See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323906906

Task-based language teaching

Chapter · July 2018

CITATIONS READS

26 25,828

1 author:

Paul Moore
The University of Queensland
32 PUBLICATIONS   304 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Learner-learner discourse in task-based language classrooms View project

Language and intercultural communication pedagogies in higher education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Moore on 08 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)
Paul J. Moore
University of Queensland

Preprint.
Moore, P. J. (2018). Task-based language teaching (TBLT). In Liontas, J. I. (ed.) TESOL
encyclopedia of English language teaching. New Jersey: Wiley. doi:
10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0175

ABSTRACT Task-based language teaching (TBLT) represents an approach to language learning

and teaching grounded in the expanding database of second language acquisition (SLA) research.
Having grown out of the communicative approach to language teaching (CLT), TBLT proposes task
as the unit of analysis in SLA research and language pedagogy. While there are several proposals for
understanding and implementing TBLT, these have in common an experiential ‘learning by doing’
philosophy, informed by analyses of real-world tasks, and the design, staging and implementation of
related pedagogic tasks. Identifiable challenges exist in implementing TBLT, as shown by
investigations in various contexts, but it is argued that the shared unit of analysis provides an
improved potential for synergies among theory, research and contextualised practice in language
learning and teaching.

1. Framing the issue

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is a broadly defined approach to language teaching research
and practice which uses task as a unit of analysis for research and practice in communicative language
teaching. It has been situated within experiential ‘learning by doing’ educational philosophy espoused
by Dewey and others (Long, 2015; Samuda & Bygate, 2008). As such, TBLT can be seen as an
extension of a so-called ‘strong’ version of CLT where communication is seen as the major driving
force in language learning (Howatt, 1984). In contrast to such a holistic and experiential approach, a
weak version of CLT is often supported by some kind of functional and/or formal syllabus, where
communicative (production) tasks follow the presentation and practice of forms (Ellis, 2003). Ellis
makes a similar distinction between task-based and task-supported language teaching (TSLT), in that
TBLT uses task as the only unit of analysis for syllabus design, while TSLT uses task plus another
unit, such as linguistic forms, functions, skills, lexis or concepts. TBLT represents a development
from CLT in its principled and systematic incorporation of a focus on formal properties of the
language, on one hand, and a return to CLT’s conceptual foundations in its ability to bring together
content, methodology and experience, on the other (Samuda & Bygate, 2008, p. 57).
The term task has emerged from a body of research which sees communicative interaction as
central to language learning. Definitions of task have been as wide-ranging as the research into task-
based learning. Some definitions have been extremely general; for example, Long (2015, p. 156; cf.
also Long & Crookes, 1992) emphasizes the ‘non-technical everyday, real world’ interpretation of
task as any purposeful activity done in the classroom or workplace; distinguishing this from
pedagogic tasks, as an important construct for needs analysis. Pedagogic tasks have generally been
defined in terms of common criteria in tasks used in research and in proposals for task-based
syllabuses. Drawing on reviews and definitions by Skehan (1998, p. 95), Ellis (2003, pp. 9-10) and
Samuda and Bygate (2008, p. 69) the following more specific characteristics of a task have been
elucidated:

• A task is a workplan
Breen (1989, p. 188) distinguishes the ‘task-as-workplan’ – or the task rubric as presented to the
learner, including input and instructions – from the ‘task-in-process,’ focusing on what the learner
actually does in performing the task, and involving a ‘complex interaction … of the original task,
learner work, situation and learner perceptions’ (ibid.). This first criterion is related to the designer’s
or teacher’s perspective on task, but both perspectives are important in research and pedagogy.
• A task involves a primary focus on meaning
Generally this means that the task requires communication to solve a problem or resolve some kind of
gap in communication (Ellis, 2003). A focus on form is included in various ways; either through task
design or implementation – including the provision of corrective feedback during task performance.
Several researchers argue that individual grammatical forms can play the role of ‘content’ in
language-focused tasks.

• A task involves language use which reflects that used in the real world
Real-world language use in pedagogic tasks might be determined through a needs analysis
involving analysis of tasks performed in workplaces, in the case of English for specific
purposes (Long, 2015). Less ‘authentic’ pedagogic tasks, such as information gap tasks
commonly used in research and teaching, may also satisfy this criterion by encouraging
types of communicative behaviour reflected in communication outside the classroom (Ellis,
2003).

• A task engages cognitive processes aimed at promoting language development

Cognitive processes drawn on in engaging with task-based interaction, such as selecting, reasoning,
problem-solving, etc., can have implications for both the complexity of tasks and the types of
language to be drawn on in task-based interaction (Robinson, 2013; Samuda & Bygate, 2008).

• A task has a stated communicative outcome

The outcome of a task involves ‘what the learners arrive at when they have completed the task, for
example, a story, a list of differences, etc.’ (Ellis, 2003, p. 8). This can be distinguished from any
underlying language development aims of a task.

2. Making the case

Second language acquisition (SLA) theory and research involving tasks is prolific, providing insights
into how second/foreign languages are learned and how instruction may best enhance language
learning, from various perspectives. Two major perspectives which involve interaction as the driving
force of TBLT involve cognitive processing and sociocultural theory. Within each, there are several
options which may appeal to teachers as they develop their own personal theory of classroom SLA
relevant to their own specific contexts. The former focuses on the effects of manipulating the task
rubric (e.g., +/- information exchange, discourse mode) and implementation conditions (e.g., task
familiarity, planning time) on learner language production and opportunities for learning (e.g.,
instances of meaning negotiation or corrective feedback), while the latter investigates the task-in-
process, involving a strong focus on how learner agency and context influence interaction (e.g., task
control, collaboration), language production and the shared creation of learning opportunities.
The cognitive processing perspective focuses on interaction as a generator of tailor-made input for a
learner’s developing second language system, or interlanguage. Task-based instruction here involves
the analysis of real world tasks in terms of the discourse and language that may be involved in
successful performance, and the design and implementation of pedagogic tasks which support the
development of related task and language skills. This focus on tasks and the ‘dynamic qualities of
target discourse’ (Long, 2015, p. 239) involved in their completion, rests on the contention that the
most effective way to develop a learner’s interlanguage, especially with regard to formal aspects of
the second language, is via corrective feedback during task-based interaction – at the time when it is
needed most. Another perspective within cognitive processing theory (Ellis, 2003) proposes that there
is a weak interface between explicit formal knowledge of a language and the implicit knowledge
drawn on in real-time language use. Because of this interface, Ellis argues that there is a role for
‘focused tasks’, which satisfy the criteria of tasks outlined above, but which aim at the development
of implicit knowledge (using tasks in which it is necessary to use a targeted linguistic form) or explicit
knowledge (using ‘consciousness-raising’ tasks which aim to inductively raise learners’ awareness of
how particular forms are used). Based on this, and the argument that explicitly learned language can,
through practice, be used automatically in language use, Ellis proposes a modular approach to TBLT,
involving both a communicative task-based module, and a ‘code-based’ module, involving the form-
focused tasks outlined above.
The sociocultural perspective draws on Vygotsky’s (1978) proposal that an individual’s
knowledge is first developed in contextualised social interaction, and progressively internalised.
Interaction is seen as a site where learners co-construct meaning and learning opportunities, which are
then available for learners to draw on beyond the current interaction. From this perspective, research
has investigated how learners engage with a task and their interlocutors, and how different interaction
patterns (e.g., distribution of task control, instances and types of scaffolding, intersubjectivity)
influence the emergence of learning opportunities, which learners may later draw on in task-based
language production (e.g., Storch, 2013).
It is important to note that the two broad perspectives represented here represent very
different approaches to theory and research in TBLT – one providing insights into aspects of language
processing potentially relevant to all learners, the other providing a microanalytical perspective on the
influence of context and learner agency (Samuda & Bygate, 2008). While this distinction is important
for understanding SLA processes, an understanding of both perspectives is relevant to classroom
pedagogy, and thus findings from research from both perspectives can be seen as relevant to language
teachers.
As with other areas of SLA theory and research, there is considerable disagreement within
TBLT, but this disagreement highlights areas where a teacher might focus in developing or defining
their personal theory of second language learning and teaching. One study (Foster & Ohta, 2005) has
analysed data from both perspectives outlined above, with the authors noting that, although the
theoretical perspectives might be incompatible, investigating the task-as-workplan alongside the task-
in-process ‘illuminates more in the data than either approach would do on its own’ (p. 425).

3. Pedagogical implications
Within a communicative paradigm, there are several proposals for task-based syllabuses, which either
use tasks alone, or tasks plus another unit of analysis. With regard to pedagogy, unit of analysis is
defined by Long and Crookes (1992) as ‘some unit around which to organise lessons and teaching
materials’ (p.30). For example, English language course books commonly use sentence-level
grammar as their unit of analysis, with little connection to research findings into stages of acquisition
or related cognitive processing. Several researchers have provided lists of theoretical, research- or
experience-based principles for the design and implementation of task-based syllabuses. Apart from
starting with a goal for the course, based on some form of needs analysis (Long, 2015), course
designers need to decide on criteria for classifying, designing, sequencing and implementing tasks to
maximise the learning potential of their classes, as well as to consider how best to incorporate a focus
on form in the syllabus (Ellis, 2003).

Approaches to task classification

Tasks have been classified in various ways, according to: the types of tasks present in course books
(e.g., listing, comparing, problem solving); genres (recipes; medical consultations); types of cognitive
processes required (information gap, opinion gap); and according to hypothesised potential for
language learning (Ellis, 2003). Tasks which engender different types of interaction (e.g., whether one
learner provides others with information or it is equally distributed) and/or communication goal (e.g.,
whether there are one or more possible outcomes), can provide a range of opportunities for
negotiation of meaning and/or form, both of which are hypothesised to foster language development.

Aspects of task design

In line with choices in task classification above, the designer must account for the task input,
implementation conditions, processes and outcomes to be afforded by a particular task (Ellis, 2003).
The input might be oral, written or pictorial; implementation conditions relate to the types of
interaction built into the task, as well as decisions related to task difficulty, such as the use of planning
time or the level of familiarity of the task. Processes relate to the cognitive processes the task is
expected to engage, such whether learners will exchange information or opinions, etc.). Decisions
regarding outcomes relate to genre, mode of communication, as well as communication goals (Ellis,
2003).
Sequencing/grading tasks
Much research has gone into investigating what makes one task more difficult or complex than
another, and all published work on TBLT, whether focused more on research or on pedagogy, draws
on this research in their proposals for this important aspect of TBLT. Familiarity with task content,
frequency of vocabulary, and how well-tuned this input is to the learners’ level of proficiency are
some aspects of task input which come into play when grading tasks. Robinson (2013, p. 3) provides
principles for sequencing tasks in terms of task complexity, based on ‘performative demands’ (e.g.,
+/- planning time; +/- prior knowledge) and ‘conceptual demands’ (e.g., starting with ‘here and now’
tasks which require no reasoning, then moving to ‘there and then’ tasks requiring causal reasoning).

Incorporating focus on form

As noted in section two above, decisions about the role of grammar and other formal learning
distinguish different forms of TBLT (strong and weak), as well as distinguishing TBLT from TSLT.
The strong TBLT approach (Long, 2015) holds that this focus should be reactive and implicit, via
corrective feedback during task-based interaction, while other approaches allow for incorporation of
explicit learning (either proactive or reactive) of the formal system to varying degrees, either via task-
based or more formal structural activities.

Willis and Willis (2007) provide a pedagogically-driven task cycle which has been influential in
teacher training because of its practical appeal, but which does not provide a strong empirical
foundation for its proposals (Samuda & Bygate, 2008). The cycle involves three stages: pre-task,
aimed at introducing language useful to the task and activating schematic knowledge; task involving
performing the communicative task, then reporting on the performance; and post-task language focus,
where there is explicit focus on forms used during the task. Willis and Willis also provide advice on
integrating tasks into coursebooks, as well as attempt to link TBLT to the ‘can do’ statements in the
Common European Framework of References for languages (CEFR). The fact that some researchers
draw on this model in their principles for implementing TBLT (Ellis, 2003; Skehan, 1998), albeit
critically, shows the value of approaches grounded in pedagogical practice.
As with any innovation, the successful implementation of TBLT requires buy-in by the major
stakeholders: teachers and learners. Research into the teacher’s perspective reveals confusion about
the various definitions of task and TBLT, and how to grade tasks or incorporate grammar learning;
along with the perception that researchers may be telling teachers what to do, without taking into
account the amount of effort required by teachers to design and implement a task-based syllabus
(Samuda & Bygate, 2008). While this research highlights the incongruence between teachers’ and
researchers’ perspectives on task, Willis and Willis (2007) provide accounts of attempts by real
teachers to implement TBLT in their classrooms, providing insights into limitations experienced by
teachers in various contexts around the world. Tips provided by such teachers include suggestions for
a staged introduction to TBLT, via task-supported approaches, as well as various proposals for
incorporating a focus on form. While similar proposals have been made by researchers, it is clear that
avenues for collaborative pedagogic research, such as action research (Ellis, 2003), may continue to
improve the ‘uneasy relationship between pedagogy and research’ (Samuda & Bygate, 2008, p. 194),
to further explore the contingencies among the various perspectives on task.

SEE ALSO: Communicative Language Teaching (CLT); Focused Versus Unfocused Tasks;
Presentation, Practice, Production Approach; Task versus Exercise

References
Breen, M. 1989. The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. Johnson (ed.) The second
language curriculum (pp. 187-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. & Crookes. G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly,
26(1), 27-55.
 Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA:
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Robinson, P. (2013). Syllabus Design. In C. Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics.
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Press.
Willis, J. R., & Willis, D. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Further reading
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shehadeh, A. & Coombe, C. (Eds.). (2012). Task-based language teaching in foreign language
contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 163-86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (Eds.). (2009). Task-based language teaching: A
reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

View publication stats