Cover not available
Part of
Usage-inspired L2 Instruction: Researched pedagogy
Edited by Andrea E. Tyler, Lourdes Ortega, Mariko Uno and Hae In Park
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 49] 2018
► pp. 187–210

Chapter 9
The role of ‘roles’ in task-design

An exploration of framing as a feature of tasks

| Hope College/Georgetown University

An important strand of research in the field of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) has aimed to better understand the variables of task-design which render different tasks more or less effective in facilitating L2 acquisition (e.g., Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993). The current study aimed to investigate an as-yet little-studied dimension of tasks, the phenomenon of framing. Framing derives from Goffman’s (1974) notion of activity frames, the idea that any stretch of human activity is organized by certain rules and principles to which people “fit their actions” including, crucially, their language. Framing thus represents a basic element of what speakers perceive as the context of a given interaction (Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2012). Framing therefore varies as the social purpose of interaction varies, which in turn should have an impact on the quality of interactions a given task yields. The study reveals that, while the particular manipulation in framing of learner’s talk featured had little effect on negotiation for meaning as traditionally measured (cf. Long, 1980), it had a marked impact on (1) the amount and quality of assistance learners provided each other in conversation, measured in co-constructions, other-corrections and continuers (Foster & Ohta, 2005), and (2) the type of questions produced, with one of the two experimental groups asking substantially more content questions, maintaining a highly argumentative dialogue. The construct of framing is thus seen as a potentially exploitable feature of task design, and one that is promising in moving TBLT closer to usage-inspired thinking about L2 instruction.

Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background: Framing
  • Study rationale and hypotheses
  • Procedure, data collection, and participants
  • Methodological background
  • Results and discussion
    • Framing and negotiation for meaning
    • Framing and assistance moves
    • Framing and content questions
  • Concluding thoughts
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 13 February 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.49.09kra
References
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P.
(1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateson, G.
(1972) Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Breen, M.
(1989) The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brooks, L.
(2009) Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Learning, 26(3), 341–366.Google Scholar
Bygate, M.
(1999) Task as context for the framing, reframing and unframing of language. System, 27, 33–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.) (2009) Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 249–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Davies, C. E.
(2018) On the relationship between interaction and language learning: A usage-based perspective grounded in interactional sociolinguistics. In A. E. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. I. Park (Eds.), Usage-inspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Pica, T.
(1986) Information gap tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 305–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1974) Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J.
(1972) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1981) The linguistic bases of communicative competence. In D. Tannen (Ed.) Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 323–334). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., & Cook-Gumperz, J.
(2012) Interactional sociolinguistics: Perspectives on intercultural communication. In C. Bratt Paulson, S. Kielsing, & E. Rangel (Eds.), The handbook of intercultural discourse and communication (pp. 63–76). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S.
(2005) Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P.
(1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S.
(2006) Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: a meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H.
(1980) Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD dissertation. UCLA, Department of Applied Linguistics and TESOL, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
(2014) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–68). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M.
(2010, September) Understanding instructed second language acquisition: constructs, contexts, and consequences. Plenary address presented at the European Second Language Association conference, Reggio Emilia, Italy.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. S.
(2001) Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J.
(1993) Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Samuda, G.
(2001) Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 119–140). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Seedhouse, P.
(2005) “Task” as a research construct. Language Learning, 55(3): 533–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P.
(1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 17 (1), 38–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D., & Wallat, C.
(1987) Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 205–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. E., & Ortega, L.
(2018) Usage-inspired L2 instruction: An emergent, researched pedagogy. In A. E. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. I. Park (Eds.), Usage-inspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar