Tasks, affect and second language performance

Abstract

It is commonly acknowledged in the literature on tasks in second language (L2) learning that learner motivation plays a critical role in task outcomes (e.g. Breen, 1987;Ellis, 2003;Long, 2015;Robinson, 2011). The literature on the role of tasks in instructional design over the past three decades has shown that there is no simple solution to incorporating a role for the learner into task-based instruction. Proposals have varied greatly in scope from allowing learners to negotiate all aspect of the curriculum (Breen, 1987;Candlin, 1987), to designing courses based on learners' needs (Long, 2015;Robinson, 2011), to designing standard pedagogic tasks based on topics of interest to learners (Ellis, 2003;Prabhu, 1987;Yule, 1997). All of these proposals have merit on educational, psycholinguistic and pedagogic grounds, but a single programmatic solution to the affective needs of learners in the diverse range of contexts in which tasks are used in L2 instruction seems doubtful.What has emerged from the literature on the role of tasks in language learning and instructional design is that they provide important learning opportunities that might improve instruction in both ESL and EFL programs internationally. Empirical work on different ways to optimize learners' performance on tasks will be welcome to teachers and course designers who struggle to effectively incorporate tasks into their classes and programs. A critical issue for both pedagogy and research is how teachers and course designers can expediently configure and implement communication tasks to meet learners' affective needs and generate the type of personal investment that mastering the fluent use of an L2 requires.This special issue addresses the role of affect in task performance by focusing on how factors in the design and implementation of L2 tasks relate to the ways in which learners engage in meaning-focused L2 use during their performance. The issue has had a long germination. The relationship between task design and learners' willingness to put forth the effort required to do their best is a topic that has been at the heart of my own teaching and research since finishing an MA in TESOL in 1992 and taking a fulltime teaching position in Japan in 1993. On entering the language classroom full-time, I quickly realized that the primary considerations for teachers and administrators in evaluating instruction are learners' motivational intensity and affective responses. In designing communicative learning tasks, it is not only the teacher's responsibility to provide learning opportunities, but also to engage and inspire learners to do their best. Without the latter, the effectiveness of the former is compromised. In other words, engagement is a prerequisite to learning (Dörnyei, 2001).

Engagement in the Use of English and Chinese as Foreign Languages: The Role of Learner‐Generated Content in Instructional Task Design

“…Previous research on LGC tasks has not systematically addressed the possibility that increased ELU might lead to attention to meaning at the expense of attention to form . However, serendipitous findings in previous studies of L2 task engagement (e.g., Kormos & Prefontaine, ; Qui & Lo, ; see Lambert, , for a review) raise the possibility that affectively engaging tasks result in more fluent production, whereas tasks requiring learners to experiment with novel language forms result in less affective engagement. One aim of the present study is thus to explore how ELU relates to CAF through a detailed analysis of case study data.…”

“…Philp and Duchesne () have also proposed a model L2 task engagement based on work in educational psychology (e.g., Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, ), which has influenced several recent studies (Aubrey, ; Lambert, Philp, et al, ; Phung, ; Qiu & Lo, ; Stroud, ). However, none of these studies attempt to capture the broader range of variation associated with pedagogic task performance, and more detailed analyses of task performances using triangulated data sources are needed to better understand this variation (Lambert, ).…”

“…One dimension of task design that has received considerable attention in the L2 engagement literature is learners’ personal investment in task content (see Lambert, , for an overview). This work is based on Maehr's () Theory of Personal Investment in the learning process in general education.…”

“…Learners are required to discuss these generic and often fictitious topics and content regardless of the classroom situation in which they are working or the specific interlocutor(s) with whom they are working. Lambert () argues that engagement in language use (ELU) at the group level will be higher on LGC tasks than TGC tasks because the control that learners have in tailoring the content of pedagogic tasks allows them to become socially and emotionally engaged in task performance at a personal level.…”

“…THE AFFECTIVE DIMENSION OF L2 performance on tasks has begun to attract empirical attention in the L2 research literature. One dimension of this research relates to learners’ personal investment in task content (see Lambert, , for an overview). Lambert (, ; Lambert, Philp, & Nakamura, ) operationalizes Maehr's () Personal Investment Theory for task‐based L2 performance research in terms of learner‐generated content (LGC).…”