Task-Based Language Teaching
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is a pedagogical approach supported by second language acquisition (SLA) research.[1] SLA research demonstrates that practice does not lead to perfection and language acquisition is an organic process not directly correlated with instruction;[2] therefore, attempts to dictate language acquisition through explicit instruction on discrete linguistic elements may not have the desired results. Conversely, TBLT views language learning as being facilitated by engaging in meaningful communication in the target language. As a result, TBLT fosters learning opportunities through the completion of tasks, rather than using teaching points (e.g., grammatical forms) as the basis for instruction. The central concept in the approach, ‘task,’ has been defined in the literature in numerous ways;[3] however, core characteristics exist between definitions that act as the basis for how ‘task’ is defined in the module. These include:
The focus of planning and instruction when using a task-based approach is the task itself. As a result, all aspects of the pedagogical experience emerge from tasks, as tasks provide the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of the teaching-learning process. This differentiates TBLT from ‘task supported language teaching’, also known as PPP (presentation – practice – production), in which communication is viewed as the end in the instructional sequence to solidify previously taught linguistic features and in which the content (what) and process (how) of instruction would be determined separately.
One issue arising from the use of an approach that focuses on meaningful communication is the need to attend to accuracy and complexity in addition to fluency. In order to facilitate the development of linguistic fluency, accuracy, and complexity, scholars have postulated several approaches:
The first two approaches can be utilized with any of the materials provided on the website; however, an integrative approach has been adopted in the construction of all lessons associated with the module and topic clusters. As a result, all lessons have been designed using a pre-task/ task/ post-task sequence.
The purpose of the pre-task is to activate background knowledge, motivate learners, and prepare them for completing the task. Preparation for completing the task could involve learning vocabulary related to the task, brainstorming previously acquired language and introducing new chunks of language that could be used in completing the task, promoting awareness about linguistic features using consciousness-raising activities (refer to the ‘General Foundations’ section to learn more about the concept), providing an example of how the task could be completed, etc. In essence, the pre-task is used as a mechanism to ensure scaffolding has been embedded within the design of lessons so that learners are prepared to complete the task.
During the task completion phase of the lesson, learners should be engaged in meaningful communication using the target language. Ideally, learners should be exposed to both input-based (a task based on input provided in the form of a reading or listening) and output-based (a task requiring language production) tasks. During the completion of the task, the instructor should not intervene unless absolutely necessary and only to support learners with logistical issues, not to dictate the language used or make corrections, as this would create a focus on the language used rather than meaningful communication (remember, the focus is on using language to complete a task, rather than practicing using specific language). Conversely, the instructor should monitor student progress and make note of difficulties experienced in completing the task, in particular in relation to language usage. As much as possible, specific problematic uses of language should be recorded and used as the basis for subsequent language analysis.
The post-task is the final stage of the process. This is when learners are supported in analyzing the language used during the task, which could include explicit instruction about linguistic structures that were used incorrectly or undermined effective communication. In this way, TBLT is student-centered in that explicit grammatical instruction is based on learners’ experiences/ needs rather than pre-determined by the teacher or course syllabus. In addition to engaging in explicit instruction to support linguistic development, the post-task is also an excellent time to have students share their accomplishments and reflect upon the content of the lesson and the learning process. Although suggestions have been provided for what could be done in the post-task in all of the cluster lessons, it is up to the teacher to determine the exact composition of the post-task based on the learners in the particular context.
The literature includes a variety of tasks that can be used in the second language classroom.[7] For example, Jane Willis developed a list of tasks that she classified into six categories:
Tasks from the various categories have been utilized throughout the module and clusters. Moreover, examples of the different types of tasks have been provided under the “6 Types of Tasks” tab at the top of the website. The tasks can be printed off and utilized as designed or they can be used as models for similar context appropriate tasks to be developed. Although we have tried to develop tasks using content that would be interesting for young French learners, inevitably context plays an important role in determining what tasks will be motivating and engaging for learners. Get to know your students and be creative in designing tasks to engage your learners in meaningful communication!
Suggested Readings about TBLT
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
Ogilvie, G., & Dunn, W. (2010). Taking teacher education to task: Exploring the role of teacher education in promoting the utilization of task-based language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 14, 161-181.
Van den Branden, K. (ed.) (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M, & Norris, J. M. (eds.) (2009). Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, UK: Addison Wesley Longman.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Additional Works Cited
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (eds.), Task-based learning: Language teaching, learning and assessment (pp. 23-48). London: Longman.
Lightbown, P.M. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431-462.
Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley: Newbury House.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In G. Crookes, & S. M. Gass (eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Samuda, V. (2005). Expertise in pedagogic task design. In K. Johnson (ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching (pp. 230-254). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[1] See Ellis (2003) and Long (2015) for an elaboration on how research has informed TBLT
[2] See Lightbown and Spada (2006) and Lightbown (2000)
[3] For examples of different definitions refer to Long (1985), Prabhu (1987), Willis (1996), Skehan (1998), Ellis (2003), or Samuda (2005)
[4] See Bygate (2001)
[5] See Skehan (1998)
[6] See Willis (1996)
[7] See for example Willis (1996), Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993), or Willis and Willis (2007)
- Meaning is primary
- A communication problem or information gap exists
- Learners use their own linguistic resources to complete tasks (they are not given other people’s language to regurgitate or mandated to use particular forms)
- The desired outcome is task completion, rather than accurate usage of particular language (practicing a particular linguistic feature)
The focus of planning and instruction when using a task-based approach is the task itself. As a result, all aspects of the pedagogical experience emerge from tasks, as tasks provide the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of the teaching-learning process. This differentiates TBLT from ‘task supported language teaching’, also known as PPP (presentation – practice – production), in which communication is viewed as the end in the instructional sequence to solidify previously taught linguistic features and in which the content (what) and process (how) of instruction would be determined separately.
One issue arising from the use of an approach that focuses on meaningful communication is the need to attend to accuracy and complexity in addition to fluency. In order to facilitate the development of linguistic fluency, accuracy, and complexity, scholars have postulated several approaches:
- Task repetition – greater focus on accuracy and complexity will result from completing a task a second time[4]
- Provision of time – additional time to complete and/or prepare for a task will facilitate greater attention to the accurate and more complex use of language[5]
- An integrative approach – the use of an instructional sequence in which a focus on the accurate and complex use of language occurs in a post-task based on difficulties experienced while completing a task[6]
The first two approaches can be utilized with any of the materials provided on the website; however, an integrative approach has been adopted in the construction of all lessons associated with the module and topic clusters. As a result, all lessons have been designed using a pre-task/ task/ post-task sequence.
The purpose of the pre-task is to activate background knowledge, motivate learners, and prepare them for completing the task. Preparation for completing the task could involve learning vocabulary related to the task, brainstorming previously acquired language and introducing new chunks of language that could be used in completing the task, promoting awareness about linguistic features using consciousness-raising activities (refer to the ‘General Foundations’ section to learn more about the concept), providing an example of how the task could be completed, etc. In essence, the pre-task is used as a mechanism to ensure scaffolding has been embedded within the design of lessons so that learners are prepared to complete the task.
During the task completion phase of the lesson, learners should be engaged in meaningful communication using the target language. Ideally, learners should be exposed to both input-based (a task based on input provided in the form of a reading or listening) and output-based (a task requiring language production) tasks. During the completion of the task, the instructor should not intervene unless absolutely necessary and only to support learners with logistical issues, not to dictate the language used or make corrections, as this would create a focus on the language used rather than meaningful communication (remember, the focus is on using language to complete a task, rather than practicing using specific language). Conversely, the instructor should monitor student progress and make note of difficulties experienced in completing the task, in particular in relation to language usage. As much as possible, specific problematic uses of language should be recorded and used as the basis for subsequent language analysis.
The post-task is the final stage of the process. This is when learners are supported in analyzing the language used during the task, which could include explicit instruction about linguistic structures that were used incorrectly or undermined effective communication. In this way, TBLT is student-centered in that explicit grammatical instruction is based on learners’ experiences/ needs rather than pre-determined by the teacher or course syllabus. In addition to engaging in explicit instruction to support linguistic development, the post-task is also an excellent time to have students share their accomplishments and reflect upon the content of the lesson and the learning process. Although suggestions have been provided for what could be done in the post-task in all of the cluster lessons, it is up to the teacher to determine the exact composition of the post-task based on the learners in the particular context.
The literature includes a variety of tasks that can be used in the second language classroom.[7] For example, Jane Willis developed a list of tasks that she classified into six categories:
- Listing – brainstorming, fact finding
- Ordering and Sorting – sequencing, ranking, categorizing, classifying
- Comparing – matching, finding differences and similarities
- Problem Solving
- Sharing Personal Experiences
- Creative Tasks
Tasks from the various categories have been utilized throughout the module and clusters. Moreover, examples of the different types of tasks have been provided under the “6 Types of Tasks” tab at the top of the website. The tasks can be printed off and utilized as designed or they can be used as models for similar context appropriate tasks to be developed. Although we have tried to develop tasks using content that would be interesting for young French learners, inevitably context plays an important role in determining what tasks will be motivating and engaging for learners. Get to know your students and be creative in designing tasks to engage your learners in meaningful communication!
Suggested Readings about TBLT
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
Ogilvie, G., & Dunn, W. (2010). Taking teacher education to task: Exploring the role of teacher education in promoting the utilization of task-based language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 14, 161-181.
Van den Branden, K. (ed.) (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M, & Norris, J. M. (eds.) (2009). Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, UK: Addison Wesley Longman.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Additional Works Cited
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (eds.), Task-based learning: Language teaching, learning and assessment (pp. 23-48). London: Longman.
Lightbown, P.M. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431-462.
Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley: Newbury House.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In G. Crookes, & S. M. Gass (eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Samuda, V. (2005). Expertise in pedagogic task design. In K. Johnson (ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching (pp. 230-254). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[1] See Ellis (2003) and Long (2015) for an elaboration on how research has informed TBLT
[2] See Lightbown and Spada (2006) and Lightbown (2000)
[3] For examples of different definitions refer to Long (1985), Prabhu (1987), Willis (1996), Skehan (1998), Ellis (2003), or Samuda (2005)
[4] See Bygate (2001)
[5] See Skehan (1998)
[6] See Willis (1996)
[7] See for example Willis (1996), Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993), or Willis and Willis (2007)