Choices made during the technology-mediated task design process can have a range of impacts. For example, the nature of student interaction and collaboration is a fundamental consideration of task design in TBLT. In terms of TBLT in TEL environments, collaboration between learners is mediated through such means as forms of communication and technological resources. The selection of technologies will not have a neutral effect on the affordances at play in the learning process (Hampel & Hauck, 2006; Thorne, 2003). Additionally, the collaborative nature of learners working on a task generates a mutual perspective, which can have “a profound effect on how the task is performed” (Ellis, 2003, p. 190). Therefore, any framework designed to underpin TBLT in TEL contexts should address questions of learner interaction.
A further consideration as regards task design is that a key TBLT tenet posits that a holistic approach to second language acquisition through authentic, real-world tasks can drive the acquisition in an analytical process (Samuda & Bygate, 2008). By varying task features, learner proficiency and performance in the task can be affected. This has prompted considerable research into how learning can be optimised through task design manipulation (Adams & Alwi, 2014). However, much of this research has been conducted in more traditional classroom settings (Gilabert, 2007; Kim, 2009; Michel, Kuiken, & Vedder, 2007), and therefore, the impact of task design in TEL contexts has been identified as a key research area, given the possible effects on cognitive resources and language processing in technology-mediated contexts (Robinson, 2005; Skehan, 1998).
As indicated in the preceding paragraph, most research centring on the predictions of the Cognition Hypothesis has been situated in face-to-face contexts. Addressing the questions arising from the idea that in TEL contexts a key medium of communication is text chat, a study was carried out by Adams and Alwi (2014) into the effects of task- design manipulation on linguistic performance within text chat. Some researchers have argued for a possible benefit of text chat in terms of its writing nature. In other words, there is more opportunity for learners to focus on form through the more permanent nature of text chat and through re-reading and re-scrolling through messages (Fiori, 2005; Sauro, 2009). This aspect has clear links with ongoing debates surrounding TBLT, such as the teaching of form, the relative emphasis on fluency and accuracy, the relationship between tasks and improved linguistic fluency, and how work on synchronous spoken proficiency should be addressed in a TBLT framework.
Regarding notions of text chat itself, this form of communication has been labelled as a new form of literacy: one that includes features of both written and spoken language as well as its own characteristics, such as emoticons, simplified structures, more flexible lexis register and abbreviated forms (Danet & Herring, 2007). This hybrid nature of text chat as a means of language production has been identified as an area of challenge for research into second language acquisition (Adams & Alwi, 2014). In terms of being an effective means of engaging in language practice and learning, text chat has been seen in positive terms by a number of researchers (Ortega, 2009; Sauro, 2011; Smith, 2008). The reasons for this effectiveness include the opportunity for communication with L1 speakers (Blake, 2005), exposure to intercultural communicative norms (Belz & Müller–Hartmann, 2003), chances to collaborate on authentic tasks, and as a means of more self-directed study.
As a medium of communication within the TBLT approach in TEL contexts, text chat can of course be synchronous or asynchronous. Where learners are engaged in synchronous communication with the goal of completing a collaborative task, text chat in TEL contexts is often the preferred method of communication. Given such constraints as bandwidth and screen resolution compatibility (Hampel, 2010), text chat may, in many locations, be a more reliable option over video and audio communication in educational contexts (Gonzalez, 2003). However, these preferences and constraints should not mask possible concerns about the effectiveness of text-based communication in driving forward spoken proficiency in educational contexts that may allow few opportunities for synchronous oral communication.
In terms of effective language teaching and learning through TBLT in TEL contexts, the impact of task design on the effectiveness of text chat is of obvious interest. Addressing this gap in the literature, Adams and Alwi (2014) conducted a study to assess the predictions of the Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson, 2001, 2005) in task- focussed group work. The study consisted of analysing the influence of prior knowledge, which constitutes one aspect of task complexity, on English language production by engineering students (mostly Bahasa Malaysia speakers) engaged in group work. Specifically, the study aimed to investigate the effects of having prior subject knowledge on the accuracy, complexity and quantity of language production. Learners were required to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various electrical engineering software packages in order to reach consensus through text chat, focussing on which software a company should adopt. Learners with an electrical engineering background were deemed to have prior knowledge status, and learners with a chemical engineering background were deemed to be without the relevant prior knowledge.
In this study by Adams and Alwi (2014), according to the predictions of the Cognition Hypothesis, an increase in task complexity, in this case by manipulating a resource- dispersing variable through an absence of prior knowledge, language performance should, in theory, be affected in several ways. Most notably, these should constitute a decrease in complexity, fluency and accuracy. However, the results of this study did not generally bear out the predictions. In the study, the absence of prior knowledge was in fact associated with an increase in both complexity and accuracy. The study concludes that on this evidence, the Cognition Hypothesis may not be an accurate predictor of language performance in terms of task complexity when situated in a TEL context (Adams and Alwi, 2014).
Although there have only been a small number of TBLT studies based on the Cognition Hypothesis in TEL contexts, the few existing studies find little evidence to support the predictions in this area. For example, another study (Nik, 2010) looked at the resource- dispersing variable of decreasing task structure. On the one hand, in support of the Cognition Hypothesis, this study found that less accurate language was produced, but on the other hand, there was no discernible impact on complexity, thereby contradicting the Cognition Hypothesis predictions. Likewise, another study (Alwi, Adams, & Newton, 2012) concluded that increasing the complexity of a task actually resulted in fewer interactional modifications, again contradicting the predicted Cognition Hypothesis outcomes. This study also highlights the possibility that the Cognition Hypothesis may be an inappropriate theory through which to analyse this type of language production in TEL contexts (Alwi, Adams, & Newton, 2012).
The very nature of text chat as an acknowledged new medium of communication gives grounds for questioning the appropriateness of applying theories founded on traditional spoken and written language. With specific regard to text chat, it is clear that a pause occurs between the production and transmission of a message (Adams & Alwi, 2014). This obviously contrasts markedly with spoken language production in group settings, wherein production and transmission occur more or less simultaneously. Therefore, the composition of text chat offers learners the time and space in which to edit and self- correct any chat contributions, thereby leading to the conclusion that text chat transcriptions may lack form-focussed information that pertains to actual spoken language production (Smith, 2008).
Text chat itself has been identified as a potentially beneficial medium of communication in terms of second language acquisition (Belz, 2006; Lee, 2004; Toyoda & Harrison, 2002; Yilmaz, 2011). However, from a TBLT perspective in TEL contexts, it is important to note that the design of the task itself may maximise or accentuate specific areas of learning (Peterson, 2010; Stockwell, 2010). By way of example, one study indicated that the commonly used tasks of dictogloss (also known as grammar dictation) and information gap tend to focus on the development of different areas of language acquisition (Yilmaz, 2011). This TEL-based study concluded that a dictogloss task promotes a greater focus on forms than information gap activities. Likewise, when engaged in text-based discussions about linguistic forms, the context of a dictogloss task led to more linguistically focussed solutions than in information gap tasks. In other words, this adds further weight to the argument that when assessing task design in TBLT in TEL contexts, due consideration should be given to task type and likely associated impacts on language usage.
In general, research in the area of TBLT in TEL contexts has tended to focus on a single technological mode of communication such as text chat. However, some research has focused on a combination of communication tools (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007), partly in recognition of the multimodal nature of current communicative norms outside the educational context. For example, a recent study on using TEL communication tools in process writing within a TBLT framework focussed on the combined affordances of using both chats and wikis as communicative tools (Oskoz & Elola, 2014). By including two separate writing tasks addressing different essay genres, namely argumentative and expository, the study concluded that the use of synchronous chat enabled learners to work collaboratively on issues such as content and overall essay structure, whereas the use of wikis was more closely associated with more granular analysis of form and lexical choice (Oskoz & Elola, 2014).
Other findings arising from this study include further evidence to suggest that different genres of writing in TBLT may give rise to varying functions of communicative interaction. It has been noted that much research into chat-based interactions in TBLT has tended to focus exclusively on factors relating to meaning, repair mechanisms and focus-on-form (Ortega 1997, 2009; Oskoz & Elola, 2014; Sauro, 2011). However, given the underlying aims of TBLT as a means of fostering a more holistic approach to learning and collaborative knowledge construction, it can be considered axiomatic that research in TBLT should extend beyond such localised and specific factors. Again, this present study aims to address this gap in the literature by examining perceptions that extend into the holistic focus of the TBLT approach.
Such findings as these in the study by Oskoz and Elola (2014) raise a number of questions about the effectiveness of multimodal approaches to communication in TBLT. These include issues around relative affordances of different media, the influence on critical thinking, collaboration, and scaffolding within resultant zones of proximal development. For these types of question, calls have been made for more research into “the way in which modes can be combined and the way they function (e.g. in time with respect to the speed of communication over the Internet, or synchronicity/asynchronicity)” (Hampel & Hauck, 2006, p. 8).