Challenges in the Implementation of

Task-based Learning and Teaching in a

Chinese Context
Info: 7778 words (31 pages) Dissertation
Published: 1st Sep 2021

 Reference this

Tagged: EducationTeaching
Share this: Facebook  Twitter  Reddit  LinkedIn  WhatsApp   
Introduction

In the 1970’s, the field of English language teaching experienced a “period of

awareness” (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p.59), during which researchers began to
question the notion that language should be taught as a set of forms and
structures and recognize its use and importance in performing linguistic
functions in real life situations. Communicative language teaching (CLT)
emerged during this period as a response to the perceived failures of previous
approaches to language teaching and learning, emphasizing that
communicative competence, rather than linguistic knowledge alone, should
be the primary goal, and that activities involving authentic communication
ought to be incorporated into classroom methods. Task-based learning
(TBLT), evolving from the principles of CLT, represented a manifestation of
the CLT philosophy in terms of syllabus design and methodology (Ellis, 2003).
However, while TBLT has been successful in many countries, it has met with
substantial difficulties and resistance in Asia, where its objectives conflict
with many traditional educational values and traditions.

This paper will firstly provide an overview of TBLT and consider its benefits
along with some objections raised by its opponents. It will then offer some
background into the educational values of Confucian influenced societies in
Asia and using China as case study, discuss the challenges TBLT has faced
surrounding its implementation within the Chinese educational system. Finally,
it will suggest several possibilities for the future of TBLT in China, including
some avenues that may warrant further research.

Overview of TBLT

While the majority of language teaching approaches have traditionally been

form based, developments in second language acquisition in the last few
decades have uncovered several incorrect assumptions about the nature of
language learning, leading to doubts surrounding the effectiveness of this
approach. One assumption was that ‘input’ will directly result in ‘intake’, so
that what is presented can simply be mastered by the learner (Corder, 1967,
as cited in Ying, 1995). Another erroneous belief was that translation is a
reliable way of learning the target language. TBLT developed in the 1980’s and
1990’s as a result of a questioning of these assumptions by SLA researchers,
alongside further research which found that L2 learning can be facilitated
through engagement in social and interactive contexts. Through performing
tasks interactively, learners will use language, and while doing so they can
gain understanding of how language works, while also incorporating new
language, all within a meaningful context. In TBLT the tasks are viewed as
mediators of language learning and a reference point’ to make sense of the
language, so the focus is on meaning, not form (Bygate, 2016).  Task-based
learning, therefore, runs counter to traditional object-oriented teaching,
treating language as a tool rather than as an object (Ellis, 2017). In this way,
TBLT is far more connected to real life interaction than previous teaching
approaches and in this way, according to Bygate, “goes counter to traditions
of language teaching everywhere, both East and West” (2016, p.385).

The central concept of ‘task’ in TBLT has been a point of discussion and
dispute among various scholars since the term was introduced. In reaction to
Widdowson’s protest that tasks are “loosely formulated” and do not differ
from any other form of language activity (Widdowson, 2003, p.126), Ellis
attempted to establish four conclusive criteria necessary for a language
activity to satisfy the concept of task: 1. The primary focus is on meaning. 2.
There is some kind of gap. 3. Learners need to use their own linguistic and
non-linguistic resources. 4. There is an outcome other than the display of
language (Ellis, 2009, p.223). Unlike traditional classroom activities, the
outcome is not the correct use of language but the successful completion of
the task through the communication, negotiation and understanding of
meanings (Ellis, 2009).

Willis’ (1996) task-based framework offers a practical guideline for

implementing the TBL method in the classroom. A three-part sequence, the
task-based lesson involves a pre-task phase, where the teacher may highlight
important language, the task stage, during which students work together on
the task, and the post-task phase in which there is a language focus, including
analysis and practice. The language focus at the end of the process
distinguishes TBLT from the long-favoured presentation, practice, production
(PPP) approach, where students have a language focus prior to the
communicative activities. Willis’ main criticism of PPP is that it may lead to
overuse of the target form and demand learners to focus on too much before
they are developmentally ready, resulting in stilted production, a decline in
motivation and ultimately, failure to acquire the language successfully (Willis,
1996). Her task-based framework is more flexible, allowing teachers to decide
which phase or component of the lesson to emphasise more, depending on
the needs of the learners.

2.1 Strengths and weaknesses of TBLT

The greatest strength of TBLT, according to its advocates, is that it can lead
to greater language acquisition by providing contexts in which learners can
relate language to meanings and purposes. Language is used naturally, (Ellis,
2014) and the tasks can create optimum opportunities for input, interaction
and output, all conducive to L2 development (Skehan, 1996).  A related
advantage to this is the motivating effect the creation of an authentic context
can have on students’ performance, as well as adding to their enjoyment of
the learning experience (Le Gal & I- Chou, 201; Kim, Jung & Tracy-Ventura,
2017; Ruso, 2007). Another important benefit is the potential of tasks to
promote student independence by placing them at the centre of their own
learning, thus fostering their responsibility, as both language users as well as
language learners. In performing meaning-oriented activities, students will be
able to see their potential for communicating in real life situations, and
through the process of cooperative activities, self-evaluation and decision
making, develop their autonomy (Vieira, 2017).

Despite the benefits offered by TBLT, there have been several concerns
brought forward by critics, some quite challenging and seemingly valid. Sheen,
(2003) claims that in TBLT, there is no grammar syllabus. Instead, it assumes
that students have a natural disposition to learn a language given maximum
exposure, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support this. (Sheen,
1994). Furthermore, Sheen points out that there is insufficient focus on form
since “treatment preferably takes the form of quick corrective feedback
allowing for minimal interruption in communicative activity” (Sheen, 2003,
p.225). It is true that in some versions of TBLT such as Longs’ (1996) there is
no grammar syllabus. However, this is seen as advantageous by proponents
of TBLT, as teaching discrete points of grammar is problematic, since it has
been found learners do not learn language in a linear, incremental process
(Long & Crookes, 1993). The heart of the language learning process,
according to Ellis, is the fact that while the learner is primarily focused on
meaning, they can simultaneously have their attention drawn to linguistic
features as they arise within a context (2015). In Ellis’ view, all versions of
TBLT allow for attention to grammar through focus on form at some stage in
a task-based lesson Therefore, though grammar in itself may not occupy a
central place in TBLT, it is certainly important (2009).

Arguing that TBLT ‘outlaws’ a grammar syllabus, Swan (2005) introduces an

alternative approach to TBLT, a ‘task-supported approach’, which he believes
combines task use with traditional pedagogy, is consistent with a weak
version of CLT and possibly a more effective form of TBLT (Swan, 2005, as
cited in Shafipoor et al. 2016). There are varying interpretations of the task
supported approach, but generally, in task supported teaching, tasks are
incorporated as part of the language-based syllabus to give additional
communicative opportunities. Task- based curricula, on the other hand, also
known as ‘strong TBLT’ are based purely on a sequence of tasks, with the
syllabus and teaching process all revolving around the tasks themselves
rather than language units.

Swan (2005) also criticized TBLT for the background role it encourages
teachers to take, in a student-centered classroom that only requires the
teacher to act merely as an interlocutor and manager, rather than a source of
new information. Ellis, however, believes that all stages of a task-based
lesson can be either a learner-centered or teacher-led and that Swan’s
criticism ignores the potential of the pre and post task phase for teacher
involvement (Ellis, 2009). Teachers occupy a key role in the TBLT classroom
in selecting or creating tasks, preparing learners to carry them out, and in
motivating, providing feedback and incorporating a focus on form in the
meaning oriented work the students are doing (Van Den Branden, 2016).

Another prominent issue raised is that since task-based learning promotes

meaning based activities and the use of authentic language, it may not be
applicable in certain parts of the world where there is limited opportunity to
use the L2 outside of the classroom (Butler, 2011). Swan (2005) felt that the
success of TBLT is limited to “exposure rich” contexts (p.393), since it
assumes the availability to a large amount of input as well as opportunities
for output. In an attempt to solve this problem, researchers (Butler, 2011;
Carless, 2004, 2007, 2012; McDonough, 2015; Kim, et al., 2017) have
suggested moving from “adoption to adaptation” (Butler, 2011, p. 43), which
means supporting a contextualized version of TBLT that may better suit the
local needs and educational values in Asian countries. Ellis, on the other hand,
suggests that TBLT may actually be ideally suited ‘to acquisition-poor’
contexts in its potential to create an alternative to the natural communicative
environment within the classroom (Ellis, 2003, 2009).

While many general criticisms of TBLT have been well countered, there are
still significant constraining factors in the use of TBLT in Asian countries,
which remain unresolved. These difficulties will be discussed in the following
sections in the context of China, where English has long been considered as
one of the most important subjects in school curriculum. To understand the
implementation difficulties, it is firstly necessary to provide some background
into educational culture in Asia.

3. Introduction to TBLT to China

3.1. Educational culture in Asia

Educational practices in Asia are strongly rooted in “Confucian heritage
culture” (Ryan, 2010), which generally includes the east Asian countries of
China, Vietnam, Singapore, Japan, and Korea. Confucian thought holds great
reverence for education, and views learning as a painstaking process of
knowledge accumulation which requires considerable commitment, effort and
self-determination. According to Confucianism, this undertaking is necessary
to gain social mobility, self-respect and even perfectibility (Lee, 1996). 
However, it is a mindset that does not place high value on knowledge for
practical purposes such as communication and negotiation of meaning. In the
classroom, this traditional line of thought has led to the general belief that
textbooks are the main source of information and that the teachers’ role is to
transmit knowledge to students in an authoritative manner. Classroom
relations are hierarchical between student and teacher, with students
expected to be receptive and classrooms teacher centered, using strategies
including repetition, reviewing of material, memorization, and reproduction.
Mental activity is more valued than verbal activity, and forms of mental
engagement in the classroom, such as analysis, questioning, discriminating
and reflection are believed to be the key to gaining success in knowledge
acquisition (Hu, 2002).

Given the importance and value placed on these skills, teaching in China has
generally utilized the grammar translation and audio-lingual methods within
the presentation, practice and production model, which is based on a view of
learning as a linear process of understanding, internalizing and activating
language knowledge (Tan, 2016). The features of task-based learning, with its
emphasis on real life situations to promote learning, communicative
engagement in tasks rather than reliance on books to acquire knowledge, and
teacher facilitated rather than teacher dominated classrooms, appear to both
contrast and conflict with traditional Asian educational values.

3.2. New education Policy for schools in China

English has been highly valued as part of the curriculum in Chinese schools
for decades, yet it is was only in the early 1990’s that the Ministry of
Education decided to respond to a growing dissatisfaction with the quality of
English instruction in China and expand its efforts and attention to reforming
the field of ELT.  Unsurprisingly, a major factor in both this dissatisfaction and
in the government’s decision to act was the increasing demand for English
proficiency along with China’s socioeconomic development. It was becoming
clear that the traditional grammar translation approach was problematic as it
was producing learners who were able to achieve high scores on
discrete-point grammar tests, yet unable to communicate fluently and
accurately in communicative contexts (Hu, 2002). Similarly, audio-lingualism,
though initially seen as more effective in its ability to promote communicative
patterns, was soon discovered to be insufficient in helping students develop
real communication skills. When communicative language teaching was first
introduced, it was hoped that it would provide a successful alternative to
these traditional, ineffective ways of teaching English. However, studies show
that it failed to achieve any significant changes (Rao, 1996; Hu, 2002) due to
the vast discrepancies between its principles and Confucian heritage
educational values. In 2001, the Ministry of Education made another attempt
at ELT innovation with the introduction of task-based language teaching,
which was introduced in the new ‘top down’ curriculum (Hu, 2005). Believing
that the old method of teaching “over-emphasizes grammar and vocabulary
knowledge and neglects the development of students’ practical language
competence”,  (Ministry of Education, 2002, as cited in Zhang, p.74), and that
the practices of English education at the time could not meet the needs of 
economic and social development, the Ministry of Education (MOE) released
the new English language Curriculum Standards, which urged teachers to
implement TBLT in order to improve student’s ability to use English through
the use of contextualized and authentic language use during the engagement
of real life tasks (Zhang, 2007). The reform aimed to promote a combination
of constructivist and communicative task-based teaching, and to enable
students to develop themselves as not only learners, but as members of
society (Yan, 2012).

The new curriculum was an ambitious and innovative project which proposed
to make drastic changes to the state of ELT in China. However, a national ‘top
down’ curriculum change, such as TBLT in mainland China was not a
straightforward undertaking, but an extremely complex interactive process
involving several parties, whose involvement or lack of inevitably led to
various interpretations, misunderstandings and reconstructions of the
ministry’s original plan. (Zhang, 2005, 2007) Therefore, the result was a large
gap between what was intended by the new curriculum and the extent to
which it was carried out. The following section will discuss these
misunderstandings, in addition to the problem of inadequate teacher training
in TBLT and the effect of the prevalent examination culture, all of which have
led to substantial difficulties in the implementation of TBLT in China.

4.    Difficulties associated with implementing TBLT in China

4.1. Misunderstanding of the method

TBLT was met with confusion in different parts of the world, but in China, a
country with a very long held traditional approach to teaching, the
misconceptions were made even greater by the conceptual uncertainties
surrounding the concept of ‘task’ itself (Littlewood, 2007). When the new
curriculum was introduced to secondary level schools in China, teachers were
provided with guidelines in order to help them design appropriate tasks to
develop students’ communicative skills. These guidelines included creating
activities that “have clear and achievable aims and objectives” and that were
“relevant to students’ life experiences and interests…. as true to life as
possible.” It also stated that activities would require students “to develop their
ability to use English to solve real problems” (Ministry of Education, 2003, as
cited in Zheng and Borg, 2014, p.206). However, these guidelines neglected to
define exactly what the new curriculum understood a ‘task’ to be, or how it
may differ from other kinds of classroom activities. (Littlewood, 2004; Zheng
& Borg, 2014; Zhang, 2007). Instead, teachers were given no choice but to
interpret the meaning of ‘task’ for themselves, so tended to design tasks that
involved the prior presentation of language, reflecting their pre-existing ideas
of what a task should do. Yan, (2012) found evidence of this, with her
classroom data showing that despite teachers’ positive attitude along with
their seeming endorsement of the new curriculum reform and TBLT, in
practice it was not being implemented. Instead, observations during her study,
which took place in a secondary school in Hubei province, revealed that
teacher’s classrooms continued to be teacher centered, with emphasis on the
textbook and little communicative practice.

Furthermore, Zhang (2007), points out that in the English Language

Curriculum Standards (ELCS), which was written in Chinese, the term ‘tasks’ is
used in a rather ambiguous manner. The documents present the term ‘tasks’
translated as ‘renwu,’ and although the word appears ten times throughout the
text to mean tasks, the other ten times it is used to refer to assignments or
objectives. One teacher, in a study also conducted by Zhang (2005),
interpreted TBLT as setting targets, including the teaching of grammar and
vocabulary, and therefore believed that she used TBLT in all of her lessons by
setting linguistic objectives. Hu, (2013), found that many teachers did not feel
they understood the method, and adopted an attitude of passive acceptance,
believing that if they used the textbook designed for TBLT, then they had done
their job sufficiently. Carless (2004) also noted that teachers did not always
have a clear idea of what a ‘task’ is. He found that the tasks used by primary
school teachers in Hong Kong often ended up as ‘language practice’ rather
than affording opportunities for genuine communication. Further evidence is
found in Tong, Adamson and Che’s (2000) observations, which revealed that
activities in a task-based classroom were found to be lacking in
communication, and instead could be characterized as something between
exercises and tasks, which placed structured linguistic practice within a
context.

4.2. Assessment issues

It is generally the case in educational situations that where important

certification is at stake, assessment is what most concerns the thoughts and
the study behaviors of students. This is particularly true in China given its long
history of examinations (Carless, 2012). Therefore, the most significant
constraint to TBLT at the societal institutional level is the high stake,
competitive grammar-oriented college examination system (Butler, 2011).
While both teachers and students have expressed levels of interest and
enthusiasm for TBLT and a growing awareness of the importance of
communicative competence, the fact remains that examinations continue
dominate to the education system and that classroom time leaves limited
room for task-based activities. As one teacher explained “I am responsible for
my students’ college entrance examination, so I have to teach each unit
carefully and thoroughly” (Zheng and Borg, 2013, p.212). Furthermore, since
discrete point grammar and factual knowledge still dominate the content of
these examinations, teachers tend to focus on language rather than
communicative elements in order to help their students to succeed (Rao,
2002).  As Hu, (2004) states, “When a pedagogical approach is not closely tied
up, or is even in potential clash, with the goals of the curriculum and syllabus
that must be followed, there is no compelling reason for teachers to adopt it”
(p.52).  Deng and Carless (2010) found in their case study to examine the
effect of teacher beliefs on the use of TBLT and examinations, that out of four
teachers, three felt discouraged from carrying out tasks because they felt
examination preparation was more important. However, the fourth teacher
perceived that tasks would help her students learn best, and that this would
adequately prepare them for any test which they took (Deng & Carless, 2010).
This perhaps indicates that if TBLT could be made somewhat relevant to
examination content, teachers’ perceptions may be altered, and TBLT could
well be adopted more often and more readily by teachers.

A natural response to the issue of assessment in TBLT may be to propose

that, since the government has specified communicative competence through
TBLT as a curriculum requirement, assessment should be changed to reflect
this. However, this may be problematic as it is not clear how the criteria would
be determined, whether emphasis would be on task completion or language
performance, or how to guarantee performance assessment with validity and
reliability (Butler, 2011). Ji (2017) suggests that the solution lies in formal
teacher training in how to assess students task performance in terms of
fluency, accuracy and complexity. In designing an assessment system based
on these three elements, communicative competence could serve as the
fundamental basis for teaching, while continuing to lay some emphasis on
grammar structures. This system would still be in accordance with TBLT
rationale which is that attention should be drawn to form within a meaningful
context (Long & Crookes, 1992).

However, the obsession with examinations in China extends beyond the major
examinations, and also permeates the everyday classroom, where tests are
common and frequent, and the concern with scores is evident in the students
in a general sense.  High scores not only increase students’ likelihood of
future success, but also have personal significance for them in increasing
their credibility by reflecting their knowledge and ability. This can be illustrated
in Lixin’s (2011) study of communicative language teaching practices in a
university in China, where students were asked to participate in an oral
presentation and discussion activity. Although they had previously displayed
the ability to engage actively in a free talk activity, when they were informed
that the presentation, but not the discussion activity, would count towards
their end of semester course grade, they neglected the latter and were only
concerned about the score they would receive for the presentation. This
shows that not only are structural changes necessary to make examinations
cohere more with TBLT, but the mindset of students and teachers towards
examinations as the only mark of achievement also needs to change, which
will undoubtedly be a gradual and lengthy process.

4.3. Inadequate teacher training in TBLT methodology in China

Following the introduction of TBLT in the new curriculum, training was given
to certain nominated teachers nationwide in the form of two and three-week
workshops where they were introduced to the goals, new textbooks,
methodology and classroom teaching methods of TBLT. Participants were
then expected to return to their provinces and deliver in-house workshops to
colleagues from local districts during the summer break. Monthly research
activities were also organized, and seminars given by local experts in schools,
along with demonstration lessons and video materials about teaching the new
textbook. However, as these were once only mass lecture sessions without
any follow up, it is unlikely that they were sufficient. Zhang (2007) also found
that in-service programmes, which were sporadically implemented and mainly
theory based, gave teachers no opportunity to practice or gain the confidence
and understanding to relate the training to their daily practice. Furthermore,
they were organized and delivered by local teacher trainers who had limited
understanding of TBLT themselves. In Liu and Xiong’s (2016) study on
teachers’ attitudes towards TBLT, findings showed that the majority of
teachers had a positive attitude towards the approach. However, their
research also revealed that none of the participants had any training in TBLT,
that there was limited opportunity for teachers to develop their teaching skills
and that the only accessible way for teachers to develop this was by
self-learning. Teachers were left with instructions to use methods they were
not familiar with without any institutional support. Because implementing
TBLT requires not only a high level of understanding task-based instruction
and evaluation of task performance, this lack of training has made it
intimidating and challenging for teachers to implement TBLT and led to its
eventual avoidance among many. In other instances, though training was
thorough and institutional support in the form of materials has been available,
teachers were still not inclined to fully adopt TBLT, or feel confident enough to
adapt it to their settings. Chen and Wright’s (2017) study based in a high
school which had relatively longer experience with the use of TBLT in China,
nevertheless found that participants “felt constrained” (p.525) in using TBLT,
despite the extensive training in the first year, and believed that TBLT was not
always locally appropriate.

Carless and Deng (2009), in their observations of one teacher over the course
of a year, found that lessons were form focused and only “superficially shared
some similarities with TBLT”, (Deng and Carless, 2009, p.128). The teacher,
on the other hand, who was chosen as an innovative and likely candidate to
have some success with TBLT, showed satisfaction with some of the
activities. She believed that her activities were communicative, even when
they did not meet the researchers’ criteria for communicative language
practice. This implies that not only was the teacher’s understanding of TBLT
somewhat misinformed, but that there were other factors and priorities
guiding her choices of activities and her perceptions of what constituted a
successful lesson. This may suggest that it is not only the teachers who need
to adapt to the new method, but that the method may have to be adapted to
their contexts.

The Way forward

Carless, (2007) called for the introduction and development of a “situated

task-based approach” (p.605) whereby the values, examination demands, and
teachers’ beliefs and practices interact best with the principles of TBLT. Also
termed a “localized approach” (Butler, 2011, p.49), it would involve some
compromise on the part of the ‘strong’ version of TBLT in considering the
contextual limitations in a Chinese EFL setting. The potential for this
approach to work  may be supported by earlier research findings based in
Chinese classrooms (Zhang, 2005; Zheng & Borg, 2014), where it was often
found that the teachers were naturally adopting their own ‘weaker’ form of
TBLT, rather than a ‘pure’ TBLT based method, despite the instructions of the
new curriculum and the new books they had been given. Bygate (2016) also
suggested another approach to TBLT, the ‘task referenced’ approach, similarly
to the UK key stage curriculum. In this approach the tasks are used to
ascertain the target abilities students are supposed to develop by the end of
the course, assuming that there will be a washback effect on teaching (Bygate,
2016). Although, this approach does not yet have a framework for how this
will take place, it may be a possibility for the Chinese classroom, since it has
some relation to assessment, the target abilities defined will be relevant to the
context of the students, and it could have a grammar focus, more or less, as
the teacher would see fit.

Regarding assessment, requirements need to be reevaluated in order for it to

incorporate communicative performance and task achievement, as well as
language knowledge and reading. Therefore, a curriculum based on
communicative competence within the local context needs to be developed.
Progression in this area has been made in Hong Kong in its implementation of
a task-based, in-class oral assessment component in the school-based
assessment (SBA). Students are required to take part in group interactions
and discussions which aim to continuously assess student’s oral
development, with the teachers free to adjust the tasks according to learner
needs. There have been some difficulties identified, such as students
pre-planning or rehearsing speeches for the discussion, leading to them
becoming mechanical and inauthentic, but this is certainly a positive
development in terms of assessment and TBLT (Carless, 2012). In addition,
the Ministry in China has recently announced the development of a new
English proficiency examination, expected to be introduced by 2020. In an
attempt to build a more unified and modern examination equivalent to other
international testing systems, the test will include a “pragmatic competence”
scale, which encourages students to develop practical language and
communication skills (Wang, 2016). It is predicted that schools and
universities concerned will endeavour to relate their curricula, textbooks,
approaches, and examinations to the reference levels (Liu, 2017). The
outcome of the new system remains to be seen, but this may prove to be an
encouraging development for TBLT, with educators and students seeking
ways to improve pragmatic language skills.

Perhaps most importantly, teachers need to gain a full understanding of the

new curriculum innovation, learn new approaches to presenting the content,
and new means of interacting with students. Therefore, teacher training needs
to be systematic, continuous and practical in order for teachers to develop
their methods and update their knowledge concerning the implementation
and assessment of TBLT. It is vital for teachers to have the opportunity to
develop their confidence, as well as their positive beliefs and trust in TBLT, in
order for it to be implemented effectively and on a long-term basis.

Conclusion

China is an example of a context which places high significance on English

language education, yet little opportunity for its use outside the classroom,
since it is mainly studied for exams or work requirements. In addition, it has
been seen that there is a mismatch between what the government wants and
the reality of what is happening inside the classroom. Additional hindrances
also exist for TBLT in Chinese classrooms, including large class size, lack of
available materials and excessive use of the L1 during task-based activities,
which are not possible to discuss within the scope of this paper. Despite the
difficulties, TBLT has generated enthusiasm and interest from teachers and
positive reactions from students, which indicates that it still has potential to
work within the Chinese educational setting. Furthermore, it is still currently
necessary for EFL in China, as it was again put forward by the Ministry in the
most recently revised English curriculum (Shaoqin & Baoshu, 2011). If TBLT is
to be successful, it will necessitate the greater involvement and commitment
of all stakeholders, including the higher levels of management, policy makers
and curriculum developers. In addition, there is a need for further research on
contextual adaptations to TBLT, more effort to integrate examinations and
task-based learning goals, and a search for appropriate forms of teacher
education and support. Finally, both teachers and students need to reflect and
reassess their personal beliefs and attitudes towards learning and
assessment, since this will influence their practice, behaviours and ultimately
determine what will be carried forward in the development of language
teaching in China.

References

Butler, Y. (2011). The Implementation of communicative and task-based

language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 31, 36-57. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000122

Bygate, M. (2016). Sources, developments and directions of task-based

language teaching. Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 381-400. doi:
10.1080/09571736.2015.103956

Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based

innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second
Dialect, 38(4), 639-662.

Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary

schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System: An International Journal of
Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 595-608. doi:
10.1016/j.system.2007.09.003

Carless D. (2012). TBLT in EFL settings. Looking back and moving forward. In
A. Shehadeh & C. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign
language contexts (pp. 345 -358). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.

Chen, Q, & Wright, C. (2017). Contextualization and authenticity in TBLT:

Voices from Chinese classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 21(4),
517-538. doi:10.1177/1362168816639985

Deng, C.R., & Carless, D. (2009). The communicativeness of activities in a

task-based innovation in Guangdong, China. Asian Journal of English
Language teaching, 19, 113–134. Retrieved
from http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ajelt/vol19/abstract/a05.pdf
Deng, C.R & Carless, D. (2010). Examination preparation or effective Teaching:
Conflicting priorities in the implementation of a pedagogic
innovation. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(4), 285-302. doi:
10.1080/15434303.2010.510899

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Ellis, R. (2009) Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the

misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, (3),
221–246. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009. 00231.x

Ellis, R. (2014) Taking the critics to task: A case for task-based

teaching. Conference. Retrieved
from https://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/cls/CLaSIC/clasic2014/Proceedings/ellis_r
od.pdf

Ellis, R. (2015). The importance of focus on form in communicative language

teaching. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 1-12. Retrieved
from https://espace.curtin.edu.au/bitstream/handle/20.500.11937/58878/25
7453.pdf?sequence=2

Ellis, R. (2017). Position Paper: Moving task-based language teaching

forward. Language Teaching, 50(4), 507-526.doi:
10.1017/S0261444817000179

Hu, R. (2013). Task-based language teaching: Responses from Chinese

teachers of English. Tesl-Ej, 16(4). Retrieved
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1004354.pdf

Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case

of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105.

Hu, G. (2004). Pedagogical practices in Chinese EFL classrooms. Asian

Englishes, 7(1), 42-59. doi: 10.1080/13488678.2004.10801130

Hu, G. (2005). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese

case for an ecological Approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English
as a Second Dialect, 39(4), 635-660.

Ji, Y. (2017). Task-based language teaching (TBLT) in Asian EFL classes:

Challenges and strategies. Advances in Social Science, Education and
Humanities Research, volume 120. Retrieved from:
download.atlantis-press.com/php/download_paper.php? id=25889143

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL Methods: Changing tracks, challenging

trends. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of
Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, 40(1), 59-81.

Kim, Y., Jung, Y. and Tracy-Ventura, N. (2017) Implementation of a localized

task-based course in an EFL context: A study of students’ evolving
perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 51: 632–660.doi:10.1002/tesq.381

Lee, W.O. (1996) The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of
learning in the Confucian tradition, (pp. 25-42) In D. Watkins & J. Biggs
(eds.) The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological & contextual influences.
Victoria, Australia: Australian Council of Educational Research.

Le Gal, D. & I-Chou, P. (2015). Resistant or favourable? Chinese learners’

beliefs towards task-based language learning and teaching. Ikala: Revista De
Lenguaje Y Cultura, 20(1), 95-110.doi: 10.17533/udea.ikala.v20n1a06

Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and

suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 319-326.

Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in

east Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40(3), 243-249.doi:
10.1017/S0261444807004363

Lixin, X. (2011). Communicative language teaching in a Chinese university

context: Beliefs and practice. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(2),
41-61. doi: 10.1515/cjal.2011.014

Liu, X. L.  (2017). Foresights, expectations and implications of China’s foreign

language proficiency scaling and rating framework. Sino-US English Teaching,
(14)4, 272-277. doi: 10.17265/1539-8072/2017.04.010

Liu, Y. & Xiong, T (2016). Situated task-based language teaching in Chinese

colleges: Teacher education. English Language Teaching, 9(5), 22-32.doi:
10.5539/elt.v9n5p2. Retrieved
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1097562.pdf

Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). 3 approaches to task-based syllabus

design. Tesol Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.

McDonough, K. (2015). Perceived benefits and challenges with the use of

collaborative tasks in EFL contexts. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and
directions in the development of TBLT (p. 225–246). Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Rao, Z. (1996). Reconciling communicative approaches to the teaching of

English with traditional Chinese methods. Research in the Teaching of English,
30, 458–471.

Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese student’s perceptions of communicative and

non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. System, 30(1), 85-105.

Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources and syllabus

design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P.
Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 185-316).
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ruso, N. (2007). The Influence of task-based learning on EFL

classrooms. Asian EFL Journal (18). Retrieved
from https://www.asian-efl-journal.com/1855/teaching-articles/2007/02/thei
nfluence-of-task-based-learning-on-efl-classrooms/#squelch-taas-tab-content
-0-3

Ryan, Janette, and Gordon Slethaug, editors. International Education and the

Chinese Learner. Hong Kong University Press,
2010. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1xw9vc.

Shafipoor, M. & Latif, F. (2015). A comparative study of task-based vs. task-

supported teaching approaches in an EFL context. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(5), 92-96.
doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.5p.9

Sheen, R. (1994). A critical analysis of the advocacy of the task-based

syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 127-51.

Sheen, R. (2003). Focus on form – a myth in the making? ELT Journal, 57(3),

225-233. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.3.225

Shaoqin, L. & Baoshu, Y. (2013). TBLT in China (2001-2011): The current

situation, predicament and future. Indonesian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 2(2), 147– 156. doi: 10.17509/ijal.v2i2.161

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based

Instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.

Swan, M. (2005). Legislating by hypothesis: The case of task-based

instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376-401.doi: 10.1093/applin/ami013
Tan, Z. (2016). Benefits and implementation challenges of task-based
language teaching in the Chinese EFL context. International Journal for
Innovation Education and Research, 4(3). Retrieved
from http://ijier.net/ijier/article/view/

Tong, S. Y. A, Adamson, B. & Che, M. M. W. (2000). Changing the curriculum:

The impact of reform on primary schooling in Hong Kong. In B. Adamson, T.
Kwan & K. K. Chan (Eds.), Tasks in English language and Chinese
language (pp. 145-73). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press

Van den Branden, K. (2016). The role of teachers in task-based language

teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 164-181.doi:
10.1017/S0267190515000070

Vieira, F. (2017). Task-based instruction for autonomy: Connections with

contexts of practice, conceptions of teaching, and professional development
strategies. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of
Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, 51(3), 693-715.

Wang, A. Z. (December 9, 2016). China to introduce national English

proficiency test by 2020. The Pie News. Retrieved from
https://thepienews.com/news/china-national-english-proficiency-test-2020/

Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Willis, J. (1996) A framework for task-based Learning. Harlow: Longman.

Yan, C. (2012). ‘We can only change in a small way’: A study of secondary
English teachers’ implementation of curriculum reform in China. Journal of
Educational Change, 13(4) 31–447.doi: 10.1007/s10833-012-9186-1

Ying, H. (1995). What sort of input is needed for intake? IRAL, 33(3), 175-94.

Zhang, Y.E. (2005). The implementation of the task-based approach in primary

school English language teaching in mainland China. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b3532757

Zhang, Y. E. (2007). TBLT innovation in primary school English language

teaching in mainland China. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, & M. Verhelst
(Eds.), Tasks in action: Task based language education from a
classroom-based perspective (pp. 68–91). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
Zheng, X, & Borg, S. (2014). Task-based learning and teaching in China:
Secondary school teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching
Research, 18(2), 205-221. doi: 10.1177/13621688135059

ment of TBLT (p. 225–246). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John

BenjaminsMeng, Y. and Cheng, B. College students’ perceptions on the Issues
of Task-based Language Teaching in Mainland China [J]. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 2010 1(4) 434-442Ministry of Education of China.
(2001). The Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China: Guojia
jichu jiaoyu yingyu kecheng biaozhun (3-12 nianji) (shiyangao) [National
standards of English curriculum for China’s basic education (trial)]. Beijing:
Beijing Shifan Daxue Chubanshe [Beijing Normal University Press]. Translated
by the American  Department  of  Education.  Retrieved from February 8, 2008,
from 吗 http://hrd.apecwiki.org/index.php/Language_Content_Standards

Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese Students’ Perceptions of Communicative and

Non-Communicative Activities in EFL Classroom. System, 30(1), 85-105.doi:
10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00050-1Rao, Z. (1996). Reconciling Communicative
Approaches to the Teaching of English with Traditional Chinese
Methods. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(4), 458-71Ryan, Janette,
Slethaug, Gordon, & Gale Group. (2010). International education and the
Chinese learner (1st ed., Gale virtual reference library). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.

Share this: Facebook  Twitter  Reddit  LinkedIn  WhatsApp   

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

 APA

 MLA

 MLA-7

 Harvard

 Vancouver

 Wikipedia

 OSCOLA
 Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services
View all