DISCUSIÓN GENERAL

The possible benefits in the previous section concerning factors such as noticing and subsequent uptake have clear associations to a long-standing debate in TBLT regarding

the teaching and learning of grammar in any framework. In TEL contexts, the effectiveness of TBLT in terms of developing learners’ grammatical knowledge and usage has formed the basis of a number of studies.

A study involving Mexican students at the pre-intermediate level of an English language course at the National Autonomous University of Mexico focussed on learners’ perceptions of TBLT design, the efficacy of TEL resources and the effectiveness of the approach compared with traditional textbooks when addressing the learning of grammatical forms, which, in this case, involved several narrative tenses and constructions (Solares, 2014). The study, involving three groups of learners, concluded that learners perceived that the task design itself had a beneficial effect on their writing ability, with the technology-based group seeing less recourse to the TEL resources, albeit positive ones. However, in terms of the learning and production of grammatical forms, the data in the study indicated that all three groups (i.e., i) task and technology; ii) task only; and iii) textbook) made significant improvements in their performance with the target narrative tense structures. In fact, the group using traditional textbooks actually made the greatest level of improvement, albeit at a level that was considered to be not statistically significant. Interestingly, since the textbook-only group received less input and feedback as well as spent less time on in-task work, it can be argued that the traditional textbook mode using a PPP methodology was more effective in terms of improving the target structures. However, given the claims of TBLT to offer a more holistic learning experience, it can also be argued that both the task-plus-technology group and the task-only group may also have made improvements in areas such as reading, writing and communication strategies, as well as making similar gains in areas of grammatical structure (Solares, 2014).

In some ways, this study highlights some difficulties in contrasting different approaches in smaller scale studies. For example, although the three groups were initially tested to ascertain that their proficiency in the target structures was at a similar level at the outset, it should also be noted that the learners were unfamiliar with both TBLT approaches and with the specific digital resources. In addition, the textbook-only group was already familiar with a PPP-based methodology and textbook delivery. This unfamiliarity with TBLT approaches is relatively common in TBLT-based studies and may have a detrimental effect not only on learner performance in linguistic tasks, but also in areas such as engagement, motivation and levels of collaboration, as learners may spend more time in familiarising themselves with aspects such as the methodology, the software and the collaborative aspects of the task.

More significantly in this study, perhaps, is the focus on learner performance involving specific grammatical structures. This testing focus appears to be more aligned with the learning objectives of a standard PPP lesson or curriculum, whereby mastery of a step- by-step list of grammatical forms frequently provides the framework for part of the curriculum. In contrast, the more holistic focus of TBLT would not normally involve a prescriptive emphasis on specific grammatical structures for a specific task, even though certain structures may lend themselves well to the successful achievement of a more holistic and real-life objective.

Therefore, there is also an argument for ensuring that the analysis of learner performance should relate more directly to the underlying aims of the teaching approaches being investigated. In this case, the overall level of linguistic performance in terms of writing proficiency would be more aligned with the principles of TBLT as

well as other potential benefits of the collaborative TBLT process such as the transferability of communicative skills to real-world contexts. Instead, research such as this study by Solares (2014) appears to focus more on the effectiveness of TBLT as a comparator with PPP for effective progress in the acquisition of grammatical knowledge and proficiency. To some extent, these limitations are acknowledged in the study as the researcher notes that the narrow structural focus on narrative tenses alone could have been widened. Additionally, the writer points out that the use of an online blog in one learner group appeared to foster a greater sense of communal interaction which “may thus afford benefits that augment and go beyond the output hypothesis underpinning TBLT approaches” (Solares, 2014, p. 103).

The potential limitation inherent in comparing specific variables such as learner proficiency in certain grammatical structures following instruction in TBLT and other approaches raises questions about how approaches should be analysed and whether certain variables lend themselves more easily to analysis. For example, the meaningful spoken interactions between learners that underpin so much of TBLT theory have received far less analysis in TEL contexts, whereas text-based interactions, often asynchronous in nature, are much more straightforward to conduct. This suggests that studies of TBLT in TEL contexts should consider the broader aims of the TBLT approach when attempting to make comparisons across approaches or methodologies.

Returning to the Solares (2014) study, TBLT advocates might here argue that this type of analysis highlights the capacity of TBLT to provide “much greater exposure to target language… than a traditional course” (Ellis, 2009, p. 235). In this Mexican study, the task of a Story Telling Contest becomes a language input source as learners review the

stories of others in the task-centred groups. As Solares (2014) references in the study, this can be viewed as evidence for task design including some form of what Samuda and Bygate (2008) describe as 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). Given the acknowledged limitations of this study and the potentially broader scope of TBLT to foster more holistic improvements in areas not only involving linguistic performance but also technological ability and interpersonal communication, there is an argument for ensuring that more research be done that investigates these factors when analysing TBLT-based studies in TEL contexts. This also points to a gap regarding research that includes the more holistic benefits of TBLT in TEL contexts.