughs.)) I haven’t called there, but you know that when you call there, you’re gonna be in the line for ages. Excerpt 8.24: Classroom video-recording, Ms. Konig’s course. [2012-09-28_vr_seq212-5] Besides this content-based discourse, Ms. Konig overall initiates 13 focus on form episodes during the task report phase. The majority of these involve corrections of oral learner statements during the discussion, mostly in the form of recasts and explicit corrections [ibid., seq123, 139, 151, 180, 189, 218, 224, 238, 254]. In addition to her instructions during the task phase to pay attention to capitalization and spelling, she now also provides corrective feedback on learners’ written comments to the LMS activity. These corrections, again, involve capitalization [ibid., seq209], nominalization [ibid., seq254], punctuation [ibid., seq277-81], and grammar [ibid., seq254, 265], at times reminding the 300 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="301"?> course, “I know we’re on the Internet, but don’t forget spelling rules, please” [ibid., seq281]. Despite this, the focus of the classroom discourse remains on the task content—the political cartoons and the election campaigns—with no pre-determined focus on form observable and most corrections done in passing. 8.4 Discussion and summary Having examined the task-as-workplan (i.e., the formal task parameters, its design, and the teaching intentions) as well as the task-in-process with a particular focus on the minute teaching and learning procedures emerging from the task enactment in the preceding sections, the question now arises what conclusions can be inferred from these observations. The closing section now addresses this question with reference to the blended learning task framework by Kurek and Müller-Hartmann (2017). According to this framework, tasks can support learning if, in terms of their design, they involve and challenge learners. The focal task, according to the participant accounts, adheres to this principle in various ways. Ms. Konig highlights the task’s interest and appeal, stating that the students had fun completing it, especially since they felt motivated by the text genre of political cartoons and the medium of the LMS activity. The focal learners’ task performances, in which they frequently express amusement over co-learners’, as well as the task report phase, point to the same conclusion. In terms of communicative orientation and meaning focus, the task affords reciprocity and the collaborative production of task outcomes, especially when students recycle co-learners’ comments or expand on them, jointly develop puns, metaphors, or cultural references. In this process, the task focus remained on meaning, despite occasional focus-on-form episodes initiated by the teacher during task performance or her corrective feedback during the report phase. Ms. Konig indeed confirms this focus was highly challenging for some learners, especially when the technicalities of the election campaign were addressed, which require detailed background knowledge. Open-endedness, another parameter of the de‐ sign category, is a significant component of the focal task as it facilitated learner choice through the multiplicity of task materials (i.e., cartoons), which also target different degrees of task demands. This has allowed for student-driven individualization without stigmatizing students for picking more accessible car‐ toons than their co-learners. Also, the task outcomes were not pre-determined, and learners could contribute their suggestions for cartoon titles based on their understandings, cultural associations, or content-based focus. Finally, although 301 8.4 Discussion and summary <?page no="302"?> the expected learner contributions were comparatively short and allowed for recycling of words and phrases by other learners or the cartoon itself, this conciseness and the expected creativity were perceived as a challenge by some learners. They involved them in various cognitive processes of analysis and synthesis. The report phase (i.e., the class discussion) facilitated more detailed elaborations and reflection on the task outcomes. In terms of its implementation, we can assess the task by its quality of instruc‐ tions, the balance between task demands and support, and the sequencing of activities. First, Ms. Konig’s task instructions are fragmented, highly indexical, and partly incomplete compared with her expectations for the task outcome (Seedhouse & Almutairi, 2009). During the task initiation, she uses the projector to show students directly where the task is to be found in the LMS course. The written task instructions of the LMS activity are not mentioned or read out, and the screen capture reveals that the focal students do not pay attention to them, either. In sum, the classroom data points to an insufficient distinction between general task instructions (i.e., outlining task procedures and objectives, specification of intended task outcomes) and the students’ intended interaction with the LMS (i.e., LMS navigation and operation). The result, it seems, is confusion among the learners as to what exactly they are supposed to do and where to access the activity online. This asserts the observation that teacher scaffolding and modeling is especially necessary during the task initiation phase in CALL settings, even more so than a pre-emptive focus on form or advance organizers (cf. A. Wang, 2015). This technical role of the teacher ensures learners can access the learning environment and its affordances and engage in the task-based activity. Second, as the descriptions of the task’s real-life relevance and the task implementation reveal, significant task demands can be identified in terms of task content (i.e., the political and cultural content of the cartoons) and technology use (i.e., using the LMS for the activity). The students are struggling with understanding some of the cartoons, as Melanie’s and Leonie’s interactions show, even in terms of basic motives such as, in one instance, whether the depicted character is supposed to portray Barack Obama, what ‘GOP’ stands for, or what the visualization of the idiom ‘to put a foot in one’s mouth’ could mean. In multiple situations, the students can use their co-learners’ comments as support, at times using them as cues to aid their understanding of the cartoon. In addition, this case also shows how the students draw on online tools such as a spell-checker and an online dictionary to facilitate their task performance. Another significant type of scaffolding comes from the teacher as she takes on the roles of the facilitator and monitor during the task phase. As she walks 302 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="303"?> through the seating rows, monitoring the students’ screens, she can assess their task progress and discourse participation, and intervene if necessary, as she does multiple times by initiating a focus on form (i.e., stressing accuracy in the learner comments). Finally, the projection of the LMS activity along with the learner comments is perceived as useful task support during the report phase as it helps to structure the discourse and make the students’ contributions susceptible to reflection. Third, in terms of task sequencing, the reference to the preceding lesson on September 21 shows how the teacher has made the pedagogical decision to implement the competency of analyzing cartoons in the course gradually and proceed from an unstructured discussion of the selected cartoons to structured analysis and interpretation to synthesizing this with the focus on the candidates’ campaigns, and eventually to the more creative task that is the focus of this chapter. During the lesson, there is no pre-task phase implemented, but the task ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ can be understood as a pre-task—an extended primer or warm-up—for the subsequent engagement with the campaign issues and the candidates’ platforms, which the teacher also argues in her oral commentary. Moving on to the category of technology integration, the parameter of blended learning, and those of technological, social, educational, and linguistic affor‐ dances are relevant (cf. section 3.5.2). As highlighted in the context of this case’s selection criteria (cf. chapter 7), the focal task reflects full integration of the two primary modes: online interaction as the lead mode during the task phase using the LMS activity, and face-to-face during the subsequent class discussion or task report phase. Indeed, classroom data from this task impressively illustrate how the posting of student comments about the cartoons serves the purposes of facilitating a class discussion, aligning the culturally distant materials with the learners’ experiential backgrounds, and foregrounding different understandings of and associations with the same task content. This integration of modes further provides the condition for several technological affordances—an interplay of usability and utility parameters—to emerge upon implementation, although some affordances are stalled due to overlapping technical issues. The glossary module in the LMS affords the display of information, including redundant materials for greater learner choice and task individualization, facilitates com‐ menting (i.e., the posting of student L2 output), and promotes reciprocity and indirect cooperation among learners, an important social affordance. Likewise, the LMS and the Internet connection afford access to supplemental materials and tools to be used as task support. However, not all of these functionalities can be realized in practice, not solely because learners do not recognize them, but—as demonstrated by Alexander’s slowed task performance due to connectivity 303 8.4 Discussion and summary <?page no="304"?> problems—these functionalities are rendered useless if the necessary technical and infrastructural conditions for their use, such as a stable Internet connection, are not provided. Nevertheless, Alexander’s retrospective reflection on the task does not mention any of these difficulties and instead foregrounds the above described technical affordances, which in Alexander’s case only exist in theory. This example thus reflects the difference between exercising agency and expressing a sense of agency (Mercer, 2011): Alexander positions himself as an agentic learner, embedded within the affordances the task design should have ideally offered. Despite the technical issues he has experienced, the theoretical availability of these affordances still motivates him. Closely linked to the matter of reciprocity and indirect cooperation in this example is the notion in sociocultural theory of the learning environment as a source of learning rather than a mere backdrop to task-based activity (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Several moments in the focal learners’ task-in-process reflect how they customize their learning environment by posting comments, thus externalizing their cognitive task engagement and making it accessible to other co-learners. As a result, co-learners can use these comments and internalize them as part of their task engagement. Several of Melanie’s and Leonie’s contributions to the glossary can be directly traced to the input they take up from their peers’ comments. Thus, the task context, created by the learner contributions to the glossary, reflects the socially distributed nature of cognition in sociocultural theory. Likewise, it reflects the situatedness of the task as no two glossaries on the LMS are being customized in the same way. This view of the learning context as user-driven and situated is highly characteristic of Web 2.0 applications built on the principle of network effects—tools and applications become more valuable and powerful the more they are used, and the more user content is submitted to them (cf. section 3.3.1). In other words, the more comments the learners submit to the LMS module, the more discourse data becomes available to other learners, and thus the more opportunities to appropriate and develop learner texts may further emerge during the task-in-process. Social affordances do not exist by default in CALL, they have to be actively implemented, and users must recognize them when their intention for cooper‐ ation or communication emerges (cf. section 3.5.2). This becomes obvious in task perceptions like that of Philipp, who wishes the activity module (i.e., glos‐ sary) would have provided opportunities for low-threshold, spontaneous social interactions and peer feedback, which had to be postponed during the lesson to the class discussion. However, Melanie’s and Leonie’s task performance also shows that the blending of online and face-to-face activity—working online at 304 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="305"?> the computer in the computer lab—partly mitigated this shortcoming as students were able to turn around to each other, refer to each other’s contributions orally, or just establish eye contact and laugh together. Gaze and laughter, besides being signs of affective task engagement (Egbert & Chang, 2018), carry the interactional functions of altering the task-in-process in noticeable ways, thus revealing learners’ dynamically changing orientations to task and learning environment and demonstrating established social relationships (Hasegawa, 2018). In addition, these two girls’ task performance and several students’ statements during the lesson and retrospective interviews show that the task offers reciprocity and indirect collaboration opportunities, as can be inferred from several mutually referencing learner contributions. In terms of the task’s educational affordances, task ownership in ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ is achieved through personal accountability (e.g., student names appear next to their comments), positive interdependence (e.g., students’ references to each other’s contributions in the glossary), and promotive learner interaction. Task ownership becomes most salient during the report phase and the various instances in which learners provide peer feedback and praise co-lear‐ ners’ contributions. The notions of functional and cultural authenticity have been mentioned in relation to the task’s real-life connection (Bündgens-Kosten, 2013; cf. sections 2.2.1 and 3.5.2). However, these are also important components regarding the task’s educational affordances if we think of them as variables that render task activity meaningful to students. Likewise, the redundancy of task materials (i.e., the cartoons) provided by the LMS activity also affords students opportunities to exercise their agency in choosing among different demand levels, thereby allowing learners to customize their task engagement at least partially, despite a task character being determined mainly by the teacher. Finally, the above discussion of task demands and task content has implicitly addressed the task’s potential for intercultural learning and the development of multiliteracies. The challenges that students have encountered in this task are at least threefold: the linguistic demands of pointed and highly referential language in the cartoon panels (e.g., including jargon, slang, sociolinguistic variation, etc.), the intercultural demand of understanding cultural references, tacit cultural knowledge and topoi (e.g., political commonplaces, depicted personal character traits, literary and cultural allusions, situational themes; cf. Stavroudis, 2014), and generic demands of connecting multiple visual and textual modes of representation, the publication and communication context of political cartoons and, more broadly, the role of satire, humor, polarization, and free speech in political discourse. Indeed, political cartoons are considered a culturally situated text genre which, in the political context of the U.S., connects 305 8.4 Discussion and summary <?page no="306"?> the political poles in “their bond through the First Amendment and their belief in the democratic enterprise that is criticizing government” (ibid., n.p.). The political cartoons examined in both tasks of this case, thus, not only carry the message of their content but as well meta-messages related to their genre and publication context. Knowledge and awareness of underlying genre conventions are crucial in the resulting intercultural learning processes, because “the line between prototype and stereotype is a blurry one, and […] political cartoons often cross this line” (ibid., n.p.). The various cartoons in the task ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ were em‐ ployed to elicit learner responses about a series of campaign issues and the candidates’ (perceived) stances on them. As such, the task served as a primer for students to develop questions regarding the prevalent campaign issues. This procedure, according to the teacher, besides being highly motivating for the students [2013-01-25_ti_SK_seq146-9], fulfilled a reflective and diagnostic function by identifying cultural contents learners are unfamiliar with and, at the same time, sparking curiosity about the depicted themes. This inductive approach to ICC raised important questions on behalf of the students, to which the class focus repeatedly returned during the remainder of the project [2012-09-21_tc_SK_seq4]. As the teacher further explained, these materials thus provided first-hand authentic insights into target culture discourses, yet their understanding crucially relied on the learners’ awareness of tacit cultural meanings and background knowledge, requiring genre-specific strategies for reading, analysis, and interpretation [2013-01-25_ti_SK_seq256]. The learners also recognized this challenge, such as Susanne, who stated that, “Since you did not always know the background, this [i.e., finding a title for the cartoons] was not necessarily easy” [“Da man allerdings nicht immer den Hintergrund kennt, war dies unbedingt leicht,” 2012-09-28_lj_SP_seq4]. Likewise, Melanie’s and Leonie’s task performance showed how learners struggled with these demands as they frequently encountered unfamiliar contents at the intersection of linguistic, cultural, and visual task demands (e.g., the meaning of ‘GOP,’ identifying an elephant as the symbol of the Republican party, recognizing President Obama and the exaggerated depiction of his physiognomy, decoding the visual representation of the idiom ‘to put a foot in one’s mouth,’ and understanding a reference to the DREAM Act). The reciprocity afforded by the task design and the functionalities of the glossary module, which was used for the task’s LMS implementation, substan‐ tially alleviated these intercultural challenges. As mentioned before, this setup highlights the role of user-generated content in the learning environment as a source for learning. In this task, this not only afforded the learners cues and 306 8 Case 1: ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ <?page no="307"?> scaffolds for their understanding of otherwise difficult to access tacit cultural contents in the cartoons. Moreover, it facilitated the signaling of differential readings and interpretations of this content [2012-09-28_si_DG_seq11]. Thus, the task did not only prompt learners to interpret and explain a cultural artifact but, at the same time, the technical realization directed their attention to different, at times divergent interpretations and thus examined modes of reading and meaning-making different from their own. As the analysis of the report phase showed, this polyvocality was further harnessed in the plenary face-to-face mode, leading to the follow-up task of researching the campaign issues in more depth. Despite these benefits, learners can be easily overwhelmed by this approach, which Ms. Konig also acknowledged in a retrospective interview, stating that a more guided approach with expert groups focusing on single cartoons could have yielded more profound understandings and interpretations of the intercultural content [2013-01-25_ti_SK_seq219]. 307 8.4 Discussion and summary <?page no="309"?> 42 Parts of the analysis in this chapter have been published in Kaliampos and Schmidt (2014) and Kaliampos (2014a). As the primary author of the first text, I was fully and exclusively responsible for the research design, the collection, analysis, interpretation, and discussion of data and findings, as well as the writing of the manuscript. 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ 42 9.1 Introduction Date Lesson topic 1 09-07-12 Introduction to the presidential election 2012 2 09-12-12 The electoral system I: Introduction and overview 3 09-14-12 Electoral system II: Stages of the presidential election 4 09-19-12 The electoral system III: Elect. college, comparison w/ Ger. 5 09-21-12 The candidates: Role-play ‘the candidates and their spouses’ 6 09-26-12 The campaign issues: Cartoon analysis; vocabulary test 7 10-05-12 Writing a cartoon analysis, peer editing 8 10-10-12 Written exam 9 10-12-12 Producing a newspaper about the election in Oklahoma Table 9.1: Sequence of the teaching unit in Ms. Pfeifer’s course. The second case of the qualitative analysis focuses on the task cycle ‘The candidates and their spouses,’ which took place in Ms. Pfeifer’s 11 th -grade advanced EFL course. The double lesson was implemented during the third week of this course’s project participation, on September 21, 2012 (i.e., double lesson 5, Table 9.1). After a general introduction to the school project (double lesson 1) and an extensive focus on various aspects of the electoral system (double lessons 2- 4), the course now turns to the 2012 election campaign for the first time. In order to approach the candidates’ biographical and political background, the task cycle engages learners in a role-playing activity—a simulated TV or radio interview with the roles of a journalist and Barack and Michelle Obama or Ann and Mitt Romney, respectively. The 90-minute lesson is split into two parts: During the first 45 minutes, the students are assigned their roles and are supposed to research them online in the computer lab, using resources suggested in the LMS course and additional ones they see fit. The course then must change rooms for the second phase and return to its regular classroom in a different building <?page no="310"?> 43 LMS course section 4 (‘The candidates’), activity 11 (‘Important aspects of the candida‐ tes’ biographies’), activity 12 (‘How their spouses support the candidates’), and activity 14 (‘Job interview with a First Lady applicant’) in the LMS curriculum (cf. Table 5.3, for an overview). on the school’s campus. In the second lesson, two role-plays (one interview with the “Obamas,” one with the “Romneys”) are performed by spontaneously selected students, followed by an oral reflection. Only two more double lessons remain after the focal lesson of this task before the course’s written exam is scheduled and the preparation of their election outcome prediction and school competition entry. The primary data informing this case are derived from the task performances of three focal learners—Francesca, Jan, and Niklas—their retrospective accounts of the task cycle (i.e., group interviews and learning journals), the teacher’s account of the lesson as well as additional data sources and the underlying coding scheme as outlined in the discussion of research methods (cf. section 4.6.2.3). The three students’ task performances reflect fundamentally different approaches to recognizing and using educational affordances available in their environment as well as exercising learner agency concerning the perception and selection of digital resources. They furthermore demonstrate how the different phases of the technology-enhanced task are interconnected in intricate ways. 9.2 ‘Role-play: The candidates and their spouses’ The focal task cycle, ‘The candidates and their spouses,’ was implemented during the double lesson on September 21, 2012. The following sections first introduce a formal analysis of the task-as-workplan (section 9.2.1), its intended implemen‐ tation and perception by the teacher (section 9.2.2), the task performances by the focal students (sections 9.2.3-9.2.5), and the task report phase in the form of the role-play (section 9.2.6). 9.2.1 Formal task analysis Ms. Pfeifer adapted the focal task from three other activities in the LMS course section ‘The candidates’ to combine the joint focus on the candidates and their spouses with the task formats of a web-research and role-play. 43 310 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="311"?> Phase Procedure(s) Time Arrival/ start Ss enter the computer lab. T sets up the main power access, checks whether Ss’ computers are functioning, and distributes the task sheet. 00: 00: 00 - 00: 02: 31 Task initiation: instructions (pre-task) T asks a S to read out the task instructions, clarifies meaning of key instructions and their meaning in English, elaborates on the instructions, then hands out the role cards; tells Ss where to find the task materials in the LMS course. 00: 02.31 - 00: 13: 40 Task phase: web-research (while-task) Ss engage in the web-research for their role-play based on their role cards and the resources provided in the LMS. T acts as a monitor and facilitator and offers task support. 00: 13: 40 - 00: 43: 44 Room change T and Ss must leave the computer lab and go to their regular classroom in another building on the school campus 00: 43: 44 Insertion: Self-evaluation ‘letter to the editor’ T hands out a self-evaluation form for the HW asgmt., writing a letter to the editor in response to an opinion article. Ss self-evaluate their assignment and then hand both their letters and the self-evaluation to the T. 00: 43: 44 - 00: 52: 45 Report phase: role-play (post-task) T asks Ss to volunteer for the two role-plays (the Obamas or Romneys and journalists). Ss perform the role-plays in front of the class, co-learners listen and take notes; T and Ss provide oral feedback after each role-play. 00: 52: 45 - 01: 19: 40 Debriefing T asks Ss what they learned from this task. Ss reflect on their task performance, findings, the role-plays, and learning outcomes orally in class. 01: 19: 40 - 01: 26: 26 (end) Table 9.2: Lesson overview, EFL course by Ms. Pfeifer, Sep. 21, 2012. (T = teacher; Ss = students) Table 9.2 provides an overview of this lesson’s implementation and task phases. In terms of its learning objectives, the teaching notes for this section state, “the students will learn more about the candidates and find out in which way important aspects of their biographies might influence their chances to win, and which role their spouses play” (teaching notes, LMS section 4, ‘The candidates’). They further stress that the individual tasks serve to integrate different modes and modalities, as the “students will study online resources and discuss online but will also have the chance to engage in interesting and sometimes funny role-plays in class” (ibid.). 311 9.2 ‘Role-play: The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="312"?> Preparing a Role Play: An interview with the candidates and their wives You will be given a sheet with your role for the role-play, which will be an interview between a journalist from a newspaper, a TV or radio station, and the presidential candidates together with their wives. Using the information provided on the platform and the Internet, research your role, memorize, and take notes about the information. If you are one of the presidential candidates or one of the wives, then look at their biographies, important events, dates, their education, university degree, further qualifications, their political career, the effects of their biographies on their campaign, and the support, which is provided by the wives and their families. If you are one of the interviewers, then inform yourself about the couple you are going to interview, think of possible questions that you might ask (see aspects above). Try asking questions, which might be interesting for viewers and the public. Maybe ask a controversial question in order to provoke a reaction. Excerpt 9.1: Task instructions ‘An interview with the candidates and their spouses.’ Ms. Pfeifer designed the task instructions (Excerpt 9.1), which were also given to the students as a handout, based on the tasks in this LMS section. These instructions point to several further learning goals. First, they relate to the use of technology and the development of digital literacies. The learners are expected to use the suggested media and their own resources to learn about their assigned characters’ backgrounds and prepare their contributions to the role-play. This requires an awareness of the available resources’ affordances, the filtering of information, and evaluating the sources’ trustworthiness and appropriateness, which has to take place within a limited timeframe. Second, in terms of EFL discourse, the spontaneity of the role-play situation, the perform‐ ative impersonation of the assigned characters, and the emulation of the news interview context must be considered. Improvised speaking, as featured in this task, however, is never fully open, unfettered, or unguided, but grounded in a performative or playful communicative task format providing a setting and goal for linguistic and communicative problem-solving without pre-determining its process or linguistic form (Kurtz, 2001, p. 125). With its output orientation, the role-playing format ties the individual, comprehension-oriented web-research task to a potentially deeper form of language processing by stretching lear‐ ners’ competencies to meet the communicative goal and engaging them in 312 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="313"?> interpersonal discourse and co-construction of meaning (Swain, 2000). It also promotes development in affective dimensions relating to motivation to speak and speaking anxiety, intercultural attitudes, and processes of memorization, imagination, and play (Kurtz, 2014, pp. 44-5). Third, regarding the goal of intercultural learning, students are expected to develop an awareness of their own political and cultural biases and approach the task with an open mind. In the sense of the skills of discovery and interaction, and the attitude of curiosity in intercultural learning (Byram, 1997), the students are expected to be willing to engage in understanding value-orientations that may be markedly different from their own convictions. The task-as-workplan and its intended implementation by the teacher can be categorized as open, complex, and as facilitating a high degree of learner agency in terms of media choices, discourse structure, language use, and task outcomes (Ellis, 2012). In so doing, the task phase (i.e., the web-research) and the report phase (i.e., the role-play) are treated as consecutive phases of the same task cycle. (1) Thus, in terms of its design, the task does not pre-determine a concrete focus on linguistic structures (i.e., it is unfocused). (2) Regarding the targeted language skills, the research phase is input-providing, focusing on multimodal, loosely structured, and unenhanced text, while the role-play phase is output-prompting by engaging learners in verbal interaction. (3) The task involves, at its core, an opinion and information gap resulting from the assigned characters, the individualized selection of resources, and potentially divergent goal orientations. (4) The task outcome—the performance of the interview role-play—is open, unscripted, and thus engages learners in improvised speaking. (5) The focus on a culturally and contextually distant content, in addition to the above criteria, render this a cognitively complex task. Regarding its planned implementation, the task’s openness and complexity create several challenges for students and the teacher alike, which the task implementation addresses only partially. (1) For instance, the web-research is done individually without a pre-planned phase to exchange findings with co-learners assigned the same character. (2) A pre-emptive focus on form is absent. (3) The task positions learners as readers during the research phase and as speakers and listeners, respectively, during the role-play, depending on whether they self-select to perform the role-play or remain in the audience. (4) This self-selection reflects an allocation of learner roles during this phase as it is partially based on learner motivation, task engagement, and potentially other factors like personality and target language proficiency. (5) Due to the role-play’s unscripted nature, the students have limited opportunity for strategic pre-task planning, and (6) even less so for online language planning. (7) The 313 9.2 ‘Role-play: The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="314"?> task cycle does not include a task repetition, although the performance of two role-plays does offer some rehearsal opportunity, at least for the audience members during the first run. (8) Lastly, the teacher communicates the role-play as well as the subsequent oral reflection as a post-task requirement. After this formal analysis of the task-as-workplan, the following sections analyze the task implementation and performance from the perspective of those who enact it—the teacher and three focal learners. 9.2.2 Task implementation: Teacher’s perspective Upon checking on the power supply and the computer functionality in the computer lab, Ms. Pfeifer starts the lesson by distributing the task instructions as a handout and asks one student to read them aloud [2012-09-21_vr_seq10]. Unlike Ms. Konig in the first case (cf. chapter 8), Ms. Pfeifer now focuses the students’ attention on the instructions by separating the discussion of task procedures from the actual task performance. After the instructions have been read out, Ms. Pfeifer extensively adds further instructions and guidelines orally [2012-09-21_vr_seq19], including the meaning of “controversial question” (in German), the procedure of the post-task requirement (i.e., the role-play), its context and situation (i.e., an interview), the objective (i.e., to impersonate the assigned characters and imagine how they would behave in the interview), as well as the choice of media and online resources (Excerpt 9.2): And according to that role that you are given, you research the material. I will tell you where to find it in a minute. And, of course, you can use the platform. You can use any other sources from the Internet, as well. Excerpt 9.2: Classroom video-recording, Ms. Pfeifer. [2012-09-21_vr_seq19] This excerpt also reflects that only after Ms. Pfeifer has clarified the task instructions and distributed the role cards does she announce where in the LMS course the primary research resources for the various characters can be found [ibid., seq24-6]. In evaluating the task in her oral commentary, Ms. Pfeifer states she perceived the research phase as “very (.) structured and effectively used by the students” [2012-09-21_tc_AP_seq4, transl.]. The learning objectives, she adds, “were […] very clear” and she did “not think there was any sort of room for interpretation” since the instructions were provided in writing and clarified in class. Hence the students had “a clear time limit, […] a clear structure and a guideline—‘so and so it’s going to run 314 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="315"?> down’” [ibid., seq10, transl.]. In terms of their media choice, the teacher assumes a fairly apt and uniform task approach by all students in the course, claiming they all used “the whole range of available media; everything they also (.)/ well, they are familiar with” [ibid., seq6, transl.]. As the subsequent accounts of the three focal students for this task demonstrate, however, Ms. Pfeifer’s assessment is in partial contrast to the actual variation and idiosyncrasies of the task procedures documented during the task-in-process. 9.2.3 Focal student: Jan During the focal task, Jan is assigned the role of Mitt Romney, whose biography, personality, and political positions he is supposed to research in the computer lab and impersonate later during the role-play. He recalls the task phase in his learning journal for the lesson (Excerpt 9.3): I used the PC continuously during my work. The sources provided on the U.S. Election site [i.e., the LMS], such as timelines and videos, were very helpful in this regard. With the videos, I proceeded as follows: First, I watched the whole video (like a speech, for example), and then I worked with it. For example, I memorized the way of speaking and topics, or I wrote something down. I especially enjoyed the fact that I couldn’t work with usual websites like wikipedia.de or even a normal printed text, but with various sources. Especially the videos I found very instructive. I think I learned a lot (about the candidates) in this lesson, which was probably due to the way of accessing and processing the information (as already mentioned with videos, etc.) You get a completely different picture of a politician and are less bored. Excerpt 9.3: Learning journal, Jan. [2012-09-21_lj_JS_seq5-7, transl.] This personal account of his task performance points to several aspects that can be further illuminated with the introspective interview data. Jan used the computer throughout the task phase, specifically for accessing multimodal resources like videos and an interactive timeline (Figure 9.1), which he selected for their perceived appeal and usefulness towards his preparation for the role-play. Jan highlights the motivational dimension of using these materials and claims they positively affected the quality of his task engagement and learning outcomes, arguing he learned a lot about the candidates. 315 9.2 ‘Role-play: The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="316"?> Figure 9.1: The interactive timeline which Jan accesses during the research phase of the focal task. (© The New York Times) The retrospective interview and learning journal data shed more light on these aspects. In terms of his media choices, Jan explains, for such research tasks, he would usually refer to encyclopedic information as in the case of Wikipedia, but refused to do so in the focal task given the task’s focus on the candidates’ backgrounds and the dramatic performance implied by the subsequent role-play —“that way, I found, you got a much better impression than by reading a Wikipedia entry” [2012-09-21_si_JS_seq23, transl.]. This, he explains, allowed him to analyze and adapt paralinguistic communication features like body language, gesture, facial expression, tone, and pitch. It also helped him to approach the candidate’s personality more accurately than information from a textbook would have allowed. It can therefore be deduced that Jan perceives a general fit between the task objectives and the selection of multimodal learning materials, although he cautiously questions the efficiency of such an approach over a more traditional one based on textbooks (Excerpt 9.4): I enjoyed it [i.e., the task]. I also think it’s much better when you can see a speech than when it’s just there in words—I think that’s a bit better for my English, too. But it’s also something entirely different when you can see the 316 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="317"?> person giving the speech, for example, in the video. And I generally find it good, because then I have more motivation than when I turn the page in the English book and where there’s yet another text in the same font and so on. Excerpt 9.4: Retrospective interview, Jan. [2012-09-21_si_seq51, transl.] Like other students in this class [2012-09-21_lj_EL_seq5], Jan perceived the time limitation of the research activity as too short and felt pressed to swiftly filter the information on his character and take notes for the role-play (Excerpt 9.5). Accordingly, he describes his perception of the interactive timeline as follows: Then maybe there was a video or a picture and a short description. But it was designed in a way that there were only the most important things on it. I thought this was indeed good that there weren’t five events every year, because then you wouldn’t have been able to understand it, and that wouldn’t have been of any use as a source. Excerpt 9.5: Retrospective interview, Jan. [2012-09-21_si_seq23, transl.] The brevity of the information items featured in the interactive timeline supported his task performance by allowing him to focus on a curated selection of relevant information instead of having to filter this information on his own under time pressure and risk being overwhelmed by it. This is also why he did not seek additional materials beyond the suggestions in the LMS, claiming he felt “adequately informed” [2012-09-21_si_seq46, transl.]. Regarding the processes of note-taking and resolving language-related epi‐ sodes during his task performance, Jan recalls that he viewed the videos featured in the timeline one by one, uninterrupted, and then took notes by hand on what he remembered or deemed relevant for the role-play (Excerpt 9.6). Furthermore, the timeline’s info boxes were so condensed they did not require additional summarizing. With a textbook or longer text, Jan explains, he would have probably paused after each paragraph to take notes or translate words, but here he watched the videos completely and “let them sink in first and then took some notes” [ibid., seq36, transl.]. Rather than paying attention to minute details, Jan watched for gist and tried to understand the overall content, while also adopting compensation strategies like inferring word meanings from the context. He did not look up or translate unfamiliar vocabulary, which puts him in contrast to the other focal students of this case. 317 9.2 ‘Role-play: The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="318"?> 1 Kaliampos: Would you say you approach this [i.e., dealing with lan‐ guage problems] differently when watching a video [as opposed to written text]? And if so, how? 2 Jan: Yeah, I do think you approach it differently. For example, when I watched the video, I watched the whole video or all videos at once and then wrote something down that I remembered […]. And I never, not even with the/ well, maybe with the timeline, I wrote something down after every event, but definitely not with the videos. And when I read a text, then I think you instead approach it in such a way that you write something down after a paragraph, and in the video, you first watch the whole speech, let your impression set, and then take notes. Excerpt 9.6: Retrospective interview, Jan. [2012-09-21_si_seq35-6, transl.] In reflecting on the differences between the text and video modalities and lead modes (i.e., face-to-face and online learning) in this focal task and the project at large, Jan elaborates that such multimodal online materials are more attractive and motivating than a standard textbook (Excerpt 9.7). He also maintains that the blended task formats featured on the LMS did not cause an increase in workload because, apart from his general motivation to work online, these tasks also usually featured shorter text genres: And I think the project as such is very meaningful because I’m more easily excited about something like that when you watch videos […] than when you just read texts and the like. I like this better, via the Internet with other media, I think that motivates others, too. Excerpt 9.7: Retrospective interview, Jan. [2012-11-07_si-1_seq8, transl.] He elaborates that it was not just the video materials that motivated him, but the increased variety of learning materials afforded by the LMS and the online task design in the project. This, he argues, along with the school project and the concluding prediction of the election outcome in the adopted U.S. state, facilitated a better quality of learning outcomes than just relying on one type of material (Excerpt 9.8): 318 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="319"?> I also liked the fact that you have different KINDS of materials. So, you didn’t just get texts, but also videos. And also, not just videos, but also something interactive or similar. I also think it supports the work a bit, and I also think it leads to better results than being spoon-fed only one source or the same kind of sources. Excerpt 9.8: Retrospective interview, Jan. [2012-11-07_si-1_seq39, transl.] In this regard, Jan states the LMS not only allowed students to choose their own task focus but, with reference to an extended forum debate between him and a co-learner, also facilitated a degree of task engagement and reciprocity often absent in EFL lessons [2012-11-07_si-1_seq39]. This also becomes visible in Jan’s observation that he invested more effort in tasks that were online and public compared with paper-and-pencil writing tasks that are usually not shared with others (Excerpt 9.9). Online text is more permanent and susceptible to teacher assessment and peer scrutiny, he says, which is why this mode helps him engage more deeply in the task. When you/ If it is made clear somehow in the homework it won’t be collected, because the teacher won’t do it anyway and maybe two people who want to read it out loud [in class] will do so, then I’d say I rather dare to write something that is either not of high quality or simply much too short, like, yes (1) half a page. In a group, you know, first of all, this is there forever, so you can read it again and again. And also, that it can be used as a basis for performance evaluation and that certainly it is not only going to be read by the teacher but also by others. And in this respect, I put more emphasis on quality than I think I would otherwise do with homework. This may also be due to the fact that I prefer working with a PC rather than—for a long time now—writing something down with a pen. Excerpt 9.9: Retrospective interview, Jan. [2012-11-07_si-1_seq62, transl.] In sum, Jan’s task performance differs from that of his co-learners’ in terms of his media choice and his refusal to self-initiate technology use beyond the content-based resources suggested in the LMS activity as well as his refusal to utilize translation software. He perceives a general fit between the task objectives and the suggested task materials and procedures and partly derives his task motivation from the novelty and modality of the available online resources as well as his general interest in using digital media for learning. All 319 9.2 ‘Role-play: The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="320"?> of these aspects together appear to facilitate a high level of task engagement during his performance. 9.2.4 Focal student: Francesca Francesca is the second focal learner of this case. As the task phase is launched, she is assigned the role of a journalist interviewing the Obamas. She initially accesses the LMS activity with the suggested resources for the web-research and seeks Ms. Pfeifer’s affirmation that she can pick her own questions and content focus during the subsequent role-play [2012-09-21_vr_seq77-80]. Unsure whether she is allowed to access the candidates’ Twitter accounts during class to research her role, she turns to both the researcher and the teacher to seek permission. In response, Ms. Pfeifer addresses the whole class to clarify that the students are explicitly allowed to freely choose resources beyond the LMS as they see fit (Excerpt 9.10). 1 Francesca: Ms. [Pfeifer]? (3) ((Ms. Pfeifer comes over.)) Are we allowed to go to the official pages here? ((Points at her screen.)) 2 Ms. Pfeifer: ((Bends over to look at Francesca’s screen.)) Of course, of course. ((Raises voice, speaking to the whole class now.)) You are allowed to use ANY source that you want, okay? You are not limited to the platform. (.) Of course not. Excerpt 9.10: Classroom video-recording, Ms. Pfeifer’s course. [2012-09-21_vr_seq103-4] 320 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="321"?> Francesca continues the task only after having received confirmation from both the researcher and Ms. Pfeifer. As she browses both candidates’ Twitter feeds, she shares her findings with Eileen, who is sitting next to her (Excerpt 9.11). Francesca explains to Eileen that these accounts are maintained by the campaigns, not the candidates themselves. 1 Francesca: Hier, guck! (2) Guck! ((She appears to be accessing a Twitter page. Eileen now also looks at Francesca’s screen.)) (unintel‐ ligible) Hier, das ist eben von der Kampagne aufgemacht. Die [i.e., the candidates] machen das ja nicht selbst. ((Continues browsing the Twitter page.)) Here, look! (2) Look! ((She appears to be accessing a Twitter page. Eileen now also looks at Francesca’s screen.)) (unintel‐ ligible) Here, this is done by the campaign. They [i.e., the candidates] don’t do this themselves. ((Continues browsing the Twitter page.)) 2 Descr.: ((Francesca shows Eileen Barack Obamas and Mitt Romneys Twitter pages.)) 3 Eileen: Voll unterschiedlich! ((Whispers.)) Bei Obama sieht‘s besser aus. Totally different! ((Whispers.)) It looks better on Obama’s site. Excerpt 9.11: Classroom video-recording, Francesca and Eileen. [2012-09-21_vr_102, 109-10] While Francesca uses Twitter and the candidates’ campaign websites to learn more about them and develop her interview questions, Eileen is taking a different approach by limiting her research to the English Wikipedia entry on Mitt Romney and taking handwritten notes. Eileen is initially excited about Francesca’s findings, but the controversial nature of Mitt Romney’s and Barack Obama’s tweets draws negative affective reactions by both students, as illustrated by the following data excerpt (Excerpt 9.12): 1 Francesca: Look. Look how he’s [Romney] mocking him [Obama]. ((Points mouse cursor at Mitt Romney’s tweet.) [The tweet from Sep. 20, 2012, reads: “Candidate Obama’s slogan in 2008 321 9.2 ‘Role-play: The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="322"?> was Yes, we can. His slogan now is No, I cant. Its time for a new president.”] (4) 2 Eileen: That’s mean! 3 Francesca: So mean, cyber-bullying ((laughs)). 4 Eileen: [To Ms. Pfeifer, who is taking notes at their desk.] I don’t want to do Mitt Romney. He is so mean. 5 Francesca: ImPERSONATE this, though. Look, he says that all the time ((points at her screen)), you can represent that. 6 Eileen: No, I don’t see why! 7 Francesca: Ms. [Pfeifer]? 8 Ms. Pfeifer: Yes? 9 Francesca: Is it actually forbidden to say something like that on the Internet and so on? ((Ms. Pfeifer walks over to Francesca to look at her screen.)) (3) Such a thing? That is totally mean! ((laughs)) 10 Ms. Pfeifer: This is (.) campaigning. 11 Francesca Okay. (unintelligible) (… ) 12 Francesca: [To Eileen] So if you want me to, let me know, okay? If you’d like to watch this too. Excerpt 9.12: Classroom video-recording, Francesca and Eileen. [2012-09-21_vr_seq113- 26, transl.] Reading a tweet by Romney in which he directly attacks his political opponent and ridicules his 2008 slogan, “Yes we can,” both students seem appalled, referring to these attacks as “mean” and a form of “cyber-bullying” (lines 2 and 3). Although Francesca argues such statements would be suitable to impersonate the Republican candidate in the role-play (line 5), Eileen refuses to use this information for her assigned role of Mitt Romney (line 6) and even asks the teacher if she can choose another role (line 4). In the remainder of this phase, Francesca continues suggesting tweets to her partner. In one instance, she directly refers to one tweet by Mitt Romney, recommends it to Eileen (“Ey, das kannst du doch sagen.”, “Ey, you could say that.” [ibid., seq180]), and leaves her browser open for Eileen to take notes on the tweet. The introspective data from the interview and learning journal provide additional insights into Francesca’s task performance and choice of resources during the web-research. Reflecting on the choice of media in her learning 322 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="323"?> journal, she puts forth the following rationale for the inclusion of Twitter in this task (Excerpt 9.13): First of all, I wanted to get a cursory overview of the life of the Obamas, which worked very well with the materials on our site. However, these materials were rather general, that is, informative but without a direct personal opinion. How should I be able to ask critical questions with such a “CV”? I realized at that moment how little I actually knew about American politics, or rather about the political views at the time of the election campaign. Excerpt 9.13: Learning journal, Francesca. [2012-09-21_lj_FA_seq7-9, transl.] Francesca’s interpretation of the task objective, as reflected in this statement, is that she is supposed to not only gain an overview of the Obamas’ biographies but ask them critical questions, possibly based on statements made by them publicly on social media. Thus, her criticism of the insightful yet depersonalized nature of the encyclopedic information provided on Wikipedia stems from her understanding of the task and her evaluation of the appropriateness of different resource types to achieve the task objective. In the retrospective interview, she elaborates on her emerging knowledge of the fundamentally different informational values of these media (Excerpt 9.14): 1 Kaliampos: If you had to say now—so, one or two differences in terms of the provided information—what is different there? [refer‐ ring to Wikipedia and Twitter] 2 Francesca: Well, of course, they are not like that/ well, they are just much (2) more personal. So, personal opinion very, very often. Wikipedia is not like that; they are quite neutral when they write this, and I find it interesting to see these opinions from people. Excerpt 9.14: Learner interview, Francesca. [2012-10-05_li_seq49-50, transl.] This assessment of Twitter’s educational affordances is informed by Francesca’s own experience with the microblogging service. She describes herself as an avid Twitter user and originally created her account to stay in touch with international friends she met during her student exchange in Latin America [2012-10-05_li_seq40-7]. During this project, however, she found out celebrities and politicians are actively engaging in face work on Twitter and so their 323 9.2 ‘Role-play: The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="324"?> accounts can be mined as sources to learn about political news, provided one can distinguish between verified and fake accounts [ibid., seq44-7]. In other instances, Francesca also uses Twitter as a resource to learn about campaign arguments made by both parties in her course’s adopted state, Oklahoma [ibid., seq32-4]. She evaluates this use of Twitter as useful because it allows her to deduce differences in rhetoric and political style between both candidates [2012-09-21_lj_FA_seq110] and provides access to authentic campaign state‐ ments she could cite during the role-play (Excerpt 9.15). […] when I was looking for hard facts now, like, for example, historical facts, I didn’t use Twitter or Facebook for that either, because I just didn’t think it was serious enough or you don’t even find something like that there sometimes. But, as it were, in order to put myself in Romney’s or Obama’s shoes, I thought Twitter was a good idea because they themselves partly tweeted there, and then it’s really interesting. I mean, they attacked each other pretty harshly. And this was quite interesting, so you could quote them in the interviews. This was pretty cool. Excerpt 9.15: Learning journal, Francesca. [2012-09-21_lj_FA_seq10, transl.] In this regard, Francesca demonstrates during the post-task reflection phase her awareness of the public roles political candidates have to perform during the campaign and how these are mediated in online discourse (Excerpt 9.16): 1 Ms. Pfeifer: What did you learn from this role-play? What did you learn about the candidates? Facts that you, now, know—that you didn’t know before? [Francesca]. 2 Francesca: Yeah, well, I know that Mitt Romney is (3) he’s playing/ well, I know that for the elections, that they have to play unfair roles and they have to play unfair. I hadn’t enough time to read everything because/ I was on the official page and on Twitter, and there was like/ Mitt Romney was all the time just criticizing Obama and his politics with China and so on. And Obama was just saying, like ‘Peace, freedom, and happy family’ ((laughs)). Excerpt 9.16: Classroom video-recording, Ms. Pfeifer’s course. [2012-09-21_vr_seq380-1] Despite her awareness of such affordances, Francesca visibly hesitates at first to access social media in class, possibly because she does not have any classroom-based 324 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="325"?> experience involving social media use, which both she and her teacher confirm. This notion also emerges as a general shortcoming of EFL lessons from the questionnaire surveys among all project participants (cf. sections 6.1.2 and 6.2.2). Indeed, Francesca’s task behavior reveals her uncertainty about whether this in-class use of social media is allowed. She elaborates that this was considered “taboo,” that “these sites typically used to be blocked,” but also how their use, now that they were permitted did not lead to task-unrelated browsing [2012-11-07_li-FA_seq107; 109, transl.]. Moreover, she appreciates the element of learner choice offered by the task’s design and implementation. In selecting online resources based on her judgment, she exercises her learner agency and increasingly assumes responsibility for her learning process —an aspect she considers highly relevant outside the classroom as well (Excerpt 9.17): I find it important that we ARE GIVEN this responsibility for once. That we ourselves can filter out [information], and I mean for our lives later, we will need that as well. I mean, we also must be able to decide for ourselves what is trustworthy and what is not. And I think that/ so, we are also introduced to this in this way now. Excerpt 9.17: Retrospective interview, Francesca. [2012-11-07_si-2_seq150, transl.] In addition, the task-based interaction between Francesca and Eileen stresses both students’ divergent task perceptions and realization of affordances. Yet, the students also engage in peer-scaffolding as Francesca shares her background knowledge of social media and tries to show Eileen how she could exploit the educational affordances arising from its use (Excerpt 9.18). I shared my insights with my seat neighbor and was even able to help her since she didn’t know how she was supposed to play her role as Mitt Romney, but his tweets were very revealing. I really like the possibility of exchanging thoughts during individual work, because this way, you can help each other and also include other points of view in your notes. In the end, we even formed an opinion about the candidates together; Romney seemed unappealing to us. Excerpt 9.18: Learning journal, Francesca. [2012-09-21_lj_FA_seq11-2, transl.] Finally, as Francesca reflects on her task performance and the task demands resulting from the forced change of perspective during the role-play, she stresses how this task format supported her to achieve intercultural learning 325 9.2 ‘Role-play: The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="326"?> goals of coordinating different perspectives (Bredella, 2010) and their cultural situatedness (Excerpt 9.19): Yeah, well, I have to say I found it interesting though, now/ so we knew it was clear they [i.e., the voters in Oklahoma] were going to vote for Romney, and I found it interesting that we HAD TO deal with the position in more detail now because of that. We were practically forced to deal with Romney’s position. […] And he just seemed to me to be quite unlikeable and stuff. And then/ it was just difficult to find pro-arguments for him, but this was also the difficulty of getting into another position, and it was also an interesting experience, I found. I mean that you HAD TO open up to this. Excerpt 9.19: Retrospective interview, Francesca. [2012-11-07_si-2_seq30, transl.] Through the task design, Francesca gained access to a previously unfamiliar counter-narrative. She probably would not have initiated such a perspective shift herself, since she found the conservative candidate unlikable. In the end, however, her evaluation of this task is positive—she found it an interesting experience. In sum, because of her interpretation of the task objectives, Francesca decides to review resource types other than Wikipedia in order to better under‐ stand the candidates’ personalities, preferably through first-person accounts on Twitter, although she understands that authorship in social media may extend beyond the official account owners. Francesca’s familiarity with Twitter, her understanding of the fundamentally different affordances of an online encyclopedia and the microblogging service, and especially her interest in the Twitter discourse, explain her choice of media. Her initial hesitation to access this medium could be attributed to her lack of classroom-based experience related to Twitter as a research resource. Once assured by her teacher, though, she can exploit this medium’s educational affordances, which helps her to attain the task objectives and even support her co-learner to complete the task as well. She evaluates this as a fruitful learning experience, particularly as the use of Twitter in combination with the task design facilitated her in gaining access to a culturally and politically different perspective than her own and developing her critical cultural awareness in the process. At the same time, however, her and Eileen’s irritation at the polemic identified in several tweets point to the need for greater awareness of the discourse genre of microblogging, the intricacies of political discourse in the U.S., and the affective impact of this content on users. 326 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="327"?> 9.2.5 Focal student: Niklas The task performance of the third focal student, Niklas, appears erratic and less structured compared with his co-learners’ behavior. Tasked with researching the role of Ann Romney, he first spends several minutes chatting with the co-learners sitting around him about the task and the LMS in German until Ms. Pfeifer has finished distributing the role cards. He accesses the LMS activity for this task in his browser’s first tab and then, almost ten minutes into the task phase, begins his research with the English Wikipedia article on Ann Romney in the second tab, but appears overwhelmed by the article’s length and linguistic demands. After skimming the article’s first paragraph, Niklas opens a third tab to access Google translate and look up the meanings of unfamiliar vocabulary, such as “participant” [2012-09-21_sc_NH_seq87]. For the same purpose, he accesses hyperlinked Wikipedia articles mentioned in the original text on Romney, for example, about the concept of “First Lady” [ibid.] or the state of “Massachusetts” [ibid.]. In the post-lesson interview, he explains his approach (Excerpt 9.20): 1 Niklas: Well, for example, especially with the Wikipedia articles I read, now with Ann Romney, there were some terms, I just had to open other articles to have them explained, so to speak. For example, ‘First Lady,’ I didn’t know this—what exactly the function or what exactly this is. And then I found out it is always the wife of the head of government, so to speak, either of a state itself or the USA as a whole. I mean, not only with this word but in general, that I simply have to sometimes/ terms, because I have not heard them before. 2 Leah: Yes, sometimes you had to translate words from English to German to understand it better. 3 Kaliampos: Ah, okay. How did you do that? 4 Niklas: Google translator. Excerpt 9.20: Retrospective interview, Niklas. [2012-09-21_si_seq27-30, transl.] Niklas then continues to access additional resources through Google, though this use reveals two symptomatic issues of such web-research activities, as demonstrated in Excerpt 9.21, drawn from the student’s screen capture. Firstly, as Niklas types his query into Google’s search field, the search engine’s autocomplete function suggests related frequent search nodes. Notably, he types 327 9.2 ‘Role-play: The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="328"?> a complete question into the search field, <when did ann and mitt romney marry> but changes it to an ungrammatical form, <…marriage>, because Google suggests it. Secondly, he then clicks on the second result listed by Google, an About.com page titled ‘Ann and Mitt Romney Marriage Profile,’ but the school’s web-filtering system denies him access, citing the content category ‘Dating’ as the reason. 00: 24: 57-8 Opens a new tab, again <www.google.de>, types in <when did ann romney>, and the Google autocomplete function suggests <when did ann romney have breast cancer> and <when did ann romney get ms>. Looks at the suggestions, then completes <marry> but clicks on <marriage>, which is again suggested by Google. The top search result is the Wikipedia article on Ann Romney, which is marked as already accessed. 00: 25: 33-9 Clicks on the second result, the about.com page on <Ann and Mitt Romney Marriage Profile>. The page, however, is blocked by the 328 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="329"?> school’s web filter citing in the fine print that the page belongs to the category ‘Dating’ and that, should the student need the page for school-related work, they should ask their teacher to add an exception to the filter manually. Returns to Google, but the page does not load immediately due to slow web-connectivity. Excerpt 9.21: Screen capture, Niklas. [2012-09-21_sc_NH_seq87] Ignoring the teacher’s instruction to use English-language resources only, he returns to Google and launches the search <wann heiratet ann romney mitt romney? > in German [when does ann romney marry mitt romney? ], thus entering a complete question including a question mark. He glances at the search results, then clicks on the third item, an article on the German news portal Stern.de titled ‘Die Auftritte von Michelle Obama und Ann Romney im Vergleich’ [Michelle Obama’s and Ann Romney’s appearances in comparison]. Yet, the extremely slow Internet connection causes a delay, impeding Niklas’s seamless task engagement. Faced with this problem and a narrow time limitation, he engages in multitasking, realizing that loading the new resource will take longer than anticipated, and then routinely returns to the more detailed Wikipedia page that he has not yet finished reading. In other words, he uses the reading time for one resource as a buffer to bridge the waiting time of the second resource caused by poor Internet connectivity. Excerpt 9.22 shows how Niklas returns to the Stern.de tab after a few more minutes: 00: 32: 58-7 Opens the Stern tab, which he has not yet read. Briefly scrolls through the entire article, then returns to the top and begins to 329 9.2 ‘Role-play: The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="330"?> read. Increases the browser zoom. Scrolls to the section entitled <Zentrale Zitate> [central quotations] listing quotations by both women, including references to Romney’s illnesses and her five sons. Takes more notes. Looks up <versagen> [fail] in the Google translate tab. [One quote on the page reads, “Ihr könnt Mitt vertrauen… Er ist der Mann, den Amerika braucht. Er wird nicht versagen.” [You can trust Mitt… He is the man that America needs. He is not going to fail.] Then scrolls further down to Romney’s quotations about her early marriage with Mitt. Switches to the Google translate tab and enters <Keller> [basement] and takes notes. [One quote reads, “Wir heirateten und zogen in eine Kellerwohnung. Wir sind zusammen zu unseren Kursen gegangen, haben uns die Hausarbeit geteilt und aßen eine Menge Pasta und Thunfisch… Unser Esstisch war ein herunterklappbares Bügelbrett in der Küche. Das waren ganz besondere Tage.” We married and moved into a basement apartment. We attended our classes together, shared the household chores and ate a lot of pasta and tuna… Our dining table was a fold-down ironing board in the kitchen. Those were very special days.] Then translates <Bügelbrett> [ironing board] on Google translate and takes notes. Excerpt 9.22: Screen capture, Niklas. [2012-09-21_sc_NH_seq87-97] As this excerpt shows, the German resource contains concise quotations, translated into German, by both women about their spouses, which Niklas now 330 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="331"?> translates back into English using Google translate. He takes notes on paper and closes all tabs as Ms. Pfeifer announces the end of the task phase. Niklas’s task performance points to several issues considered as symptomatic of learner behavior during web-research tasks. His browsing behavior appears unsystematic, at times even erratic, with four parallel browsers opened, three Wikipedia articles accessed, two Google searches performed, one website being blocked by the web-filtering software, another source accessed in German, and overall six vocabulary items translated with the help of Google translate. The student’s use of Google, which includes the formulation of complete questions as a search node as well as ungrammatical forms, furthermore, hints at an insufficient understanding of this tool’s functionality. These aspects, together with the slow web-connectivity in the computer lab, suggest not all students effectively exploit the open task format designed by the teacher. This sequence also demonstrates that when using unmodified English-lan‐ guage resources online, Niklas routinely encounters culturally contingent concepts and expressions, which spark cultureand language-related episodes and require the student to resolve them by accessing the necessary cultural or linguistic knowledge. This openness is perceived as highly demanding by Niklas, who confirms succinctly, “Ja, also das Internet ist ziemlich groß als Quelle insgesamt” [“Yeah, well, the Internet is a quite big resource overall.”] [2012-09-21_si_NH_seq16]. Nevertheless, his consultation of additional Wiki‐ pedia articles and online translators represents a form of self-initiated, goal-ori‐ ented technology use. Moreover, it reflects how learners may exploit the open‐ ness of the task design and the affordances of the computer and web-browser to align the task procedures and content with their personal learning agenda by selecting additional resources and task support according to their self-perceived learning needs and personal interest. Finally, Niklas’s choice of online resources is markedly different from the other two focal students. Unlike Jan (cf. section 9.2.3) and Francesca (cf. section 9.2.4), he exclusively accesses text-based resources to solve the task, including a German-language resource, explaining his extensive use of the online translator. He evaluates the information provided on Wikipedia as mostly sufficient for the task objectives, stating that most of the required information about the Romney family could be found in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on his character, Ann Romney [ibid., seq8]. Yet, comparing his own with Jan’s task performance, Niklas concedes that multimodal resources, in particular those depicting the role-play characters’ speech and behavior directly, would have better served the attainment of the task objectives (Excerpt 9.23): 331 9.2 ‘Role-play: The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="332"?> In my case, for example, I couldn’t very well/ so, not put myself particularly well into another position, which was perhaps also because I didn’t watch videos, but only read texts. I think it would have been easier if you had watched videos—like [ Jan] did for his role—because then you could recognize the character/ it’s a bit easier to discern a person’s character, or with what kind of aggressiveness they make their speeches or something like that. Excerpt 9.23: Retrospective interview, Niklas. [2012-09-26_si_seq2, transl.] In summary, Niklas’s task performance demonstrates how an open task design does not automatically produce the intended learning processes and outcomes in terms of learner agency and the realization of educational affordances in technology-enhanced tasks. Niklas’s browsing behavior appears unsystematic and, at times, erratic. The screen capture of his use of the Google search engine reveals an incomplete understanding of its functionality and usability. Encountering unmodified English-language resources online furthermore en‐ tails comprehension problems on the student’s part, often leading to cultureand language-related episodes. Faced with these issues under a narrow time limitation, Niklas turns to L1 resources and, inevitably, engages in excessive online translation and use of support materials. Considering his task focus on factual, text-based information and his subsequent performance in the role-play, these data demonstrate how a minute analysis of task performances sheds light on underlying learner perceptions of tasks and how differences in task perceptions invariably lead to divergent task performances and outcomes. 9.2.6 Task performance: Role-play Ms. Pfeifer terminates the research phase after roughly 45 minutes and an‐ nounces the room change back to the course’s regular classroom. Excerpt 9.24 shows how she elaborates on the initial instructions for the role-play as the class resumes. Here, the teacher prominently eases the communicative and performative pressure on the students before the role-play by acknowledging the challenges of the task format and implementation, especially the narrow time limit of the preparatory research phase and the need for scaffolding and support for online planning. To this end, she permits the use of notes during the performance. Likewise, she signposts the process of the role-play situation and appropriate learner strategies, such as to improvise and “talk your way out of a situation” (line 1). At the same time, she again clarifies the task’s key 332 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="333"?> goals related to the role-play performance, such as acting realistically, reacting spontaneously, and impersonating the assigned characters. 1 Ms. Pfeifer: Ok, then, let’s come to the role-play, the interviews. Of course, you just had a little bit time to research your role— and especially the interviewers, [Lara] just told me, well, she wants to structure this more. Of course, we would prepare better for an interview with the Presidential candidate or the actual President and his wife. But we don’t have much time. The interview is supposed to be really short: five to ten minutes only. And would like just to see how well you can react to the spontaneous questions and how you can keep up this role, that you ARE really the President or Michelle Obama or the future President, maybe, the candidate and his wife, and that you can really (2) speak realistically in the situation. And even if you don’t know the answer to a question, then try to find a way of still remaining, uhm (3), still keeping your face, so to say, and try to find an answer and talk your way out of a situation. And this/ for this, of course, some skills are needed. (… ) 2 Elena: Can we take our notes? 3 Ms. Pfeifer: You ARE allowed, you ARE allowed to use your notes. You should speak as freely as possible, but I have noticed that many of you took a lot of notes and, YES, you ARE allowed to use [them], because the time is too short and, um, yeah. Excerpt 9.24: Classroom video-recording, Ms. Pfeifer’s course. [2012-09-21_vr_seq215-9] For the second role-play, the interview with the “Romneys,” the two focal students, Jan and Niklas, self-select to act the roles of Mitt Romney and wife Ann, respectively, along with their co-learners Lara and Leah performing their roles as journalists. As the learners engage in this improvised and performative speaking activity, Jan and Niklas seem to adopt different approaches, which partially can be derived from their divergent strategies during the preceding web-research and possible differences in their underlying task understanding. Jan hardly uses his notes during the role-play, only once to self-correct his pronunciation of “Massachusetts” [2012-09-21_vr_seq294]. His performance 333 9.2 ‘Role-play: The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="334"?> instead seems to focus on the impersonation of the assigned character, including his general behavior and rhetoric, overall policies and values, or the ‘how’ of doing politics and engaging in political discourse. Niklas’s performance, on the other hand, focuses more directly on stating factual biographic information, and the student thus orients more closely to the findings of his web-research and his handwritten notes. Excerpt 9.25, for instance, shows how Niklas’s answer diverts from the original question, but this allows him to use a quotation by Ann Romney, read almost verbatim from his notes, even including some of the previously translated vocabulary items (e.g., high school evening, cellar, ironing board): 1 Leah: [as interviewer] And Ann, how do you think you and your children are supporting/ are supporting your husband? 2 Niklas: [as Ann Romney] Erm, yeah, that’s a good question. And yeah, after I met Mitt ((looks at Jan)) at the ((reads notes)) high school evening, we were, like/ we did everything in our life. We/ ((reads notes)) at first, we lived in, uhm, in a small cellar where we, for example, ate at a iron/ (.) ironing board. (.) How is it called? ((Reads notes.)) 3 Ms. Pfeifer: Yeah, ironing board. 4 Niklas: Er, ironing board, and yeah, we did everything together in good times and also in bad times. So, we always stayed together, and I help him, and he helps me. So, I do everything which is possible to, to support my (.) my husband. 5 Jan: [as Mitt Romney] And I really appreciate that she is a great wife. ((Looks at Niklas.)) Excerpt 9.25: Classroom video-recording, Ms. Pfeifer’s course. [2012-09-21_vr_seq322-6] In comparison to Jan, who states he enjoyed the improvisation as it appeared authentic of a typical talk show situation [2012-09-21_si_JS_seq7], Niklas is less responsive to the spontaneous trajectory of the role-play and less apt at improvising his role, as he repeatedly interjects prepared statements, even when not addressed directly by the interviewers. However, both he [2012-09-21_si_NH_seq8] and his teacher [2012-09-21_tc_AP_seq9] indicate that within this role-play setting, the spouses’ roles were particularly de‐ manding because, with the primary focus on the candidates, the spouses had to 334 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="335"?> carve out opportunities to contribute to the task performance and insert their roles to the dialog. Besides the aspect of discursive improvisation, the focus on intercultural competencies features prominently in the role-plays. As derived from the task-as-workplan, the task positions learners in a culturally distant context and engages them in accessing, understanding, negotiating, and even per‐ forming value-orientations different from their own. By assigning roles and corresponding political values at random, the task pushes learners to engage in a dialogic and reflective process of intercultural understanding, one that requires attitudes of openness and curiosity and emphasizes comprehension across cultural boundaries. More precisely, learners must coordinate competing insider and outsider perspectives on the target culture—they must recognize and critically evaluate their own political biases and attempt to access the discourse on the U.S. election from the insider perspective of those directly affected by it (Bredella, 2010; Kaliampos & Schmidt, 2014). Excerpt 9.26 from the role-play features Lara (as a journalist) posing a highly controversial question—whether Jan (as Mitt Romney) would dispatch his sons as soldiers to the war zone in Iraq—and Jan in defending a value system that is not his own: 1 Lara: [as a journalist] Erm, I was wondering when your children are going to be grown up, would you send them to Iraq, too? 2 Students: Aahh (gasping, whispering). 3 Jan: [as Mitt Romney] (2) I guess that this is a difficult question and, uhm, the reason why I said, “Yeah, we need to make more people go to Iraq” is that we as the United States have a certain position and we need to defend it. And we cannot show weakness; otherwise, other countries wouldn’t respect us. And, uhm, with my children, I guess that they have to fell [sic.] their decisions, they have to make priorities—do they want to study? Do they want to join the military/ the army, the army? […] And I won’t tell them what they should do, ‘cause they have to go their own way. I’ve experienced it myself, and that’s the best way someone can go, their own way. 4 Lara: So, if they decide to go to the army, you would support them? 5 Niklas: [as Ann Romney] Yeah! 6 Jan: I would support them with anything. 7 Lara: You too? 335 9.2 ‘Role-play: The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="336"?> 8 Niklas: Uhm yes, I would/ 9 Lara: As a mother, it’s kind of difficult, I think. 10 Niklas: I would also support them because I think they are mature enough to get/ make their own decisions. But of course, on the other hand, I would also be afraid. 11 Lara: Of course, I think every woman would be. Excerpt 9.26: Classroom video-recording, Ms. Pfeifer’s course. [2012-09-21_vr_seq311- 21] Notably, this question draws the students’ attention (line 2). Jan, who has not covered Romney’s stance on the United States’ war in Iraq during the web-research [2012-09-21_si_JS_seq7], infers from Romney’s overall political platform, his family and values, how Romney would potentially respond to such a question. He thus imagines the candidate’s political behavior in the context of the electoral campaign and the concrete setting of a televised interview. Indeed, impersonating politicians and defending policies incongruent with the students’ own views and values turned out as a major challenge in this task as well as concerning the overall goals of the school project (cf. section 5.2), which several students mention in the retrospective interviews and learning journals. 9.3 Discussion and summary The formal analysis of the task-as-workplan (cf. section 9.2.1) and the multi-per‐ spective, exploratory analysis of the task-in-process including the teacher’s intention (cf. section 9.2.2) and the three focal learners’ task performances and perceptions (cf. sections 9.2.3-9.2.5) have illuminated a series of thematic clusters. These are now summarized and discussed based on the technology-en‐ hanced task analysis framework by Kurek and Müller-Hartmann (2017). Guided by the research data and the analysis findings, several aspects of this model are emphasized over others, reflecting the data-driven, exploratory character of the study. In terms of task pedagogy, technology-enhanced tasks have the potential to engage and challenge learners if the task design adheres to the principles of interest and appeal, communication, meaning focus, real-world relevance, open-endedness and choice, and engagement of learners’ cognitive resources. The task cycle, ‘An interview with the candidates and their spouses,’ according 336 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="337"?> to the focal students’ accounts, has achieved these goals in various ways. Jan, for example, is highly motivated by the available media choices, especially multimodal and interactive texts, and perceives a general fit between the provided materials and his perception of the task objectives, stating that this design facilitated the emergence of linguistic and educational affordances and the development of comprehension strategies. Likewise, Francesca positively reflects on the use of Twitter and its real-life relevance as this task bridges the perceived gap between her media use inside and outside the EFL classroom. This is underpinned by her realization that the microblogging service can serve as an effective source of information. Most notably, concerning the task’s real-life relevancy, all three focal students agree that allowing them to choose their own resources and giving them responsibility for the evaluation of these resources’ trustworthiness is a necessary competency to develop and extend their ‘everyday agency’ (Reinhardt, 2018) and digital literacy in authentic communication contexts outside the classroom. In this context, as their teacher states, the explicit focus on authentic, unenhanced online texts and developing strategies to access them was instrumental because, without this practice, learners would likely avoid such challenging texts altogether [2013-01-25_ti_AP_seq112-35]. In terms of its implementation, this task cycle has been characterized as open and cognitively complex due to the mostly unstructured task phase, the opportunities for learner choices afforded by the task design, and the improvised nature of the role-playing activity (cf. section 9.2.1). In this regard, Kurek and Müller-Hartmann (2017) remind curriculum designers that technology-en‐ hanced tasks need to be clearly communicated and structured. This stresses the centrality of task instructions (cf. Kurek, 2015) and teaching presence (Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2019), especially in blended learning contexts where the task instructions are sometimes the only form of guidance available to learners. The introduction of digital technologies exacerbates this complexity of classroom discourse. As noted above (cf. section 9.2.2), Ms. Pfeifer’s approach is markedly different from that demonstrated by her colleague in the first case: Ms. Pfeifer provides task directions in writing and sharply separates the task initiation and instructions from the task performance. Likewise, the overall discussion of task procedures and objectives is separated from the subsequent, direct instruction on where to access the activity in the LMS and what resources to use. Similarly, her expectations regarding the task procedures and outcomes are made transparent, thus providing a goal-orientation for the learners’ task-based activity. 337 9.3 Discussion and summary <?page no="338"?> One additional aspect emerging from participants’ retrospective accounts of the demands of the task’s implementation is the time pressure under which the task had to be performed, especially the web-research. After this pressure was met with worry by some learners during lesson [2012-09-21_vr_seq153- 9] and Ms. Pfeifer acknowledged this task demand before the role-plays (cf. section 9.2.6), she elaborated in her oral commentary, “many students, I think, would have liked to take more time for their research”—“both the interviewers […] to prepare properly and structure their questions […] and of course the interviewees, who had no idea which questions they would be asked […] and had to react immediately” [2012-09-21_tc_AP_seq8, transl.]. Some learners, however, perceived this as a recurring issue during the project. As one student criticizes, multiple courses, whose lessons were scheduled at the same time, had to share the school’s only computer lab, so that effective time used in the lab was always perceived as too short [2012-11-07_li-1_seq68]. This left each group with only 45 minutes per week for this work, thus forcing students to complete technology-enhanced tasks “under pressure” and then “leave [the computer lab] quickly so the others can enter it” [ibid., seq70, transl.]. Evidently, this is a broader contextual issue pertaining to the school’s infrastructure rather than individual teachers’ implementation decisions, yet this persistently challenged the students’ work at the computer and their project participation. The role of technology, its affordances, and uses during the task is closely connected to the discussion of implementation parameters. The task design represents a learning opportunity—a task space, which may or may not result in learning upon implementation (cf. sections 2.3 and 3.6). Although the teacher explicitly outlines this learning opportunity, it is essential to note that it does not facilitate a uniform degree of learner agency across all areas of task implementa‐ tion. The learners are granted no opportunity to exercise their agency regarding their choice of characters for the web-research and role-play. After all, the assignment of characters and exploring their perspective, even if it is different from the students’ own, is a necessary component of the task’s intercultural learning potential (as discussed below). On the other hand, in terms of their choice of technology and online resources, research focus, and improvised performance during the role-play, the perception and exercise of learner agency are an integral part of successful task performance. Although the LMS activity and the task instructions do propose several online resources for the learners to launch their web-research, the task explicitly allows learners to seek their own sources and thus create their own focus on content and discourse during their research. Therefore, which sources are consulted during the research phase depends on the learners themselves, their interests, motivations, knowledge of 338 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="339"?> the topic, English language proficiency, and experience with different media (Reinhardt, 2018; Vandergriff, 2016; Zourou, 2012). In other words, access to online media is not filtered by the teacher; instead, it is the learners themselves who shape their learning opportunities, recognize affordances in their learning environment, and exploit them by utilizing the resources to solve the task of researching their assigned characters, thereby effectively exercising their agency. As the accounts of the focal learners demonstrate, this is a highly individu‐ alized, yet often collaborative and situated process that may lead to divergent task perceptions and fundamentally different performances, and by extension, divergent outcomes. The three focal students’ task performances aptly illustrate these differences in task perception. Niklas exclusively accessed text-based resources comprised of Wikipedia articles in English and a German news website, and seems overwhelmed by their language and content-based demands. To resolve his text comprehension issues, he accesses hyperlinked pages and an online translator. His Google searches reveal an incomplete understanding of the search engine’s affordances—its functionality and usability. His performance during the role-play reflects his close orientation to factual information during the research. Jan, on the other hand, relies on a single resource, an interactive timeline of Mitt Romney’s biography, which contains multimodal content and condensed textual information. He experiences its use as motivating and appropriate for the task at hand as it allows him to deduce cues on how to meet the performative and intercultural demands of the role-play. Francesca relies on the candidates’ Twitter feeds as her primary resource. Although initially unsure whether this platform is even allowed in class, she proceeds to examine this resource for authentic—that is, direct and personal—insights into the presidential campaigns and the candidates’ public personas. As her approach quickly produces useful results, she suggests the resource to her co-learner. This episode in Francesca’s task performance also stresses how learner agency is interactionally situated and socially mediated. When repeatedly inquiring about the appropriateness of Twitter, she constructs her teacher’s perception of the classroom setting, its inherent rules, and culturally and historically formed notions of what is and what is not acceptable learner behavior. The incident illustrates how learners’ appraisal of technological affordances, and their agency in utilizing the technology, are influenced by social and institutional roles and the perception of authority. Regarding the way learners deal with affordances and constraints of technology in classrooms, C. Jones and Healing (2010) remark, “we see students providing accounts of how their judgement of the reliability of sources rests on what they are told 339 9.3 Discussion and summary <?page no="340"?> by academic staff, enforced in assessment regimes and sanctions in terms of what is and is not acceptable academic practice” (p. 354). Applying this view to Francesca’s example, it can be concluded, although the task instructions in this case grant learners free choice of resources, the learners’ interpretation of the sociocultural classroom setting, its implicit rules of interaction and behavior as well as the learners’ construction of their teacher’s intentions may still constrain their agency during the task-in-process in powerful ways. Equally significant, learner agency appears in Francesca’s case not as a property of the individual, but moreover as interpersonally negotiated. It is furthermore culturally mediated as her perception of the appropriateness of Twitter reveals a different culture-of-use (Thorne, 2003) associated with this medium—one that is associated with informal, vernacular use outside the classroom rather than the potentially more rigidly controlled school setting. Furthermore, as different as the three task performances may be, they all serve to illustrate a key finding of the quantitative surveys among the project participants: A majority of students, as well as most of their teachers, have little to no classroom-based experience involving social media and Web 2.0 tools for the attainment of formal learning objectives (cf. sections 6.1.2 and 6.2.2). Even though the surveyed learners report frequent use of these media in informal, extramural contexts, their task performances reveal that too often, they are unaware of these technologies’ technological, educational, linguistic, or social affordances. Niklas’s incomplete understanding of the Google search engine or Francesca’s unsureness about the appropriateness of social media use in the classroom and their potential for formal learning contexts are just two examples of this unfamiliarity. This observation stresses the need for dedicated learner training, the development of appropriate strategies, and adaptive teacher scaffolding to facilitate effective technology use inside the EFL classroom. This idea has gained traction in foreign language pedagogy as a rationale for so-called bridging activities, which proposes an extension of EFL learner agency beyond the classroom through “guided exploration and analysis of student selected or created digital vernacular texts originating in Web 2.0 and other technologies/ practices” (Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008, p. 558). Finally, turning to the task’s intercultural learning potential, the coordination of insider and outsider perspectives (or culturally divergent perspectives) emerges as a critical challenge of this task cycle and the school project at large. As the quantitative data of the teacher and learner surveys suggest, the perception of the U.S. presidential election is filtered in multiple ways: first, through its representation by German and international media (i.e., onlookers from abroad or ‘outsiders’), and second by the participants’ culturally contingent 340 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="341"?> 44 For example, the German news magazine Der Spiegel published a report entitled, “Deutsche würden Obama wählen” [“Germans would vote for Obama”] before the election, citing a survey that found an 86-percent approval rating for Obama among Germans. (Der Spiegel, 2012). perceptions and ways of seeing the world. The former has been well documented in research (van Aelst et al., 2018; Zeh & Holtz-Bacha, 2016) and reinforced by reports before the election that an overwhelming majority of over 80 percent of Germans, if eligible to vote in the U.S., would have favored the incumbent, President Obama. 44 The latter can be inferred from the survey data among participating teachers and learners in the school project, for instance, regarding their expectations and concerns about the project (cf. section 6.1.1). Performing these shifts of perspective, developing an awareness of one’s cultural situated‐ ness, and gaining access to authentic artifacts and discourses of the target culture hinges on the affordances of digital media and, in the present case, the availability of the LMS, its teaching and learning resources, and links to informal and incidental learning opportunities online. As the individual focal learner accounts show, the multimodal and interactive resources consulted by Jan, as well as the informal social media profiles surveyed by Francesca, afford access to authentic and personalized target culture discourse, especially its performative aspect, including rhetoric, intonation, gesture, and representations of societal roles, to name but a few. However, ‘authenticity’ here refers to the mediated discourses’ representation of the election campaign rather than the unfiltered representation of the candidates’ personalities. As Francesca aptly notes, she is well aware of the face work and carefully curated self-representations offered by politicians and public figures in the social media arena. She thereby considers the broader political context (i.e., polarization and tabloidization of the election) and the genre conventions of the microblogging service Twitter (i.e., directness, shortness, multimodality, intertextuality, etc.). Indeed, the focal learners comment how the task design helped them gain valuable insights into the target culture, explore counter-narratives, and develop an understanding of the opposing political views in the lead-up to the elections— even if this meant momentarily dismissing one’s political biases and defending policies and arguments incongruent with the students’ own preferences. Jan, for instance, notes that the task goal was not to parody the political candidates but to give a realistic and well-researched account of their views and policies [2012-09-26_si_seq3]. At the same time, he clarifies, “so, I had Mitt Romney, and I’m, let’s say, personally not the biggest fan of Mitt Romney” [ibid., transl.] and that interpreting his policies and overall values seemed more feasible than imitating him. In the same respect, Francesca perceived this forced 341 9.3 Discussion and summary <?page no="342"?> change of perspectives as highly instructional because it made her dismiss her preconceptions and instead engage in the cognitive experiment of putting herself into someone else’s position culturally, politically, and emotionally [2012-11-07_si-2_seq30]. 342 9 Case 2: ‘The candidates and their spouses’ <?page no="343"?> 45 LMS course section 3 (‘The electoral system’), activity 4 (‘Analyze the word cloud’) in the LMS curriculum (cf. Table 5.3, for an overview). 46 LMS course section 3 (‘The electoral system’), activity 6 (‘Group work: Individual steps of the election’) in the LMS curriculum (cf. Table 5.3, for an overview). 47 LMS course section 3 (‘The electoral system’), activity 8 (‘What is your opinion? ’) in the LMS curriculum (cf. Table 5.3, for an overview). 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ 10.1 Introduction Date Lesson topic 1 09-11-12 Project introduction; LMS registration 2 09-13-12 The electoral system I: Individual steps 3 09-18-12 Grammar and text analysis (no project work) 4 09-20-12 The electoral system II: Individual steps (cont.) 5 09-25-12 The candidates’ biographies; Writing a commentary 6 09-27-12 Campaign issues 7 10-02-12 The campaign in Oregon I: Getting to know the state 8 10-04-12 Written exam (no project work) 9 10-09-12 Campaign in Oregon II: Predicting the election outcome 10 10-11-12 Producing a blog about the election in Oregon I 11 10-16-12 Producing a blog about the election in Oregon II Table 10.1: Sequence of the teaching unit in Mr. Linnebeer’s course. For this third focal case, two interconnected lessons in Mr. Linnebeer’s 11 th -grade advanced-level EFL course have been selected (cf. section 4.5.2), focusing on the electoral system and the individual steps of the election campaign. The double lesson on September 13, 2012, is the second double-lesson during this course’s project participation and introduces the U.S. electoral system. Students completed a collaborative online glossary on key election terminology 45 before engaging in a web-research and jigsaw puzzle activity on the phases of the election campaign 46 (cf. Table 10.1). The double lesson on September 20, 2012, sought to reinforce these contents by engaging the learners in a more detailed research task on the election campaign and reporting their findings in a plenary format. Both lessons were accompanied by a forum discussion asking students to discuss their opinions of this system. 47 These lessons’ selection is based <?page no="344"?> on the principles of maximal variation and critical case sampling, as well as further research pragmatic and pedagogical decisions outlined in chapter 7. As the subsequent analysis of both focal lessons will show, the project participation in this course was characterized by major technical problems in the school’s computer lab, including connectivity issues and access problems caused by the school’s web-filtering system, which together led to frequent delays and modifications of planned task procedures. These problems, in part, were intensified by the fact that the course teacher had almost no prior experience in implementing blended learning and struggled to overcome the technological issues adequately. The primary data informing this case are derived from the task performances of two focal learners—Emma and Justus—their retrospective accounts of the task cycle (i.e., group interviews and learning journal; cf. sections 4.5.5 and 4.5.6), Mr. Linnebeer’s account of the lesson (cf. section 4.5.5), as well as additional data sources from the lessons (i.e., learner texts, classroom videography; cf. sections 4.5.3 and 4.5.7) and the underlying coding scheme (cf. section 4.6.2.3). Both focal learners were selected at random at the beginning of the two respective lessons and agreed to be recorded along with their on-screen behavior (cf. section 4.5.4). Emma serves as a focal learner for the lesson on September 13 (section 10.3) and Justus for September 20 (section 10.4). Whenever necessary, data from co-learners are cited, such as excerpts from learner interviews and learning journals, in order to triangulate tentative conclusions drawn from the two focal learners’ performances. As in the two previous cases, these focal learners’ task performances are fundamentally different, and their agency is hampered by a reduction of educational and technological affordances during both lessons due to the above-mentioned technical problems and the teacher’s handling thereof. Thus, this case analysis begins with a focus on the teacher and his experience and attitude related to the use of digital media in EFL, based mainly on two in-depth, semi-structured preand post-interviews conducted to elicit data on these categories (cf. section 4.5.5). The chapter then continues with the analysis of the planned and implemented procedures of both lessons, the perspectives of the teacher and the selected focal learners, and their task outcomes. 10.2 Focus on the teacher Despite his voluntary participation in the research study, teacher Frank Lin‐ nebeer clearly expresses his insecurity in terms of his competence and experi‐ ence regarding the pedagogical use of digital media, thus pointing to a deficit 344 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="345"?> in technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. This insecurity, which is reflected in the subsequently analyzed lessons, stems from his lack of teaching experience involving digital media and associated teaching methods, his lack of informal or private experience with these technologies, combined with the new situation of teaching an advanced-level Leistungskurs for the first time in his career and his perception that he only has a superficial knowledge of the subject matter (i.e., presidential elections in the U.S.). At the onset of the school project, Mr. Linnebeer repeatedly states he has almost no direct experience in teaching with digital media [2012-09-24_ti_FL_seq6, seq30-4, seq54, seq72]. For instance, he has never used an LMS or even individual components such as wikis, glossaries, or forum discussions. Consistent with this perception, he describes the blended learning approach and the LMS as highly complex and demanding—a factor he feels is exacerbated by the overall time pressure of the project participa‐ tion [2012-11-27_ti_FL_seq8]. Likewise, he usually refrains from using online resources in his teaching, citing the problematic access to the school’s computer lab, an increased preparatory effort of identifying appropriate online resources, and lack of key competencies, for example, how to download YouTube videos and other web-contents. He further argues integrating such authentic online materials into his classes is problematic as it usually requires him to edit, annotate, and integrate them into appropriate task sequences, which exceeds his time budget as a full-time teacher. In the same respect, he mostly refrains from communicating with his students online and seldom uses email. He relies on his colleague, with whom he organizes a school exchange program with the U.S., to reach out to students in a dedicated Facebook group, as he himself does not use social media at all. Nevertheless, he welcomes the opportunity to participate in this school project to extend his teaching repertoire and develop his TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) with guidance by the researcher and the LMS itself [2012-09-24_ti_FL_seq6; 2012-11-27_ti_FL_seq24-30]. In contrast to his lack of experience, Mr. Linnebeer conceptualizes his students as more competent technology users, thus frequently invoking the notion of the ‘digital native’ [2012-09-24_ti_FL_seq6, seq30-4, seq54, seq72]. He assumes his students to be frequent and habitual social media users, highlighting the relevance of these applications for young people who are invariably confronted with social media discourses daily outside the classroom, such as Facebook. Thus, systematically implementing such technologies into pedagogy, according to Mr. Linnebeer, would not just meet learner interest and raise their motivation [2012-09-24_ti_FL_seq14; 2012-11-27_ti_FL_seq10, 18], but could also bridge the gap between informal, extramural technology 345 10.2 Focus on the teacher <?page no="346"?> use and literacy as well as interaction practices in the formal context of the EFL classroom, thereby promoting a greater sense of functional authenticity [2012-11-27_ti_FL_seq22-4]. The teacher furthermore sees additional affordances of the pedagogical use of digital media in their multimodality and associated cognitive benefits of addressing multiple communication channels and increasing memoriza‐ tion [ibid., seq22-4]; facilitating greater reciprocity and collaboration among learners [ibid., seq54-6]; promoting student initiative and learner agency in the negotiation and selection of learning contents and modification of learning processes, for instance in web-research tasks [ibid., seq46-50]; providing access to authentic discourses and cultural artifacts of the target culture and partici‐ pation in distance communication [ibid., seq64]; creating authentic contexts for informal and colloquial language use [ibid., seq10-20] as well as to practice pragmatic competence in CMC [ibid., seq88]; and monitoring task engagement and providing feedback through formative assessment of individual learners’ development over time by focusing on their online contributions to the LMS [ibid., seq104]. And yet, although Mr. Linnebeer identifies a significant advantage for the majority of his students, who are perceived as skilled and frequent technology users, one caveat remains: It cannot be inferred from this as to which extent these learners will be able to recognize and reap the educational affordances of such media in practice to advance their learning goals in formal learning settings. This is a central conclusion drawn from the research review on CALL and TBLT (cf. section 3.6), specifically of the research informed by activity theory (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2010) and the relational concept of affordances (cf. sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2). 10.3 ‘Analyze the word cloud’ The general sequence of this course’s project participation and the analysis of Mr. Linnebeer’s attitudes, beliefs, and professional experience regarding the use of digital media in his EFL lessons provide the backdrop for the subsequent analysis of planned and implemented task procedures and outcomes. 346 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="347"?> 10.3.1 Formal task analysis Phase Procedure(s) Time Arrival Ss arrive in the computer lab. T sets up the projector. Kaliampos sets up the recording equipment. 00: 00: 00- 00: 06: 28 Task initiation: ‘Word cloud glos‐ sary’ (pre-task) T opens the lesson, announces the lesson topic, ‘stages of the election campaign,’ introduces the word cloud and glossary task. 00: 06: 28- 00: 11: 47 Task phase (while-task) Ss supposed to define three familiar words from word cloud in LMS glossary, do further research to define two unfamiliar terms. Task is modified due to defunct Internet connection; Ss type definitions in a Word document instead. T provides dictionaries, sits in the front initially, monitors task performance, and offers support. 00: 11: 47- 00: 38: 52 Report phase (post-task) T abruptly ends task phase. Individual Ss read out a definition, co-learners guess the term. 00: 38: 52- 00: 42: 58 Report phase II (post-task) After resolving the connectivity issue, T instructs Ss to post their definitions in the LMS glossary. 00: 42: 58- 00: 45: 45 Report phase III (post-task) Ss can now access the LMS activity and proceed to enter their definitions. T remains at the front of the room, instructs learners to avoid redundant entries, and instead post additions as comments if concept has already been defined. 00: 45: 45- 00: 59: 47 Task initiation: ‘Stages of the election’ (pre-task) T introduces a jigsaw puzzle activity on four stages of the election campaign, a web-research activity; shows the LMS course section and resources for this task; assigns Ss to four groups. 00: 59: 47- 01: 02: 13 Task phase (while-task) Ss research assigned topics online, discuss findings in groups; YouTube videos in the LMS are blocked by web-filter. T mostly remains in the front. In the second phase, Ss switch groups for the jigsaw activity, report findings to each other, take notes. No further report phase in class. 01: 02: 13- 01: 37: 42 Debriefing T has posted the HW asgmt. in the announcement forum; Ss supposed to discuss their opinion about the electoral system in a forum and post more definitions and comments in the glossary. 01: 37: 42- 01: 42: 08 Table 10.2: Lessosssn overview, EFL course by Mr. Linnebeer, Sep. 20, 2012. (HW asgmt. = homework assignment; T = teacher; Ss = students) 347 10.3 ‘Analyze the word cloud’ <?page no="348"?> The first of the two focal double-lessons was implemented on September 13 and introduced the main steps and terminology of the U.S. presidential election campaign (cf. Table 10.2). This section presents the focal task, ‘Analyze the word cloud,’ including the formal analysis of the task-as-workplan. Then, its intended implementation and perception by the teacher (section 10.3.2), as well as the task-as-process by the focal student (section 10.3.3) and the task-as-outcomes (section 10.3.4) are analyzed. As stated above, the overriding content focus of this lesson was on the technicalities and processes of the U.S. electoral system and the respective specialized vocabulary necessary to understand and actively participate in the discourse about the election (cf. Table 10.2). The teacher thus modified a collaborative glossary activity from the LMS curriculum to introduce the essential vocabulary related to this thematic framework. The original LMS activity (cf. Figure 10.1) introduces this vocabulary through a word cloud created using the text of the Wikipedia entry on the United States presidential elections (cf. Figure 10.3). Based on this input, learners in the original LMS activity were intended to engage in a think-pair-share procedure to formulate definitions and post them to the course’s glossary. This glossary module itself contained further technological instructions on how to post new entries and how to collaborate with other learners using the comment function (cf. Figure 10.2). Although Mr. Linnebeer planned to omit this think-pair-share procedure, he did not delete the respective written instructions from the assignment page, which thus remained visible to the students. Figure 10.1: Task instructions for the LMS activity ‘Analyze the word cloud’ (screenshot). 348 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="349"?> Figure 10.2: Instructions for the LMS glossary module ‘Word cloud glossary’ (screenshot). Figure 10.3: ‘Word cloud’ on U.S. election terminology. 349 10.3 ‘Analyze the word cloud’ <?page no="350"?> In terms of task objectives, the teacher ties this task to the overall goal of enhancing learners’ discourse competence in the field of government and politics, which he perceives as one of the major linguistic and conceptual demands of the school project. As Mr. Linnebeer explains, the introductory glossary activity, which the course could possibly continue over the full duration of the project, was essential in laying the foundation to meet the linguistic challenges of the project participation: Linguistic challenges existed mainly in terms of vocabulary, due to all of these technical terms related to the electoral system. That’s why the glossary was very useful right at the beginning of this unit, so the students knew what I was talking about when it came to ‘ballots’ or ‘primaries’ or ‘caucuses’ or anything else. Excerpt 10.1: Retrospective teacher interview, Mr. Linnebeer. [2012-11-27_ti_FL_seq32, transl.] This is consistent with Mr. Linnebeer’s view above that a major challenge of implementing authentic and possibly unmodified online materials like YouTube videos, news articles, or social media posts in EFL consists of supporting learners’ ability to comprehend these resources linguistically and managing the demands this may place on teachers to modify and enhance such input to render it comprehensible according to the learners’ current proficiency level. The glossary task is, therefore, based on a scaffolding rationale. As with the focal tasks in the previous two cases, this task can be classified based on Ellis’s (2012) criteria for task design and planned implementation. Starting with its design parameters, the task-as-workplan (1) represents a focused task as it explicitly addresses the specialized vocabulary about the domain of U.S. government and politics and is likely to require learners to use descriptive language, formal register, passive voice, and the simple present, especially for the formulation of the glossary entries. (2) In terms of the direction of communication, it is both input-providing, through the reading comprehension process required as part of the web-research on election terms, and output-prompting, through the composition and editing of glossary entries and the oral discussion of the election process in the report phase and the subsequent jigsaw puzzle format. (3) Furthermore, both task components the glossary and the subsequent jigsaw puzzle, are designed around an information gap. During the glossary task, students research different terms and concepts for the glossary and collaboratively add their definitions to the LMS. Likewise, 350 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="351"?> they are assigned the different phases of the election process and are supposed to teach their co-learners these findings during the jigsaw puzzle. (4) This means the task has a rather closed structure in the sense that a convergent outcome is sought as a solution. (5) Finally, this task is cognitively highly complex since the learners retrieve unenhanced, authentic resources on a culturally distant and complex topic, which they must thoroughly understand first and then teach to one another. The following classification can be inferred regarding the task’s planned implementation: (1) Contrary to the written instructions on the LMS, Mr. Linnebeer intends the glossary task to be done individually and the subsequent jigsaw puzzle in small groups. (2) Similarly contrasting with the task instructions found in the LMS, the teacher does not plan to include a pre-task phase; the glossary task itself, however, can be understood as a preparation focusing on the vocabulary needed to complete the jigsaw puzzle about the four stages of the election campaign. (3) Regarding the learners’ communicative roles, the collaborative glossary positions them as readers first and then as writers, while the jigsaw positions them as speakers and listeners during the group and expert phases of the puzzle. (4) Generally, however, learner roles in both activities are not allocated based on individual learner differences. (5) Both tasks involve ample opportunity for unguided strategic planning as learners can carefully draft their contributions to the glossary, take notes on their findings of the assigned phase of the election in their expert groups, and rehearse their mini-presentations and clarify unclear aspects. (6) Despite a planned time-limit for both the glossary and the jigsaw, the teacher may allow more time to complete the task, thereby granting opportunities for online planning. (7) Task repetition is not considered in the planned implementation. (8) Finally, while the glossary task includes a report phase, the jigsaw puzzle does not, besides the exchange of research findings among the learner groups. Here, the post-task requirement consists of commenting on the election system in an online forum discussion, which is the homework assignment. After this formal analysis of the task-as-workplan, the following sections analyze the actual task implementation and performance from the perspective of those who enact it, the teacher and two focal learners. 10.3.2 Task implementation: Teacher’s perspective At the beginning of the lesson, Mr. Linnebeer uses an advance organizer to signpost the contents and procedures of the lesson (i.e., the stages of the election campaign and specialized terminology), which directly leads into the oral instructions for the collaborative glossary task, ‘Analyze the word cloud: ’ 351 10.3 ‘Analyze the word cloud’ <?page no="352"?> One thing we want to do today is talk about the different stages of the election process. And first of all, we will have to find out about a few terms, a few words that are important in this process. And therefore, I would like to introduce a word cloud to you. Does anyone know what a word cloud is? (3) I think you might have seen one, but you are not familiar with the term. (3) I’ll show you a word cloud. [Linnebeer presents the word cloud on the screen and briefly discusses with the students what it represents.] What I want you to do now is to choose three of these words. You can also open the word cloud on your screen when you have logged in. I want you to choose three of these words and write down definitions for these three words. And I also want you to choose two words that you don’t know the meaning of, and then find definitions by browsing the Internet. The intention is to create a glossary in about twenty or thirty minutes. So, please hurry up and find some definitions for three words that you already know and for two words that you don’t know yet. Okay? ((Linnebeer remains standing at the front of the room.)) Excerpt 10.2: Classroom video-recording, Mr. Linnebeer’s course. [2012-09-13_vr_FL_seq12, 30] Mr. Linnebeer here spends considerable time scaffolding the learners’ under‐ standing of the word cloud concept (Figure 10.3), specifically that it is a way to represent word families or related words whose size is based on their frequency in a given text corpus and that they are often found on websites or blogs. He then continues to give instructions on the focal task—entering definitions of three known and three unknown vocabulary items—but does not explain how this is done in the LMS activity. Neither does he refer to the additional written instructions in the LMS activity, which outline a think-pair-share procedure that provides guidelines for students’ contributions (Figure 10.1). In addition, the glossary module in the LMS, which is also not mentioned by the teacher, describes the procedure of how to add a new entry and how it can be commented on by fellow users (Figure 10.2)—an important piece of information for the course participants, especially given that Mr. Linnebeer urges them to finish with the activity quickly. It also becomes apparent here that the learners are not familiarized with the online text genre of a collaborative glossary. Vandergriff (2016, p. 69) argues online genres are special forms of communicative events and bound by communicative purposes, such as exchanging knowledge and establishing a shared terminology about the U.S. election in this glossary. Like other online genres, a glossary is characterized by multimodality, intertextuality and 352 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="353"?> hyperlinking, and remixing of different resources, which ultimately blurs the boundaries between the skills of reading and writing. The formal task analysis brings to the fore how this glossary genre imposes implicit linguistic and structural conventions. Raising learners’ awareness of such online genres, in other words, may help them recognize and realize the various technological, social, educational, and linguistic affordances of such tools. Similarly, awareness of genres may guide learners’ task performance by scaffolding their task participation and language production (Reinhardt, 2018; cf. section 3.3.3). Despite the lack of technical instruction and scaffolding in this initial phase of the task implementation, Mr. Linnebeer maintains in his retrospective commentary that the task objectives and procedures were clearly understood by the students (Excerpt 10.3). The previous two cases have shown this assumption can be and often is misguided, especially when implementing novel task formats, online genres, and technological tools for the first time with a learner group and when crucial aspects of these tools’ usability and didactic interaction are not made explicit during the task initiation phase. In my opinion, the learning objectives did not need to be interpreted because I explained them beforehand in detail. Also, the learning processes could not be tremendously modified by the students (.) because the activity format and also the materials for the group work were pre-determined. Excerpt 10.3: Oral commentary, Mr. Linnebeer. [2012-09-13_tc_FL_seq12, transl.] As the students begin to engage in the task, they realize the Internet connection in the computer lab is down [2012-09-13_vr_FL_seq33-8], preventing them from accessing the LMS and complete the task according to Mr. Linnebeer’s plan. Faced with this unexpected problem, the teacher modifies the task and asks learners to formulate their definitions from memory, using their computers’ word processor, and not talk to each other during this phase (Excerpt 10.4). There is a big problem then. But did you all get the task? Then I’ll show you the word cloud, and you can start with the first task, okay? And then we can agree on a good definition and save it in the glossary later on. You will have to do that at home then. So, don’t choose the same words, everybody. Don’t talk to your neighbor. Choose the three words for yourselves. Excerpt 10.4: Classroom video-recording, Mr. Linnebeer. [2012-09-13_vr_FL_seq46] 353 10.3 ‘Analyze the word cloud’ <?page no="354"?> The students are instead supposed to upload their definitions at a later stage. It is evident that this altered task design significantly reduces the original task’s technological and social affordances as the glossary and commenting function become unavailable. Likewise, the educational affordances of research and knowledge exchange—the previously proclaimed main goals of the task— are almost non-identifiable in this new setting. At one student’s request, Mr. Linnebeer gets a few bilingual German-English dictionaries from another room [ibid., seq50]. Yet, the extent to which this resource can compensate for the technical problems is questionable, especially since several students appear to simply copy the dictionary definitions. Finally, 16 minutes into the task phase, the IT teacher arrives at the computer lab and fixes the connectivity issue, a software setting the teacher had forgotten to make [ibid., seq58]. During the following report phase, Mr. Linnebeer then asks the students to read out their definitions without telling the term or concept, so their co-learners can guess them [ibid., seq85]. After just six definitions, the teacher abruptly ends this report phase and instructs the course to transfer their definitions to the LMS glossary using the copy and paste functions to save time [ibid., 127-30]. Interestingly, the task instruction now essentially adopts a show-and-tell format in which Mr. Linnebeer projects the LMS activity on the wall, reads out the written instructions from the activity (Figure 10.2), and shows the glossary’s use in real-time. As before, the teacher’s task modifications drastically diminish the original task’s affordances, for instance, by precluding any further web-research by the learners. This task cycle ends without a dedicated debriefing, as Mr. Linnebeer tells the students they are supposed to contribute further definitions at home. The glossary posts themselves are neither discussed during the remainder of this lesson nor the following lesson (cf. 10.4.2). The final part of the lesson is devoted to the jigsaw puzzle about the phases of the electoral campaign. Mr. Linnebeer determines four student groups: (1) Pre-election, (2) Super Tuesday, (3) Election Day, and (4) Electoral College and Presidential Inauguration. As the students meet in these expert groups, they research their topics using the assigned resources in the LMS and discuss their findings. In the subsequent mixed-group phase, they report their findings to students who have researched different phases and take notes. Again, there is no plenary report phase implemented in class, and besides their handwritten notes, the learners are not asked to create an outcome, although the corresponding LMS activity suggests an oral class discussion and collecting all findings in a wiki-like forum after the group phase. 354 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="355"?> 10.3.3 Focal student: Emma In her learning journal, Emma, the focal learner for this lesson, expresses her excitement about the project participation as she is interested in the topic of the upcoming U.S. election and because she is motivated by the prospect of participating in a nationwide project [2012-09-20_lj_ES_seq4, cf. 2012-09-13_si_ES_seq22-4]. The LMS, she writes in the journal, provides useful information, and, after an initial phase of getting used to its structure and learning how to navigate it, she now feels comfortable working with it [2012-09-20_lj_ES_seq4]. 00: 18: 14-9: ((Begins to type <Results: > (32) Continues typing: <Results: When all the votes of every state got counted the results (per‐ centages and winning candidate) can be published>)) [seq49] (…) 00: 22: 07-3: ((Types in the next term to be defined, <Legally : Something is legal when the action agrees with the human and national rights>. Then enters the next concept, <Local : The election in every single districts is local, there are local and national elections>)) [seq53] (…) 00: 23: 16-9: ((Starts a new paragraph, probably for the unfamiliar terms, and types, <Ballot: > Pauses for an extended period (75). Resumes typing: <Ballot: during the elections a ballot takes place>)) [seq55] (…) 00: 29: 15-8: ((Types <Vize : the vize president is he representation of the president, he supports him.>)) [seq57] Excerpt 10.5: Screen capture, Emma. [2012-09-13_sc_ES_seq49, 53, 55, 57] 355 10.3 ‘Analyze the word cloud’ <?page no="356"?> Emma begins working on the task after a considerable delay, caused by the fact that she chats with her desk neighbor and clarifies the task instructions. Over seven minutes into the task phase, she begins typing up the first of her overall three definitions of familiar terms (Excerpt 10.5). Although her teacher hands her a dictionary, she contributes an inaccurate definition of the term ‘ballot’ and an inaccurate spelling of the word ‘vice,’ despite having read its correct spelling in the word cloud. Emma does not read out a definition of her own during the report phase, nor is she selected to guess a term from a co-learner’s definition. As Mr. Linnebeer subsequently asks students to submit their definitions to the LMS glossary, and as she has submitted her glossary entry on ‘vize’ [sic.], she realizes that two co-learners have posted definitions of the same term before her [ibid., seq131]. She thus reads and compares these entries [ibid., 137], then decides to delete hers because it was posted after the others [ibid., seq166], then reads the entry on ‘vice’ and a comment posted below it, hesitates, and finally refuses to post her definition. Instead, she closes her Word document without saving it as Mr. Linnebeer ends this second report phase [ibid., 176]. For her homework assignment, Emma posts a new entry on ‘legally’ and comments to the entries for ‘federal, federalism’ and ‘Government’ before the next lesson. Based on this task performance and additional insights gained from Emma’s retrospective interview and learning journal, a differentiated image of her task perception can be obtained. Her general interest in the school project and the U.S. election, as well as her growing familiarity with the LMS and its functionality, as mentioned above, contribute to an overall positive affective perception of this task. The student explains she is motivated by the glossary module’s and the LMS’s technological and social affordances as they allow for student-generated content to be documented and shared among learners, and for additional reciprocity between learners to emerge through the commenting and rating functions (Excerpt 10.6): […] over the next lessons, we worked with the word cloud. I liked the way this exercise went; that is, you first wrote down known definitions and then googled online for further explanations. It was very helpful that all definitions were then written down in the ‘glossary,’ as well as the possibility to comment on other entries. Excerpt 10.6: Learning journal, Emma. [2012-09-20_lj_ES_seq4, transl.] According to Emma, this task offers compelling educational affordances for the learning of vocabulary precisely because it is student-driven and facili‐ 356 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="357"?> tates learners in aligning vocabulary learning with their own experiential frameworks by formulating or adapting definitions from their perspective—a hallmark of constructivism. This perception becomes more pronounced as Emma contrasts it with standard vocabulary instruction based on bilingual vocabulary lists, which she dismisses as dull and repetitive (Excerpt 10.7): 1 Kaliampos: How do you normally learn vocabulary in English classes? 2 Emma: Yes, it’s just very dry, you just have to/ you might have a vocabulary book and then write down the vocabulary. And so, it was somehow a bit more illustrative. 3 Kaliampos: Mhm [affirmative], more illustrative. And (.) what did you think about the fact that you yourselves, so to speak, thought out the meanings and then compared them. So, it’s not that Mr. [Linnebeer] said, “That’s what that means,” but you yourselves think/ 4 Emma: I found this very helpful because sometimes there are explanations in the English book that you might not find THAT appropriate and so you can put your own words in and understand it better. Excerpt 10.7: Retrospective interview, Emma. [2012-09-13_si_ES_seq9-12, transl.] In this excerpt, Emma essentially points towards a change of participant roles, which also figured prominently in the previous two focal cases (cf. chapters 8 and 9). As learners are provided with the tools and applications to modify their learning environments, and as they engage in tasks that progressively rely on learner contributions and the exercise of agency, it is learners who increasingly select and filter task resources and make consequential decisions about task procedures. This aspect seems closely related to the learners’ skilled use of and familiarity with the digital tools at hand. Regarding this glossary task, for instance, Emma states although she has not contributed to an online glossary before, she often browses online forums and social media, which both share some social exchange functionalities and affordances with this activity type [2012-09-13_si_ES_seq17-8]. However, Emma’s positive evaluation of this task hinges on her perception of whether the proposed media and their affordances match the planned task ob‐ jectives. In other words, it is crucial whether the use of the LMS and other online tools and resources result in additional educational affordances or whether the task is a mere translation of isolated face-to-face drill and practice into an online 357 10.3 ‘Analyze the word cloud’ <?page no="358"?> environment. This becomes apparent in Emma’s negative evaluation of the focal task in the subsequent lesson (10.4), a web-based research activity on the stages of the election campaign and collation of findings in a plenary format, which she finds boring [2012-09-20_lj_ES_seq4]. Contrary to this, Emma emphatically asserts how much she enjoyed the glossary task and the follow-up collaborative jigsaw puzzle formats, highlighting that she and her co-learners could learn from each other rather than from the teacher: “von Mitschülern lernt man einfach am besten! ” [“you just learn best from classmates”] [2012-09-25_lj_ES_seq6]. This is yet another indication of the beneficial affective impact of the change of participant roles facilitated by the LMS use during the project. Finally, Emma points to a number of problematic issues of the focal task, at least from her perspective (Excerpt 10.8). In terms of the use of technology and its implementation in classroom tasks, she criticizes Mr. Linnebeer’s excessive reliance on web-research activities during this teaching unit. Not only does she refer to her negative affective response to extended web-research tasks, but she especially mentions the linguistic demands resulting from unsystematically browsing authentic online resources without any form of input enhancement or linguistic scaffolding available (cf. Yano et al., 1994; cf. 2.2.1). Personally, I found this task rather monotonous, especially because I don’t like to ‘comb through’ the Internet for an extended time—again, a matter of taste. Of course, it depends on what I’m looking for, but in this case, after a certain point, I felt bored browsing through what felt like the 100 th page of Obama and Romney because the information was partly repeating or was written in very complicated English. Excerpt 10.8: Learning journal, Emma. [2012-09-27_lj_ES_seq8, transl.] In connection to the jigsaw puzzle following the glossary task, Emma discusses these difficulties as they seem exacerbated by the thematic context of the U.S. election, which all too often leaves learners struggling with specialized thematic vocabulary and unable to resolve these language-related episodes effectively (Excerpt 10.9): […] that was a bit of a problem because then I googled it, and then the technical term was only explained with technical terms, but maybe that’s because of my English, so ((laughs)). Excerpt 10.9: Retrospective interview, Emma. [2012-09-13_si_ES_seq32, transl.] 358 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="359"?> In the task sequence she describes here, Emma first launches a Google search on ‘congressional district united states,’ which leads her to the Wikipedia article ‘List of U.S. congressional districts,’ then to ‘Constituency,’ and then to ‘Electoral district,’ then switches back and forth between these last two articles and eventually asks the student sitting next to her for help [2012-09-13_sc_ES_seq200-2]. This problem frequently occurs at different stages of the project, and at one point, she criticizes in her learning journal it is “unfair that [… ] a good portion of the tasks depends on political background knowledge and not just on English language proficiency as such” [2012-09-27_lj_ES_seq8]. As a consequence, she argues elsewhere, classroom discourse was only partly done in English “because it is sometimes quite difficult, after all, when you lack the specialized terminology (regarding political issues, etc.)” [2012-09-20_lj_ES_seq4]. This directly echoes Mr. Linnebeer’s critique that exclusively relying on unenhanced authentic online resources may create significant problems—for him as the teacher in terms of preparation time needed to add annotations and provide scaffolding manually, and for learners who are likely to be overwhelmed by the linguistic and intercultural demands of such content. 10.3.4 Task outcomes: Glossary entries The submitted glossary entries and additional learner comments posted beneath them reveal interesting differences between individual students’ task performance and conceptualization. These include aspects like linguistic accuracy, personal voice and style, collaborative authorship, thematic con‐ textualization, the overall format of glossary entry, and use of additional LMS features, as the following paragraphs explain in more detail. The above-described task implementation (cf. section 10.3.2) reflects little explicit focus on form to ensure linguistic accuracy. During the report phase, as students read out their definitions, Mr. Linnebeer makes three explicit oral corrections of learner definitions [2012-09-13_vr_seq90, seq109- 11, seq123]. He later corrects a grammatical [ibid., seq153] and a spelling mistake [ibid., seq155] in the submitted glossary entry orally as he monitors the task performance by browsing through the glossary. Yet, he does not make any reference to focus on form in the task instructions; neither does he suggest using possible support functions and materials like a spell-checker or online dictionary. Only as the Internet connection appears being defunct, one student asks for German-English dictionaries [ibid., seq 42], which the teacher is able to provide for six learners overall [ibid., seq50]. Multiple 359 10.3 ‘Analyze the word cloud’ <?page no="360"?> glossary entries, however, include simple spelling mistakes and typing errors, as well as grammatical and capitalization mistakes. These mistakes mostly do not lead to language-related episodes or peer-editing procedures in this task implementation. The students’ glossary entries also differ regarding their personal voice and style. Owing to the Internet malfunction in the early task phase, learners formulate their definitions without any further input available aside from the dictionaries provided by Mr. Linnebeer. Some learners appear to copy defi‐ nitions from those dictionaries while others produce their own definitions formulated in a less formal register. The definition of ‘Day’ by Frederik (Excerpt 10.10) is an example of the former and can be contrasted with more informal contributions, such as Leonard’s definition of ‘vice president’ (Excerpt 10.11) and that of ‘States’ by Finn further below (Excerpt 10.13): Day Frederik H. - Wednesday, 19 September 2012, 11: 21 AM A day is a unit of time. It includes 24 hours. The word ‘day’ is often used to describe the time when the sun is above the orizon. [sic.] Excerpt 10.10: Glossary entry by Frederik. vice president […] Leonard D. - Thu, 13 Sep 2012, 8: 47 AM It´s the „second“ president. He is announced before the elections take place by the candidate of his party. Also he is elected with him. When his candidate is elected for president, he automatically is elected vice president. Excerpt 10.11: Glossary comment by Leonard. In terms of collaborative authorship, the occurrence of multiple entries about the same concept reveals that the students did not coordinate their submissions before posting, especially given that the glossary module is not a synchronous tool updated in real-time, which led to redundancies. But even when learners posted comments to existing entries, they do not seem to have considered adjusting their comments to each other. For instance, Marvin’s entry on ‘Party’ and the subsequently posted comments by Anastasia and Justus rely on a similar wording and address the same aspects of the original definition (Excerpt 10.12). 360 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="361"?> Party Marvin S. - Thursday, 13 September 2012, 8: 42 AM Parties are political groups representing a specific political opinion. In America there are just two big parties really participating on the US-elections Comments (2) Anastasia H. - Thu, 13 Sep 2012, 8: 44 AM : A party is a group of people who represents voters´ interests. If the party is elected, they will gobern the country, they were elected for. Justus S. - Thu, 13 Sep 2012, 8: 48 AM A party is a club which has an own political view and tries to get elected by the citizens convincing them about their view. Excerpt 10.12: Glossary entry by Marvin and comments by co-learners. In other instances, learners did realize the socio-collaborative affordances of the glossary more aptly, and learners made an effort to add new aspects to a definition, which were considered to be missing in the original entry posted by the co-learner. The entry on ‘States’ below in Excerpt 10.13 is a case in point. While Finn provides his definition of states as “little countries” with special laws and representatives, Isabelle mentions that powers are divided between federal and state government levels, and finally, Meike adds the overall number of U.S. states and includes some states as examples. States Finn E. - Thursday, 13 September 2012, 8: 43 AM „little countries“ in a country, that have their own governments with pres‐ idents (called governors i the USA) and sometimes also special laws (e.g. punishments for criminals) , but still have to follow the majority of the laws and the political decisions of the country Comments (2) Isabelle B. - Thu, 13 Sep 2012, 1: 09 PM the power is devided between the states and the “normal” government (federalism) Meike K. - Wed, 19 Sep 2012, 3: 16 PM USA consists of 50 states for example California and Colorado Excerpt 10.13: Glossary entry by Finn and comments by co-learners. 361 10.3 ‘Analyze the word cloud’ <?page no="362"?> Furthermore, the vocabulary displayed in the word cloud is not contextualized, so its connection to the domain of U.S. politics or its political meaning is not always apparent to all learners. Thus, some learners submit general definitions without any reference to the political context, such as Frederik’s above-cited entry of ‘Day.’ This, however, defeats the purpose of the task as learners fail to realize the glossary activity’s educational affordances and ultimately may be unable to connect these new, specialized meanings to their existing lexicon. Yet, several students adopt a more focused approach. For example, Justus defines ‘position’ in terms of its connection to elections, thus connecting it to the task content; Jonas likewise defines ‘secretly’ with regard to the concept of secret votes; and Finn defines ‘Years’ in the context of the presidential elections taking place every four years. Finally, student entries differ in their structure and length. Some students, for example, neither include the concept or term to be defined in their entries nor do they include example sentences. While this format was necessary during the report phase in which students guessed the term from its definition, it may be less beneficial in the context of the glossary. Furthermore, most students do not seem to have understood the technological affordances of using aliases, auto-linking, and pre-defined categories for their entries. For instance, Moodle creates a link to a glossary entry whenever a concept or term is used elsewhere in the course, thus representing an automated setting for recycling vocabulary and annotating text. Also, the glossary module includes two predefined categories learners could use to indicate how certain they are of their definitions, ‘Quite sure what it means’ and ‘Unknown to me.’ Almost none of the entries used these settings at all, reflecting the fact that these affordances were not mentioned in the task instructions or reinforced by the teacher. In sum, the students’ glossary entries and the task perception by the focal student, Emma, suggest that despite relying on the same task instructions and working in the same LMS module, the students engaged in quite different activities during their task performance. Likewise, this example has shown how the teacher adapted the original task-as-workplan to the unexpected situation of an unavailable Internet connection. By asking the students to write down definitions from memory, possibly use the dictionary as the sole resource, and eventually copy and paste their definitions to the glossary, he essentially ‘de-tasks’ the original workplan and largely transformed it into what resembles an exercise (Samuda, 2015; cf. section 2.3.2). In terms of learner activity, for instance, Emma is seen engaging in a series of Google searches and accesses several Wikipedia articles on potential glossary nodes, such as ‘Congressional District,’ ‘constituency,’ and ‘electoral district.’ She orients to the task as a content-oriented CMC task to produce reliable and helpful explanations 362 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="363"?> of the selected terms for herself and her co-learners. A similar orientation is reflected in her co-learner, Louisa’s performance. Louisa retrospectively describes how she looked up the word ‘ballot,’ produced a short explanation, and then read it out to Connor, the U.S. exchange student in this course, before posting it to make sure both content and language are accurate. In addition, like Emma in her learning journal, Louisa highlights the collaborative element of this task: I particularly liked this Word Cloud. (…) And that we should pick out the terms there and also those we didn’t know, that we googled them and that there is a page where all this is defined so that you can look at it again. And also that, in the end, we could look at it again with the different primaries and everything that we discussed, because I didn’t know that before and I liked it. Excerpt 10.14: Retrospective interview, Louisa. [2012-09-13_li-LP_seq6-8] Comparing these accounts with the reviewed glossary posts, it appears other students oriented to the activity as primarily a language exercise, partly isolated from the overall context of the school project. This becomes evident in entries proposing dictionary definitions of terms without connecting them to the topic of the U.S. election, such as Frederik’s entry on ‘Day’ above (Excerpt 10.10). Others, like Louisa stated above, interpret the task as a collaborative writing task and accordingly post comments under each other’s entries, as can be inferred from the reactions to Marvin’s entry on ‘Party’ (Excerpt 10.12). Yet other students orient to the activity as one that asks them to stretch their linguistic resources to explain the terminology in their own language without primarily relying on published definitions, as in Finn’s description of ‘States’ as “little countries” (Excerpt 10.13) and Leonard’s description of the vice president as the “second president” (Excerpt 10.11). The next sections address the second focal lesson of this case, exactly one week later, addressing the same topic—the electoral system—a second time to consolidate the students’ understanding. 10.4 ‘The electoral system—individual steps’ Because Mr. Linnebeer could not reserve the computer lab for the next lesson, he inserted a double lesson on aspects of grammar and text analysis unrelated to the project partici{pation. Therefore, the course continued with its project work one week later, on September 20. The following sections address the focal task 363 10.4 ‘The electoral system—individual steps’ <?page no="364"?> of this lesson in terms of the formal task analysis (section 10.4.1), the teacher’s intended task procedures (section 10.4.2), and the students’ task perceptions (section 10.4.3). 10.4.1 Formal task analysis Phase Procedure(s) Time Arrival/ start Ss enter the computer lab and take their seats. The researcher is seen selecting Justus as the lesson’s focal student. T takes attendance. 00: 00: 00 - 00: 05: 19 Lesson begins; HW assignment T greets Ss, again checks for attendance, and com‐ mences the lesson. Some Ss come in late (it is the first lesson of the day). T begins the lesson by discussing the HW asgmt., a textbook exercise on varying sentence structure, conjunctions, if-clauses. Ss read out their results. 00: 05: 19 - 00: 19: 16 Task initiation: ‘The electoral system’ (pre-task) T reminds Ss of their second HW assignment, discus‐ sing the U.S. electoral system in an LMS forum and contributing election vocabulary to the LMS course glossary. Based on their findings, Ss are now supposed to create a diagram of the election process and the involved agents and institutions—a continuation of the previous lesson. 00: 19: 16 - 00: 22: 31 Task phase: ‘The electoral system’ (while-task) Ss produce a diagram of the various phases of the election; Ss are supposed to research the stages of the election process using the resource provided in the LMS course, the preceding forum discussion, and further resources. 00: 22: 31 - 00: 54: 17 Task report phase: The elec‐ toral system’ (post-task) T terminates the task phase and launches the report phase with minimal instructions. Ss report their find‐ ings to the individual stages while T takes notes in a word file projected on the wall. 00: 54: 17 - 01: 21: 44 Follow-up: ‘The candidates’ (pre- & while-task) T introduces the next activity, a video-based research task on the candidates. Because the materials are blocked on the Ss’ computers, the task is done in lock‐ step. T shows campaign ads by Obama and Romney. Ss view videos and respond in an oral class discussion. 01: 21: 44 - 01: 39: 35 Debriefing T assigns Ss to research both candidates and their spouses at home using the resources provided in the LMS and take notes on their findings. 01.39: 35 - 01: 40: 42 Table 10.3: Lesson overview, EFL course by Mr. Linnebeer, Sep. 20, 2012. (T = teacher; Ss = students) 364 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="365"?> This lesson is a direct continuation of the previous project lesson and the homework assignment, which both thematically focused on the different phases of the electoral process in the U.S. Although this topic had been addressed at length in the preceding project lesson, Mr. Linnebeer decided to devote a whole lesson to the same topic again, based on his rationale that consolidating knowledge about the electoral system would be foundational for the subsequent steps of the project and his perception that the previous lesson produced poor learning outcomes among several students (Excerpt 10.15): Commenting on the electoral system does not necessarily mean the students also understood the electoral system and (.) I did want to make sure in this double lesson, everyone (.) documented the whole thing again in their folders or notebooks rather than just talk about it in the forum. Therefore (2) this consolidation phase was very important, which was also noticeable in the double lesson. (.) The students didn’t seem to have remembered a great deal of the group puzzle from the previous double lesson, (.) because they searched the Internet very diligently for information on the terms ‘Pre- Election,’ ‘Super Tuesday,’ ‘Election Day,’ and ‘Inauguration,’ which I had also presented again in the front (2) using the whiteboard. Excerpt 10.15: Oral commentary, Mr. Linnebeer. [2012-09-20_tc_FL_seq5, transl.] Following these identified shortcomings, Mr. Linnebeer planned to introduce the lesson with a brief review of the forum discussion on the electoral system, in which all students were supposed to participate as a preparatory homework assignment, and then renew the focus on the phases of the electoral system and have every learner produce a written record of these aspects: The plan this time was to strengthen the students’ understanding of the elec‐ toral system of the USA once again and then start with the two presidential candidates. First of all to the homework for today’s lesson (.) it was about the fact that the students in the forum (.) discuss the electoral system of the USA and (.) write a longer commentary of two to three paragraphs and (.) in addition comment on at least (2) one contribution from another student then (.) in this forum, too. Excerpt 10.16: Oral commentary, Mr. Linnebeer. [2012-09-20_tc_FL_seq2, transl.] 365 10.4 ‘The electoral system—individual steps’ <?page no="366"?> These plans lead to the lesson structure depicted in Table 10.3. The first 20 minutes were devoted to finishing an unrelated textbook grammar exercise (i.e., a continuation of the inserted grammar lesson two days earlier) before then engaging in the lesson’s target task, ‘The electoral system,’ as well as a short introduction to the two presidential candidates’ biographies at the end. The web-research task ‘The electoral system,’ like the focal tasks in the preceding cases, can be classified following the task-based criteria proposed in Ellis’s (2012) framework for task design and planned implementation. Due to the same thematic focus in both lessons of this case, some overlap can be identified between the tasks. (1) Regarding its design, this lesson’s focal task is first of all understood as an unfocused task without a particular linguistic form prescribed in the instruction or the lesson plan. However, descriptive language, the simple present, passive voice, formal register, and vocabulary about the domain of U.S. politics and government are likely necessary for describing the election process. (2) This task is mostly input providing as learners engage in extended reading comprehension during the web-research, yet it is in many respects also output-prompting as learners take notes of and summarize their findings during the research and the subsequent report phase. (3) The task poses an information and reasoning gap to students who are given the same initial research resources but are free to select additional sources to define and describe the phases of the electoral process. (4) This also means the task has a closed structure with a convergent outcome sought as a solution. (5) The task can be classified as cognitively complex, primarily because its content focuses on a culturally distant and procedurally intricate subject matter, requiring students to learn specialized vocabulary. Apart from its theoretical workplan, the task can be evaluated by its planned implementation. (1) The focal task mostly relies on individual work and possibly occasional pair work during the research phase, and a plenary format during the report phase. (2) It does not include a dedicated pre-task phase during the lesson itself, but it can be connected to the preparatory homework assignment to define and comment on election terms and concepts in the glossary and discuss the electoral system in an online forum. (3) The task positions learners as readers rather than writers because of the sheer amount of information they are supposed to scan, filter, and analyze, while writing is done mainly in the form of note-taking. (4) Regarding the planned task engagement, learner roles are not allocated according to individual learner differences. (5) The task offers little opportunity for strategic planning, aside from the preparatory homework assignment. (6) The teacher sets a time limit for the task but is ready to extend it—and eventually does so during the lesson—if learners need it to understand the content, thus pressing students for online planning. (7) There is no task repetition planned, although this task certainly can be seen as a repetition of 366 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="367"?> the jigsaw puzzle task in the preceding lesson one week ago. (8) Finally, as a post-task requirement, students are supposed to document their findings in a mind-map or timeline and report them orally. The next subchapters first address the task implementation from the teacher’s perspective, before then analyzing one focal student’s task performance and the overall task outcomes. 10.4.2 Task implementation: Teacher’s perspective At the beginning of this lesson, upon finishing the unrelated focus on conjunc‐ tions and if-clauses, Mr. Linnebeer leads over to the forum discussion on the U.S. electoral system assigned as a homework assignment for this lesson and continued the thematic focus of the preceding lesson. It is striking how little the teacher integrates this technology-enhanced homework task, the computer-mediated discourse it facilitated, and its outcomes into the lesson: One of your, uhm, homeworks was to comment on the U.S. electoral system and also to take part in a discussion. Now you started a lot of discussions, and there were a few replies as well. The glossary has filled up (.), that’s all good. Unfortunately, not everybody took part in this, uhm, in this work. So, not everybody started a discussion or replied to one of the other entries. I can, of course, see, uhm, with the help of the times here who did something and who didn’t, okay? So please do your homework, everybody. I read them all. There was some good English. Most of the time, there were a few mistakes as well. If you want to, I can talk to you about your, uhm, entries. Excerpt 10.17: Classroom video-recording, Mr. Linnebeer. [2012-09-20_vr_FL_seq136] After this general statement, the teacher proceeds to the next classroom activity without providing any further feedback—neither on content nor on linguistic form—to the students. In the forum itself, he only posted a single line of feedback to one student, praising her argument and language proficiency. Given the subsequent, repeated lesson focus on the electoral system and the incorporation of this blended learning project into this course’s regular EFL lessons in general, this lack of mode integration is problematic. It suggests the two modes are disconnected, and the students’ work in one mode (i.e., online) may be regarded as a less important component of their class and ultimately irrelevant for their grades. The fact that Mr. Linnebeer does not check whether students completed this assignment, what the outcomes of their discussions 367 10.4 ‘The electoral system—individual steps’ <?page no="368"?> are and how the computer-mediated discourse was accomplished supports this view. However, the teacher explains in the retrospective interview about this lesson, he is well aware of the impact this communication medium has on learners’ agency and L2 selves: The forum activity, he maintains, promotes informal register and allows learners to try out colloquialisms, contractions, and other such constructions they know from extramural, informal settings. In this regard, he is convinced forum discussions may raise learners’ awareness of the appropriateness of different registers in specific communication contexts and increase their perception of authenticity of EFL tasks, thereby also promoting higher levels of learner motivation [2012-11-27_ti_FL_seq10-20]. Interfering in this computer-mediated discourse with corrective feedback could quickly nullify these advantages, the teacher further argues [ibid., seq32-6], although other, less intrusive or face-threatening modes of focus on form would be possible. This example is emblematic of the use of the LMS in this course. After this brief mention of the homework assignment, Mr. Linnebeer intro‐ duces the target task of this lesson as follows: Now, what I would like you to do at the beginning is, since we couldn’t finish the jigsaw last Thursday and you only DISCUSSED about the U.S. electoral system, I would like you to sketch a diagram of the four stages of election, also of the Electoral College, to make sure everybody has got something in his or her folder and not only a comment online. So, you can use arrows, for example, you can start with the primaries, then Super Tuesday, uhm then the Election Day, then the Inauguration. Use some arrows between these four stages, and on the right-hand side of these terms, you can just write down two or three notes, so that you know what primaries are, what Super Tuesday is, and how, uhm, the Electoral College—that’s supposed to be on the right-hand side of the Election Day, of course—how the Electoral College works. So that everybody has got something in his or her folder. I give you 15 minutes for that now. You can browse the Internet. You can use the Moodle platform to find the information which is needed for that exercise. (.) Is that understood? Excerpt 10.18: Classroom video-recording, Mr. Linnebeer. [2012-09-20_vr_FL_seq136] At this point, the students had already dealt with the electoral system in two previous double lessons: They first watched and discussed an explainer video, and, in the previously analyzed lesson, they completed a combined web-research and jigsaw-puzzle task (cf. this course’s project overview, 10.1). Still, the teacher does not explicitly take up these outcomes in this task but instead instructs 368 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="369"?> 48 LMS course section 3 (‘The electoral system’), activity 6 (‘Group work: Individual stages of the election’) in the LMS curriculum(see Table 5.3, for an overview). learners to engage in yet another web-research. Neither does he announce in what form the research findings are to be collected and discussed. An alternative task approach could have involved extending the previous jigsaw task by interviewing students as experts on their assigned election phases and reviewing contributions from the glossary and forum assigned as homework. Indeed, the LMS course section provides a dedicated forum for this purpose (‘Stages of the election summed up’), 48 where students could have posted their findings in a structured manner. What is more, the proposed resources for this task are described vaguely and essentially include the Internet in general and the LMS, notably without further specifications. Consequently, several learners have difficulty drawing on their prior findings to solve this current task. If the students really are to engage in a new research on all phases of the electoral system, then the proposed time limit of 15 minutes seems insufficient. Mr. Linnebeer assesses the linguistic, content-related, and intercultural diffi‐ culty level of this task cycle as highly challenging, so he modified his original lesson plan to allow more time for the task phase and attaining the task objective, a detailed understanding of the election campaign phases and a written record thereof. All in all, the consolidation phase we did as a class discussion required a lot more time than expected, but (.) in this way, I could at least ensure all students now have an idea of these (.) four stages and also of the Electoral College, and I think now (.) we can say every (.) student has understood how the election in the USA works. Excerpt 10.19: Oral commentary, Mr. Linnebeer. [2012-09-20_tc_FL_seq5, transl.] As alluded to above, another aspect invariably emerging from both focal tasks’ implementation is how the teacher frequently underestimated the time require‐ ments for implementing technology-enhanced tasks in this project. Although he mentions, in his course, the project was realized under time pressure due to competing curricular requirements and the set time frame between the school holidays and the election (cf. section 10.2), the classroom observation supports the conclusion that Mr. Linnebeer’s general lack of classroom experience involving technology-enhanced tasks has contributed to this outcome and the teacher’s misjudgment. 369 10.4 ‘The electoral system—individual steps’ <?page no="370"?> 10.4.3 Focal student: Justus Justus, the focal student of this lesson, describes himself as an avid digital media user: He owns a smartphone [2012-09-20_si_JS_seq46] and uses it regularly for communicating via text and email [ibid., seq70], socializing and connecting to friends on social media [ibid., seq72], and accessing news websites [ibid.]. In addition, he likes to play online games on the computer, especially sports manager simulations [ibid.]. During the first lesson, right after being introduced to the LMS by the teacher and registering his user account, he immediately exhibits exploratory and playful use of the platform. For example, he sends his teacher a private message, which pops up on the projected screen and causes amusement among the class. Referring to this incident in a retrospective interview, he states he could orientate himself quite well on the LMS interface right away [ibid., seq60] and, expressing his awareness of the platform’s social affordances, he recognized the ‘online users’ side block and saw Mr. Linnebeer’s name there, prompting him and a co-learner to jokingly message their teacher [ibid., seq62]. Recalling the focal task later during the same day, Justus provides the following account of the task objectives: Yes, and then (3) we started our computers, went to the platform of U.S. Election-eXplorarium, and there we were supposed to look for information about the important days in the U.S. elections, the pre-elections, Super Tuesday, Election Day, and the Inauguration. Excerpt 10.20: Retrospective interview, Justus. [2012-09-20_si_JS_seq12, transl.] Justus’s and his seat neighbor Kai’s actual behavior during the task phase, however, reveals considerable confusion among them as they seem unsure of the task procedures and its objectives upon Mr. Linnebeer’s instructions. Justus and the students sitting near him are seen discussing what they are supposed to do: 1 Kai: Are we now supposed to do something (unintelligible) on the respective (unintelligible), you know what I mean? That thing there. 2 Justus: Draw a diagram like this, I think. ((Then he goes back to the page before, which is the glossary page again, and clicks on the ‘undo’ button once more so that the overview of 370 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="371"?> the electoral systems opens. Again, he scrolls up and down quickly.)) 3 Kai: Drawing. 4 Justus: Yes. 5 Kai: And what should we then/ About what? 6 Justus: About the elections. So, Super Tuesday and/ ((He moves the cursor over the calendar.) 7 Kai: And what should this look like? 8 Justus: Yes, um. That’s a good question. ((He clicks on the button on the top-right corner of the calendar to go from September to October 2012. Then clicks on the top right button again to get to November 2012.)) 9 Meike: Yes, which question exactly should we look for? 10 Justus: No, we should just/ 11 Meike: Or generally about the system? 12 Justus: Mh? 13 Meike: Generally, about the system? 14 Justus: No, just these days, what’s happening there, and so on. ((Moves the cursor to the calendar side block, which displays the month of November. Places the cursor over the high‐ lighted days of November 2012, viewing their ‘titles’ appear as mouse-over pop-ups.)) 15 Meike: Yeah, okay. But for all [dates], right? So not just about OUR group. 16 Kai: Man, why isn’t the task a little bit better? ! Excerpt 10.21: Screen capture, Justus and co-learners. [2012-09-20_sc_JS_seq141-56, transl. It appears in the video data of this lesson that the imprecisions and omissions in Mr. Linnebeer’s task instructions described above, as well as the lack of technological monitoring and scaffolding, especially in the initial phase of the task performance, are directly mirrored in the confused behavior by several learners. During the lesson itself, Justus and his seating partner Kai are seen discussing and clarifying the supposed task procedures and objectives, even at times complaining about the task’s unclear character [2012-09-20_sc_JS_seq141-56, seq246-50, seq265-6]. In the retrospective interview, Justus confirms this repeatedly as he criticizes the poor instructions provided initially. Only after Mr. Linnebeer eventually types the task 371 10.4 ‘The electoral system—individual steps’ <?page no="372"?> instructions and projects a blank version of the diagram, which the students are supposed to complete, to the smartboard, does Justus understand the task objective and begins to engage in the actual task procedure: Yes, in the beginning, it was a bit slow because I didn’t know exactly what the task instruction was. Then Mr. [Linnebeer] wrote it down again in the Word document, and only then did everyone know what the task was actually about. Excerpt 10.22: Retrospective interview, Justus. [2012-09-20_si_JS_seq36] Justus also argues, had he been the teacher, he would have made sure to give students the task instructions in writing and the task instructions should have been projected onto the wall as a visual scaffold right from the start in order to establish clarity of key task implementation parameters [ibid., seq76]. However, similar to this study’s previous two cases, Justus and his co-learners experience frequent technical problems preventing them from completing the technology-enhanced tasks according to plan. As during this course’s preceding project lesson, the students cannot access any video content on their computers because of the school’s web filter [2012-09-20_sc_JS_seq199]. Notably, this issue has been occurring since the start of the project at this school, yet neither is the school’s IT administrator able to solve this issue nor does Mr. Linnebeer react to this expectable issue by modifying the task resources or instructions—to the growing frustration of Justus and Kai during the lesson. This aspect also draws harsh criticism from other students in the class. Jonas, for example, argues in his learning journal that this technical issue significantly reduces the task’s linguistic and educational affordances and, given the predictability of its occurrence, concludes that both the teacher and the IT administrator should take appropriate measures before the task’s implementation: I find it problematic that we are supposed to learn with the platform, but our school blocks important content such as YouTube videos or other sites. I think the videos are very important because you hear perfect English, and the voting system, for example, is explained vividly with pictures and examples! And then we’re simply told to use other sources of information. I think it would make sense here if the school would allow such pages for the lesson or if the teachers themselves could unblock them for a certain time. Excerpt 10.23: Learning journal, Jonas. [2012-09-20_lj_JS_seq5, transl.] 372 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="373"?> In addition, the school’s web filter prevents some students from completing their LMS registration because their email accounts are blocked. Already during the first project lesson days before this focal lesson, several students fail to register online due to this issue. Even as some of them try to use their smartphones instead to access the confirmation email, the missing Wi-Fi and mobile data reception inside the school building present an insurmountable obstacle [2012-09-11_vr]. As it appears now, Kai has not managed to complete this step at home and is interrupting Justus’s task performance to borrow his smartphone to register on the LMS [cf. 2012-09-20_si_JS_seq48]. How disruptive and distracting these learner interactions are becomes apparent in the transcript of the task performance: During the task phase, which lasts roughly 32 minutes overall, 60 turns can be identified in which Kai and Justus discuss this issue (i.e., how to register, whether the registration email has been retrieved, how fast mobile reception is in the computer lab, etc.) and they occur almost throughout the entire duration of the task phase, from two minutes after Mr. Linnebeer launches the task until four minutes before the report phase [2012-09-20_sc_JS_seq163-304]. Timewise, these turns make up 11 minutes and 35 seconds, or over one-third, of the task phase. Justus states retrospectively he would welcome Wi-Fi availability in all classrooms so students could use mobile devices in class, such as for accessing quick references or resources in regular face-to-face classroom settings outside the computer lab, but as he says, “usually, cell phones or media are taboo” [2012-09-20_si_JS_seq54]. In terms of task procedures and online resources, Justus describes his task performance as follows: 1 Kaliampos: What did you do first? 2 Justus: Then I went to, um, to the platform in our course to ‘The Electoral System.’ And then there were, I think it was called ‘Resources’ in this Task 2 and there were just to for every/ you could click on a link for each day and then there were different sources you could access. Unfortunately, the videos that you were supposed to watch did not work. 3 Kaliampos: The YouTube videos were blocked. 4 Justus: Right, because of the school filter. And yes, but then I went to the Wikipedia pages listed below or to these (.) pages for children because I think they do a better job at explaining ((laughs)). Excerpt 10.24: Retrospective interview, Justus. [2012-09-20_si_JPP_seq15-8, transl.] 373 10.4 ‘The electoral system—individual steps’ <?page no="374"?> During the task phase, he is first seen clicking through the LMS calendar and hovering the mouse cursor over the highlighted key dates of the election campaign, possibly expecting to find further annotations or other information on these dates [2012-09-20_sc_JS_seq146]. He then launches Microsoft Word [ibid., seq173], presumably to take notes, adds the headline “The US Election 2012” [ibid, seq177], but later closes it again as he decides to take notes by hand [ibid, seq212]. From there, he navigates to the LMS course section ‘The Electoral System’ with pop-up resource pages for the individual election campaign phases also used during the preceding lesson, yet all video contents are disabled by the school’s web filter [ibid, seq199]. From these resources, he selects the English Wikipedia entry on ‘Super Tuesday’ [ibid, seq210], which he also later accesses in German [ibid, seq268]. However, after reading part of the article, he decides to access the website intended for children, ‘Ben’s Guide to U.S. Government for Kids,’ and reads through the subpages about the primary elections [ibid, seq212], Election Day [ibid, seq288], and the Electoral College [ibid, seq306], because he found their content easier to comprehend [2012-09-20_si_JS_seq18-20]. While reading the last of these articles, he opens an additional tab to access the online dictionary leo.org, where he looks up the German meaning of ‘particular’ [2012-09-20_sc_JS_seq306]. As Mr. Linnebeer ends the task phase, Justus closes all browser tabs except the LMS course page [ibid., seq318]. The picture emerging from this observation is that, similar to the preceding case on the web-research task ‘The candidates and their spouses’ (cf. chapter 9), the students in Mr. Linnebeer’s class often multitask during technology-en‐ hanced tasks. This corresponds with the complexity of web-research tasks (i.e., the task structure) and the complexity of the online resources proposed by the task instructions or accessed by the students. An example of this is described above in the interactions between Kai and Justus, which continue almost throughout the entire task phase with Justus handling the classroom task and providing technical assistance to his co-learner in a nearly simulta‐ neous fashion. Another telling sequence occurs early in the task report phase (c. 00: 58: 00-01: 00: 00). Here Mr. Linnebeer is collecting the students’ research findings by discussing them orally and typing them into a Word document projected onto the whiteboard. The students are seen taking notes on paper and electronically. At the same time, Justus has two tabs opened in his Internet browser, one with the LMS course page and another with the LMS calendar in which key dates of the election campaign are highlighted as they are being discussed in class. He opens a third tab to access the online dictionary leo.org and look up the past participle ‘held’ [2012-09-20_sc_JS_seq336, 341, 345]. This is briefly interrupted by an unintelligible exchange with Kai [ibid., seq351]. 374 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="375"?> Justus then quickly shifts his attention back to the classroom discourse, raises his hand [ibid., seq354], and asks a question about the significance of the primary elections for the nomination outcome. Sequences like this point to the many ways in which students incidentally switch between different tasks, activities, and skills, between tabs and windows on their screens, between private and public interactions, and between different languages—both in their oral interactions and their on-screen actions. This form of multitasking is characterized by varying but interrelated degrees of simultaneity, complexity, and tempo (Källermark Haya, 2015, pp. 120-1). Thus, the increase in sequencing and tempo of actions, which seems typical of blended learning during this school project, could be interpreted as leading to a broader yet also more superficial penetration of the subject matter because less time is spent on individual actions or resources. However, an alternative understanding views this as a new mode of reading online in a foreign language. In this present example, like in the preceding two cases, such online reading is multimodal (i.e., different media which use different communication channels are accessed), multior translingual (i.e., learners engage in interaction in different languages, translating words or phrases, mediating cultural content), integrative or interactive (i.e., in the sense that learners do not merely read but also take notes, engage in oral interaction at the computer, copy and paste information), and sometimes interpersonal or social (i.e., learners can post comments, interact face-to-face about their online contributions). 10.4.4 Task report phase After roughly 32 minutes of web-research, Mr. Linnebeer ends the task phase by prompting students to volunteer reading out their results about the different phases of the election process: Mr. Linnebeer: [to the whole class] Okay, let’s collect some results. (.) What can you tell me about primaries? Or caucuses? About the pre-election. ((Sits down to type up notes based on the students’ commentaries on each of the issues.)) Excerpt 10.25: Classroom video-recording, Mr. Linnebeer. [2012-09-20_vr_FL_seq317] Essentially, the teacher proposes an approach of teacher-fronted, face-to-face classroom discourse in a plenary mode. In terms of the discourse structure, this phase, almost without exception, follows the triadic initiation-response-feed‐ 375 10.4 ‘The electoral system—individual steps’ <?page no="376"?> back pattern in which Mr. Linnebeer initiates the discourse, nominates students to speak, and evaluates their contributions. He simultaneously types the re‐ sponses into a projected Word file, while multiple students are seen taking notes. This procedure leads to frequent pauses, potential moments of task disengagement, as the teacher reformulates or shortens student contributions (Dooly, 2011; cf. section 3.6). As noted in the context of Mr. Linnebeer’s task implementation decisions (cf. section 10.4.2), this procedure ignores the availability of the dedicated forum for collecting and consolidating the students’ findings in the respective LMS section. Such a forum could have facilitated a collaborative and student-driven approach by allowing them to post their findings simultaneously and on their own. Instead, several students perceive this task phase as monotonous and ineffective. This perception is highlighted when Emma remarks in her learning journal, she was bored by the task’s superficial focus on the subject matter: I didn’t like the last lesson: we should define terms like Super Tuesday. To my mind, a rather dull, boring task, each of us copied a definition from Wikipedia (as we had hardly any prior knowledge). Excerpt 10.26: Learning journal, Emma. [2012-09-20_lj_ES_seq4, transl.] Similar to Justus’s criticism mentioned above on the report phase’s extended duration [2012-09-20_si_JS_seq36], Emma goes on to criticize the teacher’s procedure during this phase and suggests a collaborative forum as an alternative, more effective solution: It took forever for Mr. [Linnebeer] to collect everything in the front. In my opinion, an unnecessary amount of time. We could have simply collected the individual entries in a forum. Excerpt 10.27: Learning journal, Emma. [2012-09-20_lj_ES_seq4, transl.] Her co-learner Jonas shares this impression and highlights in his learning journal that Mr. Linnebeer’s approach neglected multiple technological affor‐ dances which could have been exploited easily with the help of the LMS and the word processing software, including the distribution of materials and information: 376 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="377"?> What I didn’t like that much was when he finished writing, he immediately changed the screen, and I couldn’t write down the problems. Also, I don’t think everybody took notes, so I think it would make more sense here if he would simply email the document to everyone after the lesson or copy it for everyone. Then everybody would have the same and could study with it! Excerpt 10.28: Learning journal, Jonas. [2012-09-20_lj_JS_seq9, transl.] These student accounts of the task report phase and the whole task cycle, respectively, reflect a perceived incongruence between task objectives on the one hand and proposed task procedures and use of digital technologies on the other hand. They perceive this implementation as a problematic translation of a technology-enhanced task into an analog face-to-face setting because the process of collecting the research findings is done in lockstep, emulating the use of the analog chalkboard with digital technology. This, however, ignores the available affordances that could have been effectively harnessed in this phase, especially those of social interaction and reciprocity (e.g., a forum discussion and collaboration, providing feedback through comments), multimodality (e.g., adding diagrams, images, and videos in order to describe the dates or phases of the election more comprehensibly), intertextuality (e.g., adding links to indicate sources of information, providing background information), and interactivity (e.g., sharing and distributing files like the teacher’s Word document and other online content for download). 10.5 Discussion and summary Consistent with the structure of the two previous case analyses, this case closes with a summary and discussion of the major thematic clusters emerging from the multimodal and exploratory case analysis of the task-as-workplan, teacher intentions, as well as connected task performances and task perceptions by focal learners (i.e., the task-in-process and task-as-outcomes). In so doing, this section again adopts the framework for technology-enhanced task design and analysis (Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2017), which assesses tasks as they relate to pedagogy, implementation and structure, technology integration, and ICC learning. Accordingly, tasks can support learning if they adequately involve and challenge learners. Statements by both focal learners and their peers in retro‐ spective interviews and learning journals suggest that the content focus on the 377 10.5 Discussion and summary <?page no="378"?> U.S. election meets student interest. The associated vocabulary is understood as a helpful component considering the overall goals and outcomes of the school project. This positive affective response, the introspective data suggest, partially derives from the perceived authenticity and currency of the topic—a highly significant political issue unfolding in real-time as the students engage in the discourse about it. This observation is mostly consistent with learner perceptions in the previous two cases (cf. chapters 8 and 9) and the survey findings on the participants’ motivation and expectations regarding their project participation (cf. section 6.1.1). This is coupled with an overriding focus on meaning—that is, gaining a differentiated understanding of how Americans elect their president. As students learn the foundational vocabulary and specialized terminology associated with this field, they are also enabled to participate in this public discourse. Both tasks-as-workplan involve a communicative focus as learners are in‐ tended to increasingly exchange ideas and opinions about this topic, drawing on informal and partly colloquial linguistic resources in the forum discussion. However, during the implementation, a frequently isolated focus on form causes student-teacher interaction to dominate the classroom discourse rather than student-student interaction. The glossary (cf. sections 10.3.3 and 10.3.4) and the web-research task (cf. sections 10.4.3 and 10.4.4) promote limited collaboration and negotiation of meaning. They both fail to incorporate key principles of Web 2.0 technologies: networked collective intelligence and online collaboration. Instead, many glossary entries and forum posts remain atomized contributions, with only a few exceptions. Both tasks led to lockstep, teacher-fronted report phases in which individual students stated their findings in a linear fashion. Likewise, as Emma aptly stated, both tasks primarily focus on declarative knowledge, which promoted a copy-and-paste approach by several learners. In this sense, both tasks have a closed structure allowing very little choice of media and resources, especially in sequences where technical glitches prevent them from realizing the originally envisioned affordances of the tasks. Secondly, according to Kurek’s and Müller-Hartmann’s (2017) model, tasks must be clearly structured and communicated. This parameter strongly depends on the teacher’s experience and competencies regarding the implementation of technology-enhanced approaches—their technological, pedagogical, and con‐ tent knowledge or TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2009)—as well as the structure and quality of the instructional interactions and materials, including the didactic interaction structure of the LMS. Both focal tasks were introduced by the teacher with unclear or even missing instructions of essential task procedures, objec‐ tives, and required technology use. The instructional move of ‘show-and-tell’ 378 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="379"?> while using a real-time projection of the LMS, which was frequently observed in the first case’s analysis (cf. section 8.3.3), or the use of detailed written task instructions observed in the second case (cf. sections 9.2.1 and 9.2.2), are missing here almost completely. Consequently, students’ task engagement, their on-task time, was dominated by the negotiation of even basic task procedures in the initial phases of both focal tasks. In terms of balancing task demands and task support, the task performances of both Emma and Justus have vividly demonstrated that unguided web-research activities and the use of authentic, unenhanced resources almost certainly overwhelm learners, especially when addressing culturally distant and complex issues like in the present case. Both Emma and Justus report in the retrospective interview and their learning journals how linguistic and intercultural demands frequently exceeded their current proficiency levels. Thus, without a learner-adequate selection and modification of materials and performance-oriented, granulated scaffolding, the initially reported high learner motivation promoted by the subject matter and the technical implementation could be easily jeopardized. Furthermore, the integration of technology and TBLT changes the very nature of tasks and our understanding of them (cf. section 3.4.1), with learners engaging in different activities in technology-enhanced contexts than in face-to-face TBLT. The example of Justus’s constantly interrupted task performance (cf. section 10.4.3) has illustrated an issue emerging as typical across all task performances in all three cases, albeit to varying degrees: Faced with technology-enhanced tasks and the various affordances the technology introduces to the activity system of classroom-situated EFL learning, students invariably multitask. Within the same task performance, they engage in multiple actions in fast succession or, at times, even simultaneously. In Justus’s case (cf. section 10.4.3), these included self-initiated technology use to resolve lan‐ guage-related episodes, for example, by consulting online dictionaries, reading and accessing German and English language resources side-by-side, and looking up encyclopedia entries on unfamiliar concepts. Likewise, students switch between different language skills, for instance, as they take notes on what they read and copy and paste information from websites into Word documents. They also alternate between first and second language and between different modalities, as mentioned above, to resolve language-related episodes, but also to check their comprehension of the subject matter and intercultural differences. This observation highlights the multimodality and non-linearity of online reading procedures and demonstrates that learners increasingly individualize their reading process online. However, at the same time, this creates new task demands, which call for adequate scaffolding and learner training. 379 10.5 Discussion and summary <?page no="380"?> The criterion of task sequencing is discussed in this case in the context of technology and tasks as the problematic integration of face-to-face and online modes emerged as a thematic cluster from the implementation of both focal tasks. The integration of these modes represents the second parameter in Neumeier’s (2005) blended learning evaluation framework (cf. section 5.5.2). This integration hinges on the sequencing of modes and their level of integra‐ tion, which refers to whether individual components are set as compulsory parts of the curriculum or task cycle. The latter parameter, integration of modes, emerged as problematic in this present case (cf. section 10.4.2). Despite announcing that the online homework assignment, a forum discussion on the electoral system, is compulsory, Mr. Linnebeer makes no reference to that effect in the subsequent lesson, neither do students receive feedback on their contributions. Similarly, Internet connectivity issues prevent students from accessing the LMS and performing the glossary task online (cf. sections 10.3.2 and 10.3.3). This example shows that integrating both modes goes beyond the mere sequencing of online and face-to-face activities. For learners to perceive a task as relevant, it must be communicated as compulsory and, consequently, be integrated into their face-to-face classroom work, for instance, by providing room for the analysis and reflection of learner texts and CMC, highlighting its relevance towards classroom-based assessment, and the implementation into meaningful task sequences or the syllabus as a whole. To be successful, learners must perceive a sense of commitment to both modes, so what they do online becomes relevant in the classroom and worth engaging in. Regarding the broader relationship between technology and tasks, this case demonstrates that an essential condition for a task’s effective implementation is that learners generally perceive task objectives, suggested procedures and technology use, and the emerging affordances (technological, educational, social, linguistic, and others) as congruent. If learners do not understand why a specific tool should be used for a particular task and how its affordances can support task performance and language learning, they may resist the task objectives or adopt a mere survival orientation rather than an achievement orientation (Breen, 1987; cf. section 2.3.1). Alternatively, they may change or adapt the task and technology use in ways that better align with their perception of the task objectives and their appraisal of available affordances (Dooly, 2018; Gourlay, 2005; Knight et al., 2017; Reinhardt, 2018; cf. section 3.6). Furthermore, this case is consistent with the hypothesis cited in the context of formal and informal language learning with CALL tasks (cf. section 3.3.3): Tasks can render the various affordances of specific technological tools useless, especially in terms of facilitating learner agency, if they impose overly rigid regulations on 380 10 Case 3: ‘The electoral system’ <?page no="381"?> the task process or the choice and use of technology. Clearly, learner agency and self-regulation, both considered integral affordances of Web 2.0, are stifled by technical obstacles and task designs and implementation procedures that deny learners the necessary space to customize their learning environments and task procedures. Finally, the two focal lessons have presented significant task demands in terms of intercultural learning and multiliteracies. These stem from the overall content focus on a foreign political system and unenhanced, authentic online resources. The complexity of the subject matter and the linguistic and intercul‐ tural demands of authentic materials can easily overwhelm students, outweigh their motivation to engage in a current and highly relevant political event, and thereby stifle their task engagement. Likewise, learners in this task reported that the technical orientation towards the electoral process and vocabulary in isolation significantly hampered their task motivation. As with the technical dif‐ ficulties described above, these intercultural challenges of the materials and task design direct the attention toward the imperative role of the preand post-task phases as opportunities for close monitoring, developing, and raising motivation in terms of intercultural curiosity that ideally can be sustained throughout the task cycle and beyond. It also underlines the critical role played by the teacher as a monitor of learner behavior and task performance, as someone who identifies motivational and intercultural challenges and accordingly provides fine-grained scaffolding, and as a resource of cultural knowledge. 381 10.5 Discussion and summary <?page no="383"?> 11 Synthesis and implications 11.1 Synthesis of emerging themes The focus on selected cases from the school project has helped to reconstitute the contextual connections and contiguity of the original data and the diversity of the observed instances of task performance, engagement, and learner agency. In this sense, the focus on the moment-by-moment enactment of tasks during the task-in-process from the perspective of individual focal learners has provided vivid illustrations of more abstract phenomena of their task-based activity in the classroom (Duff & Anderson, 2015; cf. section 4.6.2.4). The exploratory analysis of the three focal cases has produced a series of emergent themes related to the learners’ task perception and engagement, learner agency, the role of the teacher in implementing the tasks, the role of the task’s design and implementation parameters, and the technological mediation of these aspects (cf. Table 11.1). In order to arrive at a more abstract level of analysis and derive generalizable insights from the cases, several themes were identified as emerging from the focal cases and are subsequently synthesized and related to relevant research in the field. Specifically, these include the disruptive role of technology-induced challenges, the role of the teacher in facilitating technology-mediated tasks and curricula, as well as the structure and implementation of blended learning. The central section of this analysis addresses the learning experience in such tasks and deduces insights on the technologically, psychologically, and socially mediated nature of learner agency within this learning environment. Case 1. ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ (chapter 8) - Task instructions and teacher role in facilitating technology-mediated tasks (i.e., the technical role of the teacher in technology-mediated tasks; providing task directions; modeling online task engagement/ LMS use and outcomes; monitoring of technology use) - Modification and personalization of the online learning environment through learner-generated content - Learner-driven individualization of task focus and task demands through the provision of partially redundant resources (i.e., learners’ self-directed choice of learning materials and difficulty level) - Reciprocity in online collaborative task engagement and face-to-face collaboration at the computer - Disruptive effects of technological problems (i.e., web-connectivity issues) on learners’ task engagement <?page no="384"?> - Perceived fit between task objectives and procedures/ proposed media use and affordances as perceived by the learners - Focus on linguistic accuracy in CMC (e.g., forum) and corrective feedback during classroom discourse - Demands (linguistic/ cultural) of unenhanced, authentic input Case 2. ‘An interview with the candidates and their spouses’ (chapter 9) - Task-instructions and teacher role in facilitating technology-mediated tasks (see above) - Learner choice and agency in open-ended web-research tasks (i.e., learner choice of task resources; learning strategies in online reading tasks; differential task performance and outcomes) - Relevance of extramurally acquired digital literacy skills for classroom-based EFL learning practices (i.e., bridging formal and informal digital L2 practices; learner-initiated social media use for task accomplishment) - Integration of face-to-face and online task components (i.e., relevance of tech‐ nology-mediated practices for face-to-face task components) - Web 2.0 and social media in technology-mediated tasks (i.e., lack of class‐ room-based experience involving Web 2.0; cognitive, intercultural, linguistic, and intercultural affordances of social media) Case 3. ‘The electoral system—Individual steps’ (chapter 10) - Teacher role in technology-mediated tasks (i.e., technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge/ TPACK; lack of experience and conceptual knowledge in fa‐ cilitating technology-mediated tasks; de-tasking tasks due to inadequate response to technical problems; teacher attitudes and beliefs) - Multitasking during task performance (i.e., between official and private discourse; multiple resources, browser tabs; code-switching) - Integration of face-to-face and online modes in blended learning (i.e., low relevancy of online practices for classroom-based procedures and assessment; sequencing of modes during task cycle) - Correspondence of tool affordances and task objectives - Disruptive effects of technological problems (i.e., web-connectivity issues; school web-filtering system) Table 11.1: Emerging themes from the focal case analyses (cf. chapters 8-10). 11.1.1 Technology-induced challenges Although the technical infrastructure on-site can hardly be predicted from the perspective of the project designers or influenced by the course teachers, this is a parameter frequently impacting all stages of a task, from the workplan to processes and outcomes. First, the study’s quantitative survey data reflect almost universal access to computers at home and school, as long as general access to any computer or comparable device is meant—which, however, could mask significant qualitative differences and access gaps among students and 384 11 Synthesis and implications <?page no="385"?> between surveyed schools. Notably, as discussed before (cf. section 6.1.2), this may include multiple layers of the digital divide and the type of device available. In most participating schools, access to computers meant a computer lab with stationary computers, but not mobile devices or wireless Internet connection (ibid.). Second, usability emerged as the single most frequently criticized aspect of the LMS in the student survey (cf. sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.3). This must be contextualized with the fact that the blended learning project in most surveyed schools represented a pedagogical intervention as most participants had not used the LMS Moodle before. The short time frame for the project’s implementation during the school year, roughly between August and October, coupled with competing curricular demands besides the school project, limited available opportunities for learner training. This is even though students, based on their reported frequent online activity in leisure contexts, were assumed to be used to navigating online platforms whose user experience and navigational structure are designed to be as intuitive as possible by relying on learned usability conventions, thus reducing the need for pre-emptive user training. Third, the surveyed teachers frequently expressed concerns their schools’ technical infrastructure may be inadequate to facilitate a seamless project implementation (cf. section 6.2.1). Fourth, technological problems like connectivity issues, inadequate access to devices, and usability, amongst others, seriously stifle learners’ agency during the task-in-process. Reviewing the qualitative case analyses, technology-induced problems oc‐ curred throughout the project phase in all three investigated courses. In cases 1 and 3, technical issues were shown to massively impact the trajectory of the lessons and the learners’ task engagement and eventually forced teachers to modify the lessons or even abandon planned task procedures entirely. The following categories were identified in the data. 11.1.1.1 Hardware problems and Internet connectivity In case 1, poor Internet connectivity prevented Alexander from engaging in the cartoon analysis task and caused a malfunction in his web-browser (cf. section 8.3.5). The student was unable to participate in the task, although he remained cognitively highly engaged. This could be inferred from the written comments he typed but could not post to the glossary and from his oral participation during the subsequent class discussion. The student appeared visibly upset about this, thus pointing toward possible negative effects on task engagement and task motivation caused by the technical malfunction. A similarly problematic role of obstacles caused by the hardware emerged from two further episodes in case 3. Mr. Linnebeer forgot to enable the Internet connection for the student computers 385 11.1 Synthesis of emerging themes <?page no="386"?> in the computer lab and was unable to solve this issue by himself (cf. section 10.3.2). Consequently, lesson procedures could not be implemented as planned, intended affordances were denied, task engagement was reduced, and important learning goals could not be reached. In the same case, Kai did not manage to create his LMS user account and could not complete this necessary step during the lesson because the school’s web filter denied him access to his email account. Alternatively, Kai used his partner’s cell phone to no avail due to unavailable mobile reception inside the school building. Hence, Kai engaged in the task only minimally and kept distracting Justus, whose phone he was using. Justus spent approximately a third of the available task time on unrelated interactions with Kai about this situation. Connected to the issue of hardware availability and functionality, the research data point to the role played by the type of available devices. Like the vast majority of project participants, as indicated in the participant survey (cf. sections 5.5.6 and 6.2.2), the three focal courses relocated their classes partly or entirely to their schools’ computer labs during the project, with stationary computers arranged in rows and computer screens on every desk, thereby rendering face-to-face collaborative work difficult. Technology, as discussed in section 3.4.2 in the context of integrating CALL and TBLT, is not neutral—its selection and implementation are consequential for the interaction and activity which emerge from tasks (B. Smith & González-Lloret, 2020, p. 2). Likewise, the physical space of the classroom has an important yet often neglected influence on the learning activity that transpires from tasks (Legutke, 2013). Thus, the reliance on the typical ‘geography’ of the computer lab may unintentionally lead to atomized learning processes rather than supporting face-to-face collab‐ oration. At the very least, the focal cases demonstrate, the physical layout of the classroom can render the intended affordances of the blended learning approach unavailable by obstructing swift changes between online and face-to-face modes and between individual work at the computer and group work during the same lesson. A more seamless introduction of this principle, from the perspective of the technical infrastructure, would require more flexible access to digital devices and, rather than the computer lab with stationary computers, mobile devices like laptops or tablet computers and wireless Internet connection within the EFL classroom. By facilitating low-threshold access to online tools, discourses, and communities, this could also increase a sense of authenticity by reflecting more closely ‘vernacular’ or everyday domains of technology-mediated EFL participation (Reinhardt, 2018). It should be noted that access to such devices at school by itself will not lead to the emergence of the desired digital practices. Theoretical evidence 386 11 Synthesis and implications <?page no="387"?> 49 Cf. the DigitalPakt Schule by the German federal government contributing five billion Euros in the period 2019-2024, see https: / / www.digitalpaktschule.de/ . for this claim was introduced from the perspectives of ecological psychology with the concept of affordances (cf. section 3.5) and well as activity theory (cf. section 3.6). Empirical evidence was discussed in connection to the second-level (and potential third-level) digital divide, whereby attitudes, beliefs, and skills may obstruct participation in digital practices, despite physical access to the respective devices (cf. section 6.1.2). Regarding insights derived from user tracking in pedagogical research, it could be shown that the availability of features and hardware does not automatically lead to their competent use. Similarly, the aforementioned quantitative survey results elicited that teachers identify practical obstacles to technology uptake in their practice, in addition to underlying issues of technology acceptance (Davis, 1989; cf. section 6.2.2). In this regard, the large-scale International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICIL) recently found among surveyed teachers and students in 13 countries, including Germany, that providing teachers with ICT equipment without additional support does not lead to more extensive and skilled implementation (Eickelmann et al., 2019). 11.1.1.2 Software problems Even with a stable Internet connection available, multiple instances were recorded where the schools’ web-filtering systems denied learners access to necessary task resources. In particular, in case 3, the school filter prevented the students from accessing essential resources for their tasks, such as YouTube videos or websites, both those suggested in the LMS tasks and those selected by the students individually (cf. section 10.4.3). Similarly, researching background information on the role of the First Lady in the U.S. in case 2, Niklas tried to access a website about this topic, only to see the web-filter up, citing the category ‘Dating’ for blocking the respective contents. Jonas aptly criticizes this particular circumstance when he says, “we are supposed to learn with the platform, but important contents such as YouTube videos or other sites are blocked by our school” (Excerpt 10.23, cf. section 10.4.3). These episodes speak to the broader contextual factors of public schools in Germany, where initiatives for increased digitalization have only recently begun to take effect, 49 and maintenance of the IT infrastructure is often added to the workload of teachers rather than IT specialists, as in both investigated schools. In such a scenario, unintended collisions of the school’s web-filter and classroom tasks could be resolved in a flexible and timely manner, even proactively, and in 387 11.1 Synthesis of emerging themes <?page no="388"?> accordance with the participants’ learning needs. However, it should become apparent from the insights into school practice elicited in this study that the real challenge is not the financial burden of digitalization, but the didactic question of implementing technology-enhanced tasks in robust frameworks, participants’ digital literacy skills, and their attitudes and beliefs regarding the efficacy of ICT for language learning and teaching. 11.1.1.3 Usability: navigational and didactic interaction Demands pertaining to the user experience and usability of the LMS, which, as indicated in the introduction to this section, featured prominently in the participant survey, played a similarly significant role in the three focal courses, including the task performances analyzed in chapters 8 to 10. Usability issues occurred in the following forms in the data. - Misinterpretation of affordances and settings: Teachers’ and learners’ inter‐ action with the LMS frequently reflected erroneous assumptions about specific functionalities of the system. For instance, while working on the collaborative glossary task in case 3, Mr. Linnebeer initially instructed stu‐ dents to make corrections by editing each other’s entries but did not realize this feature was only available to users with the teacher role in the LMS course. During the same task, while making entries to the glossary module, learners misinterpreted the ‘keywords’ function designed to refer to aliases (e.g., plurals or alternative spellings of a concept), and instead assumed this to denote related words and concepts with a semantic relationship to the glossary entry (cf. section 10.3.4). Similarly, at one instance in case 1, Melanie appeared unaware how to submit comments to the glossary and first erroneously pressed ‘enter’ to confirm her input, waited, attributed the LMS’s inaction to a lag in the Internet connection, and only later realized she had to press a button to submit her entry. In the same case, during the task report phase (cf. section 8.3.7), Ms. Konig was puzzled as several student comments were missing in her LMS account, and was then reminded by some students that she had to refresh the page to update the activity module. - Navigation in the LMS: Especially during the early lessons of the project, participants were frequently seen searching for intended LMS functions and contents, such as LMS activities or resources needed for a particular task. In course 1, for example, Melanie reported having been unable to find the word cloud glossary during the initial project phase but felt reluctant to ask her teacher for help because, she stated, in 11 th grade, tasks are usually not spelled out in minute detail, and learners are expected to solve problems independently, thus pushing her to adopt a trial-and-error 388 11 Synthesis and implications <?page no="389"?> approach frequently. In course 3, Emma reported she found the LMS initially highly confusing and had difficulty navigating it systematically. During the focal lesson, she browsed different sections of the LMS course to find the activity she was supposed to work on. However, she acknowledges that usability here was likely a matter of habituation or getting used to the navigational structure of the LMS. In the same case, Justus agrees that the usability of the LMS is likely a matter of getting used to the platform’s structure, explaining he did not encounter significant problems but initially spent considerably more time trying to find relevant activities and resources in the course. - Log-in and access to the LMS: Across the focal courses, several instances are recorded of students unable to remember their log-in credentials, which delays or entirely obstructs their participation in LMS-based classroom tasks. In case 1, Melanie helps the student sitting next to her remember her log-in credentials. In the same case, Alexander logged out of the LMS, hoping this will solve the slow Internet connection, but then forgot his log-in details and could not immediately log back on to the LMS. In addition, Ms. Konig reports in a follow-up interview, one of her students did not manage to log-in to the LMS even once during the project. Usability was introduced in section 3.5.2 as an essential component of a system’s technological affordances, determining how well learners and teachers can use it for the intended purposes (Kirschner et al., 2004). It thus represents a necessary but not sufficient condition for effective and efficient implementation of CALL. Importantly, it is in the nature of usability that it is almost exclusively mentioned when problems or challenges occur at the level of task-in-process, whereas it becomes invisible to users when the technology can achieve the intended tasks efficiently and effectively. A CALL system that is technically capable of achieving desired tasks (i.e., utility), but not usable, may lead to user dissatisfaction and, in the most extreme case, cause users to abort tasks entirely (Kirschner et al., 2004, p. 50). This consequence was recorded in Ms. Konig’s handling of a forum activity (cf. section 8.2.3). Regarding the interaction between learners and the software, we can further distinguish the navigational interaction, which refers to the choices or settings the user can manipulate in a software, from the didactic interaction, which refers to the analysis of and response to user behavior through feedback or adaptivity (T. Schmidt & Strasser, 2018, p. 214). The examples listed above primarily reflect the first category, navigational interaction. Although such usability issues may be considered negligible on the surface, if left unaddressed, they can render the affordances and learning objectives 389 11.1 Synthesis of emerging themes <?page no="390"?> associated with technology-enhanced tasks unattainable. This inherently con‐ cerns the technological affordances of the LMS. Affordances were introduced above as possibilities for action resting on a reciprocal relationship between the properties of the object and the capabilities of the individual(s) and, furthermore, on a perception-action coupling during the task-in-process (cf. section 3.5). How, then, can this be supported in educational contexts like the investigated school project? First, through modifications in the LMS course and task design, which could adopt insights from design-based research and analysis of learners’ usability problems (Kaliampos, 2019). Common navigational problems, as well as teachers’ and learners’ recurring misinterpretations of affordances, point to ‘trouble spots’ in the LMS course where participants must be made aware of available action possibilities in their environment. Second, this can stimulate the anticipation of learner challenges and thus facilitate an a priori design and appraisal of task-internal scaffolding and implementation of ancillary functions (Kirschner et al., 2004; E. Lee & Hannafin, 2016; Priya Sharma & Hannafin, 2007). Third, in CALL research, the implementation of dedicated learner training cycles has yielded promising results (Hubbard, 2013). Learner training can foster learners’ operational and learning competence (Hubbard, 2004) and the development of needed cognitive, meta-cognitive, self-regulatory, and motivational strategies (see Würffel, 2006 for an overview and application of these categories in the context of online self-learning materials; cf. Källermark Haya, 2015). For instance, learners could be prompted in the initial phase of such blended learning projects to explore and test essential LMS functions and navigational settings through tutorial videos and gamified activities, including the use of badges, challenges, or the implementation of rallies in Moodle (Pujolá & Appel, 2020). Importantly, such support structures can be deployed adaptively by teachers, thus responding to the heterogeneity of learners’ prior knowledge and digital literacy skills, which also surfaced frequently in the LMS use during this study. And yet, learners may still reject the use of particular applications or tools if they do not perceive them as useful and aligned with their culture-of-use (Thorne, 2003). 11.1.2 Integration of online and face-to-face modes The quantitative participant survey found that the project implementation led to an overall change in established EFL classroom practices and concomitant participant roles. As outlined before (cf. section 6.3.2), this included: - an increase in collaborative group and pair work and decrease in teacher-controlled phases; 390 11 Synthesis and implications <?page no="391"?> - an increase in ICT use during EFL classes; - deeper, more direct engagement with the subject matter through the use of digital technologies; - learners evaluating their learning gains in language and subject matter higher than for digital literacy skills. The election project was initially intended and planned as a blended learning project. Despite the project’s necessary openness to modification and adaptation to the conditions on-site, it was not intended as a fully online or distance learning project to replace regular face-to-face classes, but instead as an invitation to cur‐ ricular and methodological innovation through a guided, gradual introduction of digital technology into the participants’ classrooms (cf. section 5.2). Ideally, this would be achieved by implementing the school project as complementary to current requirements rather than as an add-on to everyday classroom practices, which would bear the risk of causing detours from compulsory curricula (cf. section 5.5.1). Thus, the project syllabus was carefully aligned with curricular objectives and designed so it would be possible to connect technology-mediated tasks (e.g., online collaboration in wikis, forums, glossaries; creation and publication of digital artifacts; online research, etc.) to more traditional, analog task formats (e.g., plenary discussion, jigsaw puzzle, creating and presenting posters). The three cases have produced different examples of how teachers achieve this and what challenges arise in the process. While the teachers in cases 1 and 2 relocated their classes for one to two out of four weekly EFL lessons to the computer lab, all lessons in course 3 took place in the computer lab, away from the course’s regular classroom. One crucial criterion determining the integration of both modes involves how they are implemented at the classroom discourse level, involving the notions of the sequencing of individual modes and their integration (cf. Neumeier, 2005; section 5.5.2). At the level of classroom discourse, the teachers in the three focal cases did the following: - In case 1 (cf. chapter 8), the task cycle ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ exemplifies a fully integrated use of both online and face-to-face modes in the same task. The students in Ms. Konig’s class first engaged in the collaborative glossary activity in their computer lab and then discussed them face-to-face using the projector to display the cartoons and comments and align the learners’ attention with the focus of the class discussion. The discussion phase of this task illustrates what Hinkelman (2018, p. 135) refers to as blended technologies: As the cartoons were being projected, learners continued making contributions, which were then updated on 391 11.1 Synthesis of emerging themes <?page no="392"?> the classroom wall so it could not be determined where one mode ends and the other begins. Likewise, the discussion served to connect the oral classroom discourse to the online written discourse in the glossary as the learners and the teacher provided feedback on the meaning and form of the online comments (e.g., students stated which contributions they liked and the teacher orally provided corrective feedback on the comments), explained their rationales or intentions behind their comments (i.e., their understandings of the cartoons), and negotiated questions sparked by the online comments. The online comments thus induced face-to-face interaction, and both components were perceived as relevant parts of the class, potentially also for assessment purposes. - In case 2 (cf. chapter 9), the integration of both modes was achieved through the web-research phase in the first part of the lesson serving as the foundation for the subsequent role-playing activity. Thus, the students were initially briefed about the goal of their research, which was directly linked to eliciting information about the assigned character in the subse‐ quent role-play. How the students connected both phases and modalities became visible in the process data and retrospective comments by the three focal learners (cf. sections 9.2.3-9.2.5): First, Jan described how the use of an interactive timeline and the video content therein supported him in developing a general idea of his assigned role, Mitt Romney, including his demeanor and gestures as well as emphasized values and topics in his campaign. Second, Niklas’s performance during the role-play could be traced even more directly to his research. Using his handwritten notes during the performance, he directly incorporated statements he previously researched, even individual vocabulary items he translated online, in his performance as Ann Romney. Third, in the concluding oral reflection phase, the students commented on the fit between technology use and task-based activity, and some students, like Francesca, explained the challenge of using social media as an information source but then also stated how this medium afforded unique insights into the campaigns and the candidates. - The integration of modes was more problematic in case 3 (cf. chapter 10). Although the course had been completely relocated to the computer lab during the project, online and face-to-face activities frequently existed next to each other without adequate integration. Because of incorrect settings in the computer lab, the students had to complete the glossary task offline at first. Once the connectivity problem was resolved, the learners’ online contributions were not further addressed at the level of classroom discourse. Neither did the glossary entries induce any class discussion, nor 392 11 Synthesis and implications <?page no="393"?> did the teacher provide feedback on their form or meaning in a follow-up phase. This approach is problematic because it suggests that students will, somehow, automatically learn from their exchanges and online engagement without reflection. Regarding this last case, however, the review of CALL research on learner engagement has documented ample counter-evidence to the notion that ‘avail‐ ability = use’ ( cf. Fischer, 2007; cf. section 4.5.4), as well as the research on task engagement and interaction which clearly shows that exposure, by itself (i.e., without awareness and noticing), does not facilitate learning (cf. section 2.1.2.1). Instead, as noted in section 10.5, students must perceive that tasks or task components in both modes are relevant to or even compulsory parts of their assessment and necessary for their skills development (cf. Neumeier, 2005). To achieve this, insights from research on telecollaboration, which suggest to integrate students’ online interactions into classroom discourse, can be instruc‐ tive (O'Dowd et al., 2020). Such a post-task analysis and reflection corresponds closely to the post-task language focus in Willis’s (1996) task cycle (cf. section 2.2.2.3). For instance, it has been shown that experienced teachers in telecolla‐ boration use face-to-face sessions, inter alia, to engage students in analyzing their experiences and exchanges (Nissen, 2016). Likewise, Müller-Hartmann and O'Dowd (2017) propose teachers make learners’ online interactions and contributions part of the lesson and formative assessment through portfolio tasks in which students select work samples from their task performance to reflect on them. The role of teachers here consists in supporting students in identifying and reflecting critical incidents. Similar to Willis’s (1996) suggestion to transcribe and analyze classroom discourse during the language focus, others have proposed data-driven pedagogical interventions (Cunningham & Vyatkina, 2012, ctd. in O'Dowd et al., 2020, p. 151), thus essentially providing learners with dedicated opportunities to reflect on their discourse. Again, such a reflective focus on form in informal online interactions (e.g., in forums) could scaffold learners’ awareness of implicit genre conventions, increase their agency in these contexts, and develop self-efficacy by helping learners recognize their achievements. According to the survey data, many project participants did not accomplish this with respect to their EFL and digital literacy skill development (cf. section 6.3.1). 11.1.3 Teacher role One central factor impacted by the project participation is the role of the teacher in the classroom, according to the survey and the classroom data. The 393 11.1 Synthesis of emerging themes <?page no="394"?> survey findings suggests that participating teachers were invested in the project participation (i.e., they actively chose to participate in the school project), but were frequently skeptical of the project’s blended learning approach because of (1) their own lack of experience using this technology in the classroom, especially with regard to implementing more holistic and creative uses of ICT, (2) critical beliefs on ICT use for obtaining learning objectives related to speaking, learning strategies, and self-regulation, (3) the expected increase in planning efforts and workload (i.e., instructional planning, familiarizing oneself with and evaluating the affordances of ICT, organizational preparations such as reserving a computer lab or obtaining permissions and ethics clearance, etc.), (4) a self-perceived lack of digital skills and knowledge relative to the students (i.e., ‘digital natives’), which could be perceived as a threat to teachers’ authority in the classroom (cf. section 6.2). In terms of teacher roles in TBLT, the research literature suggests the roles of facilitator, moderator, and monitor, depending on the respective task phase (van den Branden, 2016; A. Wang, 2015; Willis, 1996; cf. section 2.2.2.3). For technology-mediated tasks, A. Wang (2015) stresses the importance of the social and technical roles during the pre-task phase. Accordingly, teachers ensure a socially open and friendly atmosphere so learners can engage in social collaboration online. Additionally, teachers are tasked with explaining the necessary technical functions for successful task engagement (i.e., issues of utility, usability, affordances, and learner fit) and ensure learners can use the technology competently and avoid technical problems. Concerning the focal cases, three very different approaches to the teacher role emerged: - In case 1, Ms. Konig felt competent in using the LMS. She was the only project teacher in the two researched schools who declined the offer of a preparatory training session for using LMS, stating she would figure out its primary functions by herself. She was also the only one of the three teachers who created and posted her own activities to the LMS course (e.g., a forum discussion task on political cartoons). In the focal lesson, she initiated the task ‘Find titles for the cartoons’ orally, relying on demonstration and direct instruction, via the projector, to model the use of the glossary module. However, her task instructions and modeling of the LMS use overlapped and caused her to frequently switch back and forth between both, which visibly confused the students. During the on-task phase, she assumed the monitor and facilitator roles, for instance, by reminding learners multiple times about formal aspects of cartoon captions, thus providing oral feedback to learners’ written contributions. Overall, she managed to integrate the online and face-to-face modes in this lesson. 394 11 Synthesis and implications <?page no="395"?> - In case 2, Ms. Pfeifer stressed the importance of adapting the project curriculum to her learner group by merging elements from multiple tasks into a single one. For the implementation of the web-research and role-play task ‘The candidates and their spouses,’ she structured the task initiation phase by multiple consecutive moves: (1) She printed handouts of the task instructions along with guiding questions, tips for resources, and useful phrases. (2) She had the instructions read aloud, provided room for students to discuss them, and additionally provided extensive oral instructions on critical elements of the task (i.e., performance, outcome, objectives, and resources). (3) She used the projector to demonstrate how to access the resources for this activity online. (4) She then went through the desk rows and let students draw their role cards. (5) She monitored the technology use and task activity and provided feedback and clarification during the on-task phase. Like her colleague in case 1, Ms. Pfeifer effectively integrated both modes by directly connecting the two task phases and modalities in the role-play and concluding the task cycle with an oral reflection about both phases. - Unlike his two colleagues, Mr. Linnebeer, in case 3, was inexperienced with teaching advanced-level students (i.e., this was the first ‘Leistungskurs’) and implementing ICT. He repeatedly stressed he struggled with the LMS use and assumed his students were more competent technology users than himself (cf. section 10.2). His task instructions, and more generally, the distinction of lesson phases appeared vague and ambiguous during the focal lesson: He presented the task instructions orally and ignored the online instructions in the LMS activity, which contradicted his. The moves of technology-mediated demonstration or handing out written instructions, which prominently figured in the first two cases, were absent here, so Mr. Linnebeer’s students spent much of their task time clarifying what they were supposed to do. Regarding the teacher’s technical role in tech‐ nology-mediated TBLT, Mr. Linnebeer was seemingly unaware of essential preparatory steps of task implementation, including granting learners Internet access in the computer lab, necessary LMS activity settings, the unresolved question of the school web-filter (i.e., either adjusting the filter or the task/ resources), or how to facilitate the report phases using the LMS. For instance, in the second lesson (cf. section 10.4.4), the students dictated Mr. Linnebeer their research findings on the electoral system in plenary mode, instead of using a collaborative format like a forum or wiki in the LMS. The students perceived this as inefficient and tedious, and only very few students participated in this interaction. Moreover, the task analysis 395 11.1 Synthesis of emerging themes <?page no="396"?> shows how the teacher progressively de-tasked the original workplan as a consequence of the cumulative effects of his unfamiliarity with the functions of the glossary module and the unavailable Internet connection. Which insights can be drawn from these cases? The focal case data stress the importance of the technical role for initiating tasks. Notably, this role extends beyond the boundaries of the pre-task phase in the classroom to also include preparations before the implementation to ensure the technology will function seamlessly during the lesson. In this regard, task instructions in blended learning are significant, both online and face-to-face, as they fundamentally structure the task process, shape the learners’ orientation towards the task, and sometimes represent the only form of teaching presence available to learners (Kurek, 2015). This study confirms findings by A. Wang (2015) and others in providing evidence of the language-guide role being eclipsed by the technical and social roles of the teacher in technology-mediated TBLT. These latter roles provide the conditions for effective task performance while technology can increasingly act as a language guide, providing learners with the means to solve language issues autonomously instead of relying on the teacher. However, it is surprising that almost no explicit focus on form and meta-lin‐ guistic reflection were found in the data during the post-task stages of the focal tasks. None of the teachers implemented a post-task focus on form phase. Yet, all three cases revealed multiple opportunities to address issues of linguistic form emerging from learners’ performances. Thus, the language-guide role was not adopted by the teachers in the three cases to the extent suggested by Willis’s (1996) task framework. Similarly, the three cases did offer ample opportunities for raising learners’ awareness about task procedures, strategies, and especially technology use. After all, the research literature identifies awareness and agency as the sine qua non in developing learner autonomy in Web 2.0-enhanced learning environments (Reinhardt, 2018; Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008; Zourou, 2012). Similarly, facilitating and scaffolding the reflection of strategy use is considered a central role for teachers during the post-task phase in TBLT (van den Branden, 2016). Lastly, teachers in this school project—as the example of Mr. Linnebeer in case 3 impressively demonstrates (cf. section 10.2)—frequently misconstrued their learners as ‘digital natives’ (cf. section 3.3.1). Teachers inexperienced in implementing technology-enhanced learning may frequently express the concern of such an approach being a face-threatening undertaking if they perceive themselves as less knowledgeable or competent in using ICT than their learners. In case 3, Mr. Linnebeer’s insecurity stems from limited experience in teaching advanced learners and his lack of personal and professional experience 396 11 Synthesis and implications <?page no="397"?> with Web 2.0 tools and social media. Asked whether he has had any concerns regarding the implementation of digital technologies, he responded candidly, “At most that [the project] could fail on MY side ((laughs))—I think the students are quite fit in this regard” [“Höchstens, dass es an MEINER Seite scheitert ((laughs))—Ich glaube, die Schüler sind da ganz fit.” 2012-09-24_ti_FL_seq14] (cf. chapter 10, esp. section 10.2). However, as all three cases illustrate, despite high motivation to engage in ICT inside and outside the classroom and a general propensity towards multimedia contents, multitasking work processes, and being ‘always-on,’ the students engaged in idiosyncratic task processes, far from being as uniform as the notion of digital natives may suggest. Furthermore, the focal task performances reflect how students struggle with information overload and practical challenges encountered in non-didacticized, online EFL environments and the LMS. Despite extensive extramural engagement with digital media (cf. section 6.1.2), this study suggests, many students may be more proficient in using these applications for leisure instead of educational purposes and are often unaware of these tools’ affordances for formal learning. This stands in stark contrast to the students’ perception as digital natives. In addition, the skills needed for effective learning with ICT in school and those for sociocultural participation in social media beyond the classroom often do not overlap. Thus, Mr. Linnebeer’s concerns may suggest a devalued role for the teacher in digital and blended learning scenarios due to learners being positioned as independent and autonomous. However, the three cases provide empirical support for the teacher’s crucial role in initiating, facilitating, and scaffolding learning processes in technology-mediated TBLT. Teachers must adapt tasks to the particular needs of their learners and equip tasks with learner-sensitive means of individualization and scaffolding. Teaching presence, which includes organizational and instructional design, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction, is pivotal in blended learning. It helps to repair social bonds and strengthen the community feeling, supports learners in channeling their social activity into cognitive task engagement, and is strongly correlated with perceived learning outcomes (Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2019, p. 54). What is more, blended learning additionally stresses the motivator and monitor roles in technology-enhanced tasks, and teachers must anticipate necessary scaffolding in blended learning more urgently than in purely analog settings (cf. Kaliampos, 2019). 397 11.1 Synthesis of emerging themes <?page no="398"?> 11.1.4 Learner agency in technology-enhanced tasks Learners’ perceptions of and engagement in technology-enhanced tasks, in this study, emerged as inherently linked to learner agency (cf. sections 2.4 and 3.6). Research into this concept in both face-to-face and technology-mediated settings, as well as formal and informal contexts, foregrounds its multidimen‐ sionality (Ahearn, 2001; Basharina, 2009; Knight et al., 2017; Mercer, 2011, 2012, 2015; Vandergriff, 2016). For instance, Ahearn (2001) theorizes, although agency is not a measurable quantity, different types of agency can be distinguished. Similarly, van Lier (2008), analyzing different exemplars of learner agency in classroom discourse, concludes there must be overt and covert dimensions of agency, potentially ranked from highly to more weakly agentic learner behavior. Vandergriff (2016) deduced indicators of varying degrees of agency in CMC, including practices of regulating one’s learning, active engagement, and seeking informal learning opportunities (cf. Knight et al., 2017). Analyzing learners’ biographical language learning narratives, Mercer (2015) identifies agency as interpersonally, temporally, and intrapersonally situated. Indeed, learner agency, as it emerged in the analyzed focal cases (cf. chapters 8-10), appears mediated by multiple factors. Understanding these relationships can advance our perception of how learner activity during the task-in-process unfolds. It may also facilitate a more nuanced understanding of the trajectories of tasks through the stages of workplan, process, and outcomes—and how deviations from planned procedures emerge. However, its mediated and situated nature clearly shows, agency is not the same as “socially unfettered free will” (Ahearn, 2001, p. 114; cf. C. Jones & Healing, 2010, p. 347; cf. section 2.4). The case analyses show how agency can emerge as independent actions by individuals or groups of learners, but also as a result of interpersonal expectations and a sense of social responsibility (cf. van Lier, 2008; Vandergriff, 2016, p. 88). As explained below, this may not only relate to participants’ constructions of each other’s roles in the classroom but as well to their constructions of implicit discourse rules and genre conventions online and in person. Also, it can be difficult, if not downright impossible, to conclude definitively whether observed learner behavior in specific situations, as derived by theoretical indicators, does represent agentic behavior because learner agency may manifest itself in covert practices, spark divergent interpretations, and not necessarily rise to the learners’ level of awareness (van Lier, 2008). At the core of this investigation lies the observation that vast differ‐ ences between teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of task-based activity emerge during the task-in-process. The relationship between task-as-workplan, task-in-process, and task-as-outcomes is not linear (cf. section 2.3). This study 398 11 Synthesis and implications <?page no="399"?> has confirmed research conducted in analog and online settings by showing how teachers frequently assume that, somehow, learners will perform tasks uniformly, successfully, and competently, with minimal variation. However, such an assumption is problematic for several reasons: - it suggests that tasks are deterministic to the extent they produce the same activity across different perspectives, students, and contexts; - it implies the notion of learners as ‘digital natives’ who somehow reflect homogeneity by virtue of their age and assumed socialization into a uniformly digitally literate generation; - it suggests that learners engage in uniform activity during technology-en‐ hanced tasks and, by extension, the same learning will result from this engagement across different learners. These assumptions neglect the interactionally co-constructed nature of the task process, falsely assume homogeneity of learners and their digital literacy skills, disregard the impact of contextual factors during performance, and negate the learners’ agency and individual task agendas. However, as Kukulska-Hulme (2012) stresses regarding technology-enhanced tasks: Teachers must be cognizant of students’ self-initiated or self-directed learning ex‐ periences and digital practices, specifically where and when they engage in them informally so as to better plan and implement pedagogical interventions that respond more closely to their life-world. (p. 8) Specifically, this study reflects how learners’ agency in technology-enhanced EFL tasks is socially, technologically, and psychologically mediated. These notions are described subsequently in more detail and are contextualized with the findings from the three focal cases. While these three categories of learner agency, for analytical purposes, are addressed separately, the data examples used to describe them reflect how technological, social, and psychological mediation frequently overlap and are contingent upon each other. Similar to the model of technological, educational, social, and linguistic affordances (cf. section 3.5.2), these types of agency emerged in this study as mutually dependent and nested. 11.1.4.1 Learner agency is technologically mediated Within the context of technology-enhanced EFL tasks, agency is impacted by the interplay of technological and other affordances in the learning environment and the learners’ ability to recognize and exploit these affordances to advance personally relevant learning objectives (cf. section 3.5, especially 3.5.2). In particular, digital technologies may significantly expand learners’ agency in the 399 11.1 Synthesis of emerging themes <?page no="400"?> foreign language by providing innovative affordances—new types of choices and opportunities for sociocultural discourse participation—previously unavailable in analog face-to-face pedagogical settings. Knight et al. (2017, p. 277) argue that enhancing agency through technology serves two purposes. Namely, it produces superior learning, since learner agency is associated with language learning success (Duff, 2012), and it has an inherent value in both formal and informal language learning contexts. In connection to the affordances of Web 2.0, it was shown how these affordances significantly extend the type and quality of learning opportunities that become available to language learners through increased user participation, openness, and network effects (Musser et al., 2007; cf. section 3.3). To name but a few prominent examples of such affordances, learners in Web 2.0 engage in multilingual and multimodal discourse and communities with low technical barriers for participation, thereby acting as ‘prosumers’ of digital content; explore new forms of collaborative authorship and knowledge construction in wikis; engage in digital self-representation and development of alternative identity conceptions in blogs; and invest in online communities on social networking sites in creative and interest-driven ways, spanning formal and informal settings (cf. section 3.3.2). Importantly, these applications—especially when used in extramural settings—emphasize learners’ agency by positioning them as individuals who increasingly take control of their learning process, more radically than previously possible in highly scripted earlier generations of CALL software (cf., e.g., T. Schmidt, 2007): In contrast to learners in the traditional classroom, networked learners can engage in extended discourse and a fuller range of discourse functions, for example, they can argue, persuade, joke, or play. In such interactions they take on new roles as coparticipants, readers and writers, and draw on multilingual and multimodal resources to mediate their participation. In short, engaging in digital practices encourages activities that allow multilinguals to express and to exercise agency. (Vandergriff, 2016, pp. 89-90) As the focal cases have demonstrated, these opportunities for exercising agency are not exclusively provided by the software or the learning environment; instead, they can be co-created by the learners themselves. Learning opportu‐ nities emerge from different types of affordances, which are nested within the learning environment and interdependent (cf. section 3.5.2). In LMS tasks such as online glossaries (e.g., the focal task in case 1, chapter 8), the technology affords the posting of comments by learners. This, in turn, may lead to the emergence of further educational, social, and linguistic affordances, including the customization of the learning environment (i.e., the glossary module) by 400 11 Synthesis and implications <?page no="401"?> the learners themselves, which ultimately can help them align the task content more closely with their experiences and perceived learning needs. Similarly, the technological affordance of uploading a diverse range of task materials representing differential linguistic or intercultural demand levels (e.g., different political cartoons), in turn, affords increased opportunities for learner choice and self-directed learning as well as individualization of tasks in heterogeneous or mixed-ability learner groups (cf. section 8.4). In this study, the technologically mediated nature of agency, especially when exercised at the level of sub-tasks and operations, could be documented in detail thanks to the methods of user tracking and screen capture of online task engage‐ ment (cf. section 4.5.4), providing clear evidence of the tasks’ transformation from theoretical workplans to situated processes and concrete outcomes. These process data of technology-mediated task performance confirm Fischer’s (2012, p. 17) observation that, through learner tracking, it is possible to elicit learners’ problem-solving strategies when using CALL software, revealing that learners often engage in disorganized, non-linear navigational practices and exploratory trial-and-error approaches during initial stages of CALL implementation. How‐ ever, once learners gain knowledge and experience using an application, they become increasingly adept at systematically deploying technology to attain language learning goals. Essentially, this observation of technology use, which is very common in the interaction between learners and CALL software, pertains to usability and navigational challenges, as discussed before (cf. section 11.1.1). Project participants mentioned usability issues in the post-participation survey as the most frequently encountered obstacles, stating they would have instead welcomed a more intuitive navigational structure similar to familiar social networking sites (cf. Excerpt 6.1 and Excerpt 6.3, section 6.3.3). However, the interviewed students’ responses confirm, usability issues often decreased after the early stages of the LMS use in their classes. In addition, as suggested by B. Smith and González-Lloret (2020) above, learner tracking can reveal how learners are frequently unaware of their technology-mediated strategies during the task-in-process and their learning outcomes in terms of digital literacy skills, especially at the level of automated operations. This is revealed through incongruities between learners’ retrospec‐ tive accounts and recordings of their task performance (Fischer, 2012, p. 24). This underlines once again the importance of developing reflective awareness of formal and informal technology use and concomitant learning strategies. This notion is also related to the survey finding of learners’ tendency to de-emphasize their learning gains regarding digital literacy skills retrospectively (e.g., using social media as information resources, using the Internet for EFL learning; cf. 401 11.1 Synthesis of emerging themes <?page no="402"?> Table 6.6, section 6.3.1)—a notion which was referred to above as the ‘informal learning paradox’ (Boud & Rooney, 2018; cf. section 6.3.1). The extent to which learners can take up technological affordances is conceptualized in the frameworks of digital and multi-literacies (Carretero et al., 2017; Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Dudeney et al., 2014), one of the central goals of the investigated school project (cf. section 5.2.4). Learners’ digital literacy skills can lead to vastly different approaches to the task-in-process. This observation was made at numerous points in this study, such as in Francesca’s strategic use of Twitter as an information source, guided by the learner’s experience of the platform’s affordances, which is contrasted by her co-learner Niklas’s adoption of an erratic approach to online searches and the selection and evaluation of online search results (cf. sections 9.2.4 and 9.2.5). Besides, this case demonstrates how the technological mediation of agency is influenced by learners’ beliefs and attitudes, namely, their perception of the usefulness and appropriateness of specific tools to solve a particular task. These perceptions may also result in learners’ resistance to technology when they clash with overly deterministic prescriptions of technology use in the task-as-workplan, thus partially denying learners the exercise of agency during the task-in-process (Dooly, 2011; Reinhardt, 2018; Zibelius, 2012). Finally, as noted above (cf. section 11.1.1), technology-induced challenges, such as hardware and web-connectivity problems, the type of devices available, the physical layout of the computer lab, in addition to issues of usability and utility, may also stifle learners’ agency during the enactment of language learning tasks. This can be true, even in cases in which learners are highly motivated to engage in tasks—as seen in the example of Alexander in case 1 (cf. section 8.3.5). Likewise, while the presence of agency may be difficult to identify unambiguously, its absence or obstruction reveals itself more clearly in such instances during the task-in-process (Vandergriff, 2016, p. 88). 11.1.4.2 Learner agency is socially mediated Similar to the technological mediation of agency, its socially mediated nature posits that technology substantially extends learners’ agency by providing increased opportunities for access to and participation in social and virtual communities, modes of self-representation and identity construction, as well as synchronous and asynchronous communication and collaboration independent of time and place. This is commonly achieved through Web 2.0 applications, for instance, social networking sites (for networking, communication, identity work), wikis (for collaborative knowledge construction), or blogs (for identity construction and self-expression), amongst others (cf. section 3.3). However, 402 11 Synthesis and implications <?page no="403"?> while social collaboration and communication are inherently encouraged, often even unavoidable in Web 2.0 platforms, this may be more difficult to achieve in designed online learning spaces. Regarding the social affordances of CALL software and LMS (cf. section 3.5.2), opportunities for incidental social collabo‐ ration and communication usually do not exist by default in online learning spaces the same way as in face-to-face classrooms. Instead, social affordances must be intentionally designed into online environments and signaled to the learners, so they will use them once the need or desire for social interaction arises during the task-in-process (Kreijns et al., 2003). Thus, there must be a reciprocal relationship between the intention to communicate or collaborate and the tools affording this. LMS should, therefore, allow or even encourage interaction between users (ibid.). At the level of LMS course design, the project’s Moodle course incorporated this through features like an ‘online users’ side block with co-learners’ avatars and profile links appearing whenever they were online, automated notifications signaling updates and new contributions to forums or message boards, or customization options for user profile pages, thereby increasing social presence in the course. Furthermore, learners may risk becoming digitally invisible if they do not adhere to essential principles of social collaboration and fail to establish social presence, for instance, by sharing information about their backgrounds, such as time constraints impacting their participation in online work (Zibelius, 2015). However, although instances of digital invisibility could be recorded in the investigated school project, such as when learners left forum discussions by simply not responding anymore, the issue was mitigated by the fact that learners met regularly in class face-to-face besides their online work. The focal cases of this study have further illustrated the affordances of malleability and reciprocity in LMS. In modifying and semiotically enriching the virtual learning environment of the LMS through learner contributions (e.g., forum posts, glossary entries, comments, document uploads, customization of learner profiles, etc.), learners actively reworked the conditions of their task performance and the environment in which the task is enacted. This user-generated source of the LMS’s contextual features is characteristic of Web 2.0 (cf. section 3.3). In case 1, learners customized their learning environment by posting cartoon captions to a glossary. This served to make student comments susceptible to appraisal by co-learners and to modify the environment of the task-in-process. This functionality affords reciprocity, as evinced by the multiple instances in which learners remix and develop each other’s cartoon captions further to collaboratively solve the task by taking cues and inspiration from one another (cf. section 8.3.6). A similar example is observed in case 3 as 403 11.1 Synthesis of emerging themes <?page no="404"?> learners engage in collaborative knowledge construction by commenting on and extending each other’s definitions of election terms and concepts (cf. section 10.3.4). Besides foregrounding reciprocity and collaborative learning processes, these cases likewise exemplify the social distribution of cognition in the EFL classroom and the dual role of output as ‘saying’ and ‘what is said,’ meaning an externalization of learner language and thought susceptible to reflection and subsequent internalization (Swain, 2000, p. 102; cf. section 2.1.2.2). In terms of collaborative learning in the context of technology-enhanced EFL tasks, there is mounting evidence that tasks in the digital world must adhere to analogous principles of collaborative learning as tasks in face-to-face settings. Positive interdependence, individual accountability, simultaneous interactions, equal participation, and group autonomy must be considered in the design and implementation of tasks (Biebighäuser, Schmidt, & Zibelius, 2012; Dooly, 2018; Zibelius, 2015; cf. section 3.6). However, while the principles remain unchanged, their implementation must be planned adequately to the online environment of the LMS—procedures like pair interaction or sharing of notes, which occur in‐ cidentally in analog classrooms, must be announced and concomitant processes spelled out when expected online (e.g., ‘Make at least three contributions to the forum,’ ‘Comment on two other glossary entries,’ ‘Update your profile page in the LMS’). At the same time, the focal cases (cf. chapters 8-10) illustrated how teachers must strike a delicate balance between providing directions detailed enough to guide collaborative processes, yet leave enough space for learners to exercise their agency, make choices about task procedures, and preserve a sense of exploration, which is key to the construct of pedagogical tasks (Legutke & Thomas, 1991). For instance, learners in case 2 reported they used face-to-face or other forms of communication, such as text messages or email, instead of those suggested by the LMS task instructions whenever other tools were perceived as more convenient or had already been established in this social context before the project participation. This ties in with the argument of pedagogical implementations of Web 2.0 and social media potentially rendering these tools’ affordances unavailable by imposing overly prescriptive limitations on the use of specific tools whose attractiveness to learners stems from these very freedoms (Reinhardt, 2018; Zourou, 2012). Overlapping with the technologically mediated nature of agency, which highlights the impact of the type of devices available in the computer lab on opportunities for social interaction, the socially mediated nature of agency— besides interaction via the computer (i.e., CMC)—emphasizes opportunities for face-to-face interaction at the computer between learners for the accomplish‐ 404 11 Synthesis and implications <?page no="405"?> ment of tasks and provision of task support. This study has confirmed research in EFL classrooms, which details how interactions between students at the computer can be the site and source of cognitive, social, and affective task engagement as well as meta-talk on linguistic as well as technology-related challenges. Focal student Francesca, in case 2, upon using Twitter successfully as a source of information for the research task on the political candidates, advises her partner, who appears struggling with her research task, to adopt a similar approach and explains to her the LMS’s affordances for solving the task at hand. Even when such interactions are done in the learners’ L1, they can trigger and facilitate negotiation processes that are channeled into task-based L2 interaction and meaningful task outcomes (Dooly, 2018; T. Schmidt, 2007). However, other learner interactions from the focal cases, such as the exchanges between Justus and Kai in case 3 (e.g., Excerpt 10.21, section 10.4.3), reflect how learner interaction at the computer may not just be task-unrelated but distract individual learners from their intended activity, thereby obstructing learner agency during the task-in-process. In addition to these functions, the physical space of the computer lab in this study, despite the potential challenge of atomized learner activity (cf. section 11.1.1), still afforded spontaneous and low-threshold opportunities for verbal interaction and social presence to complement online activity in real-time. For instance, social presence could be achieved during the task-in-process through gaze, posture, and laughter. This is noted in case 1, as Melanie and Leonie turn around to students near them to exchange feedback, validate each other’s online comments, and laugh and align their task-performances with each other (cf. section 8.4). Both gaze and laughter are understood as signs of affective task engagement and can reveal learners’ dynamically changing task orientations as well as instances of interactional modifications of the task-in-process (Egbert & Chang, 2018; Hasegawa, 2018). Online activity, thus, is directly impacted by face-to-face (inter-) action at the computer or inside the classroom, respectively. Finally, this study has demonstrated, learners’ agency in digital spaces is impacted in more subtle, implicit ways, as the task performance by Francesca in case 2 revealed (cf. section 9.2.4). Unsure whether she is allowed to use Twitter during class to solve the task, she repeatedly asks the researcher and the teacher for permission (cf. Excerpt 9.10, section 9.2.4). The student appears to construct her teacher’s view on what is and what is not permissible or adequate media use in the classroom (cf. C. Jones & Healing, 2010). Despite the open task structure in the task-as-workplan, which expressly states that learners are free to choose whichever resources they deem appropriate for the task, the task-in-process is limited by subjective perceptions of rules of interaction and behavior as well as 405 11.1 Synthesis of emerging themes <?page no="406"?> learners’ constructions of participant roles and intentions. Francesca poignantly described this experience: 1 Kaliampos: What was your impression of using this [i.e., social media] in class? That was probably unusual at first, or not? 2 Francesca: Yes, because this was always so taboo in school. Like, ‘Don’t you use Facebook or Twitter or what have you during class.’ 3 Jenny: The pages are usually also blocked. 4 Francesca: They’re usually blocked. 5 Kaliampos And now you can do everything that’s typically forbidden? 6 Francesca: Ah, at first this was a huge freedom and, like, wow! Excerpt 11.1: Retrospective interview, Francesca. [2012-11-07_si_FA-JB_seq106-11] 11.1.4.3 Learner agency is psychologically mediated As van Lier (2008) and others (e.g., Benson, 2007; Gao, 2010; Knight et al., 2017; Mercer, 2015; Vandergriff, 2016) highlight, agency is inherently linked to intentionality, volition, and strategic (i.e., reflective) behavior. In learning with technology and harnessing the affordances of technology-enhanced tasks, the role of learner strategies is of utmost relevance (cf. Würffel, 2006). Learner agency is associated with learner-initiated and learner-controlled practices for language learning and thereby supports investment and the active construction of learner identities and L2 selves (Duff, 2012; Vandergriff, 2016). Specifically, van Lier (2008) shows that agentic EFL learners initiate learning processes, formulate personal goals, seek help, attend to their own needs, and self-regulate their learning process. These motives pertain to the learner’s awareness of the learning process, reflection on learning practices, and cognitive control over one’s actions. This type of agency can be referred to as intrapersonally or psychologically mediated, respectively (Mercer, 2015). In the surveyed cases (cf. chapters 8-10), multiple manifestations of psycho‐ logically mediated agency could be identified. For instance, in case 1, focal learner Alexander experiences technical problems during his task performance. Despite being highly motivated to engage in the task, as inferred from his learning journal and his attempts to submit original comments to the glossary, the technical problems obstruct his full task engagement. However, he never‐ theless initiates multiple attempts to submit comments. Upon noticing the technical problems, the student actively seeks help from both the researcher and 406 11 Synthesis and implications <?page no="407"?> the teacher. Even after the task phase has ended with virtually no opportunity to engage in the task properly, he actively participates in the report phase, a class discussion, contributes extensive vocabulary explanations, volunteers to read out student comments, and provides feedback to co-learners (cf. section 8.3.5). In case 2, we witness how Jan’s and Francesca’s task performances are governed by systematic and strategic approaches to solving the research task on the respective presidential candidates and their spouses (cf. sections 9.2.3 and 9.2.4). Jan clearly articulates his goal for the research: to learn about Mitt Romney’s personal and professional background and prepare for the dramatic performance during the role-play. Therefore, he chose to access an interactive timeline of Romney’s biography and watch short videos of the candidate’s interviews and speeches—and instead of taking notes of biographical details, watched the videos without interruption to get an impression of the candidate’s overall demeanor and values (cf. section 9.2.3). Similarly, Francesca realizes during the task-in-process the provided materials, which listed biographical information similar to a CV, were inadequate to solve the task and clash with her goal of interrogating ‘Mitt Romney’ critically about his policies during the interview (cf. section 9.2.4). She thus abandons the Wikipedia page about Romney quickly and instead selects his and Barack Obama’s Twitter pages. As the introspective data (i.e., learning journal, retrospective interview) reveal, this strategy is guided by the student’s knowledge of and experience with the microblogging app, her emergent awareness of the discourse structure in social media, and her understanding of the different informational values of social media compared with the genre of online encyclopedias. Based on this activity, Francesca initiates further collaborative task-based discourse by suggesting her findings to her partner, Eileen, who appears to struggle with her task. In this process and during the concluding oral reflection, Francesca critically evaluates her task performance and its effectiveness. Finally, in terms of strategy use, the three cases have also produced in‐ sightful examples of students multitasking during technology-enhanced tasks. The most illustrative examples of this surfaced in the task performances of Niklas in case 2 (cf. section 9.2.5) and Justus in case 3 (cf. section 10.4.3). Multitasking is identified as a critical practice and competency of learners engaging in technology-mediated tasks (Dudeney et al., 2014; Källermark Haya, 2015; Redecker, 2009). It is characterized by simultaneity, complexity, and tempo of practices, language-related and otherwise, as learners frequently switch between windows, tabs, actions, and use of languages, in addition to engagement in discourses and contents (Källermark Haya, 2015, p. 120). Such a parallel or integrated arrangement of multiple, partially or fully overlapping 407 11.1 Synthesis of emerging themes <?page no="408"?> practices during the task-in