A Critical Essay on Language Teaching

Task-Based Language Learning

K1649075

Principles of Language Learning for Language Teaching (LG7001)

1
Task-Based Language Learning

Although no teaching method can be considered suitable for all language learning contexts, task-based

language teaching presents specific benefits for the language learner. Task-based language learning is

a type of communicative language teaching, and is sometimes called the “strong” version thereof,

defined by “learning through communication, rather than for communication” (Litewka, 2013, p. 4). In

other words, task-based language teaching does not directly instruct grammar. The method allows for

organic language skills development through real-world situations. While activities are used in task-

based language teaching, the activities are pragmatic, more like having the student being immersed in

the target language. According to Swan (2005), task-based language instruction is “soundly based in

theory and research,” and is considered “superior” to traditional language instruction methods that stress

formalized grammar lessons and teacher-directed classroom activities (p. 376). If the student’s goal is

to interact with people casually in the target language, with a lesser degree of importance placed on

language accuracy, then task-based language teaching may be the most suitable method. If, however,

the student is more interested in passing language examinations, or interacting with people in a

formalized context in the target language, then task-based language teaching can be integrated with

traditional methods. Moreover, the efficacy of task-based language instruction depends on cultural and

linguistic variables; languages like English tend to be more forgiving of broken discourse, but there are

many languages that require greater grammatical mastery in order to fulfill communication goals;

therefore, task-based language teaching is ideally integrated with other methods, including traditional

pedagogies.

With task-based language teaching, language learning is highly contextualized. Language lessons are

not divorced from social contexts and situations. Tasks differ from exercises and drills in traditional

language classes because they are real-world scenarios that require some degree of use of the target

language, but the goal of the task is to fulfill the goal of the task itself, not necessarily to speak in the

target language with fluency or grammatical correctness. The student’s goals are to get across a point,

and to understand people in the target language. Over time and in a naturalistic setting, the student can

hone the language skills to improve grammar and usage. Task-based language learning activities

2
“should directly reflect what learners potentially or actually need to do with the target language” (Swan,

2005, p. 377). This means using the target language to have an “authentic” interaction (Ellis, 2008, p.

107). The situations in which task-based language instruction can be used may take place in a formal

classroom environment, and assessment methods may be used to chronicle student progress.

Another main difference between a task and an exercise, activity, or drill is that the goal of a task is not

linguistic, but practical. Skehan (1996) describes a task-based activity as one “which requires personal

information to be exchanged, or a problem to be solved, or a collective judgment to be made bears a

relationship to things that happen outside the classroom in a way that separates these activities from…a

transformation exercise” (p. 38). Assessment is based on the student’s achievement of a task: the

essence of communication. With an exercise or drill, the assessment is based on how the student uses

language, and whether the grammar and vocabulary match what was being taught in that lesson. Task-

based instruction evolved to correct the problems with the traditional methods that prepared students

for structural and grammatical competency tests but which did not necessarily transform students into

proficient communicators in the target language.

Alternatively, Ellis (2008) describes task-based language teaching as treating language more as a “tool

rather than as an object for study, emphasizing meaning rather than form,” as a drill or exercise would

(p. 104). It is therefore assumed that task-based language instruction is superior to drills and exercises

in traditional language classes because it does not cloud the learner’s brain with unnecessary

grammatical rules or vocabulary. The task-based instructional methods allow the learner to focus on

how the language is actually used in everyday life, and it is presumed that proper grammar and usage

will evolve organically over time; however, the degree to which traditional formal instruction is rejected

depends on the goals of the learner. If the learner simply wants to get by for a few weeks or months, as

with a traveler, then task-based instruction could prove sufficient. If the goal is a more long-term

mastery or fluency, then task-based teaching may need to be integrated with traditional methods, as

Ellis (2008) suggests; therefore, ideally task-based instruction is integrated with traditional language

learning.

3
There are different approaches to task-based language teaching. Ellis (2008) describes four approaches

to task-based language teaching. Some approaches integrate traditional language instruction (such as

grammar-translation or “presentation-practice-production” methods), whereas some task-based

pedagogies reject traditional methods altogether (Ellis, 2008, p. 105). What constitutes a task may also

vary depending on the approach to learning and the goals of the student. For example, Ellis (2008)

claims that tasks involve “text creation,” meaning that students use linguistic and non-linguistic

resources to communicate some message (p. 106). Task-based text creation challenges the student to

use vocabulary and grammar to achieve some specific social task, whether to ask a person on a date or

order food at a restaurant. Whereas Ellis (2008) remains more concerned with message, form, and

grammar when using task-based instruction, other task-based approaches focus on meaning within real-

world contexts.

One of the greatest points of contention with task-based language teaching is how and when to integrate

grammar lessons. As Litewka (2013) puts it, “is it not obvious that in order to communicate properly,

not to say eloquently, one needs to use more than only some grammar?” (p. 16) Task-based language

teaching can include grammar instruction, but the method of instruction is different from the traditional

way in which grammar is taught first and then the student tries to communicate using what was learned

in those grammar exercises. Ellis (2008) shows how task-based instruction can include a grammar

lesson followed by a task, followed again by a focus on the “specific grammatical problems that learners

demonstrate they have” (p. 108). This results in a highly individualized means of instruction, effective

in classrooms in which the learners themselves come from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Some

learners will come from linguistic backgrounds in which the grammar is similar to the target language;

others will not, and will struggle more with the grammar; however, in situations in which the first

language (L1) is shared among all students in the class, the task-based teaching methods may rely more

on the L1 for instruction. Task-based language teaching is suitable for learning contexts in which the

instructor and/or students in the class come from heterogeneous cultural and linguistic backgrounds,

because the emphasis is less on accuracy of form than on conveyance of meaning.

4
Concerns about too much rejection of traditional methods of language instruction are valid because

task-based learning can result in “pidginized language because learners are over-reliant on context and

thus do not need to stretch their linguistic resources” (Ellis, 2008, p. 107). It is easy to see why this fear

exists; ideally a learner will cultivate accuracy in communication and come to appreciate the grammar

and syntax of the target language; however, Ellis (2008) claims that task-based instruction does not

necessarily result in pidgin or broken language because over time, the student corrects the problems

with language delivery in a naturalized way. The instructor takes a step back, and then during the

assessment or “post-task” scenario, direct learner attention to the details that promote fluency and

syntactical correctness (Skehan, 1996, p. 55). Task-based language instruction pushes beyond the

limitations of the traditional method, which is sometimes referred to as presentation-practice-

production (PPP), because the teacher presents the formal material (such as vocabulary or a grammar

lesson), then has students practice the material using drills and other controlled methods, and then asks

students to produce/reproduce what was taught in formal activities. As Litewka (2013) points out, task-

based instruction overcomes the limitations of the PPP by teaching language with the primary goal of

communication and a secondary goal of accuracy.

Evidence also seems to suggest that task-based instruction is effective for learners at all levels, including

beginners (Ellis, 2008); therefore, task-based instruction can be useful in classrooms that are

heterogeneous in terms of target language proficiency, and learner goals in the target language. By de-

emphasizing the importance of grammar mastery at the beginning, new learners can feel more relaxed

when approaching a task. With communication and meaning emphasized first, and grammar later, the

learners become less stressed about minutia, and more comfortable using the target language, rehearsing

the known vocabulary, and using whatever communication strategies are relevant for the task.

Ironically, some instructors may find that task-based language instruction causes stress in some students

when the pressure to complete the task in a specific period of time occurs prior to mastery of the target

language tools needed for the task (Skehan, 1996). Task-based instruction can be learner-oriented using

group activities, but a teacher is still needed to guide and facilitate those group learning opportunities

(Ellis, 2008). Methods may include video playback or roleplaying. The teacher’s own proficiency in

5
the target language may also become an issue in some situations, requiring a diversity of pedagogical

tools and materials.

Task-based language teaching can also balance lexical and syntactical modes, and does not need to be

as rigid as some critics claim. Skehan (1996), for example, differentiates between lexical and syntactic

modes, showing how task-based language instruction tends to “emphasize lexicalized language

production,” as well as “strategic language use” to get a point across (p. 53). Meaning is more important

than proper grammar or syntax. Swan (2005) criticizes task-based language instruction based on several

claims, including a lack of empirical support, and a presumed lack of grammar instruction. Yet, Ellis

(2008) refutes most of Swan’s criticisms, pointing out that grammar instruction is integrated into task-

based language teaching, just not in the same way as it is in traditional language learning settings. There

are also many different ways of implementing task-based language lessons, some of which can be

geared for syntactical learning and grammatical fluency. As Skehan (1996) points out, instructors can

design “pre-task activities,” or “preemptive activities” that prep the student for a task by teaching the

language tools needed for performing well on that task (p. 53). The preemptive activity can be explicitly

directive, or it can be implicit; it can also be a sort of preparatory exercise that offers a simplified version

of the actual task. Another way a pre-task activity can be implemented is “to ease to processing load,”

by observing similar task situations (Skehan, 1996, p. 53). Easing the processing load refers to the

cognitive science behind the use of task-based language instruction, which points to the role that stress

and pressure play in situational language learning (Skehan, 1996). Some of the stress factors that the

language teacher can manipulate or control depending on the student’s need or level include time

constraints, modality, scale, stakes, and control (Skehan, 1996). Research suggests that time pressures

have a strong bearing on task-related performance (Mitchell, Myles & Marsden, 2012).

Swan (2005), a critic of task-based language instruction, discusses three underlying hypotheses of task-

based learning, including the on-line hypothesis, the noticing hypothesis, and the teachability

hypothesis. The on-line hypothesis presumes that language acquisition “takes place solely or principally

through communication,” or a time-dependent or even high stakes situation (Swan, 2005, p. 377). The

noticing hypothesis focuses more on how the learner “notices” various elements of the target language,

6
and the teachability hypothesis postulates that syntax is developmentally acquired, “thus rendering a

predetermined structural syllabus,” as with traditional instruction, simply “unworkable” (Swan, 2005,

p. 377). Ellis (2008), on the other hand, claims that Swan oversimplifies task-based instruction, and that

task-based language teaching does not only occur on-line. Not all learners acquire knowledge via

noticing, and that task-based does not mean a complete rejection of traditional rote methods. Learners

gain from task-based instruction the ability to “restructure their internal grammar,” thereby learning

how to “think” in the second/target language (Litewka, 2013, p. 40). At the same time, the learner can

develop fluency over time because task-based instruction naturally encourages the fluid use of

naturalized language in real-world contexts.

Task-based language instruction is suitable for all language learning contexts when it is combined with

other methods or softened, by allowing for multiple modalities and pedagogies. A soft version of task-

based language teaching allows the benefits of PPP to be built into pedagogy and curricula. By

permitting some traditional instructional design, students who benefit from drills and exercises can

thrive, while also challenging all students to respond to the pressing importance of communication

tasks. Not all students have the same language learning goals, but task-based language instruction

addresses one of the most important goals of second language learning: communication.

7
References

Ellis, R. (2008). Second language acquisition. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Litewka, I.A. (2013). A critical look at the concept of communicative competence in the context of
foreign language teaching. (MA dissertation). St Mary's University College, Twickenham.

Mitchell, R. Myles, F. & Marsden, E. (2012) Second language learning theories. (3rd ed.). London:
Routledge.

Hall, G. (2011) Exploring English language teaching: Language in action. London: Routledge

Skehan, P. (1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics,
17(1), 38-62. https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/17/1/38/159436/A-Framework-for-the-
Implementation-of-Task-based?rss=1&ssource=mfc

Swan, M. (2005) Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics,
26(3), 376-401. https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/26/3/376/181397/Legislation-by-
Hypothesis-The-Case-of-Task-Based?redirectedFrom=fulltext