Implementation of a Localized

Task-Based Course in an EFL Context:

A Study of Students’ Evolving Perceptions
YOUJIN KIM AND YEONJOO JUNG
Georgia State University
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
NICOLE TRACY-VENTURA
University of South Florida
Tampa, Florida, United States

Despite a strong pedagogical orientation, the majority of research

examining the effectiveness of task-based language teaching (TBLT)
and perceptions toward TBLT has been investigated in isolation
rather than embedded in larger curricular contexts (McDonough,
2015). The current study examines the process of developing a TBLT
curriculum in South Korea and evolving perceptions toward this par-
ticular semester-long task-based course of students from one intact
university class. Dynamic systems theory is used to investigate students’
evolving perceptions of the new task-based course using two longitudi-
nal data sources, surveys and portfolios. End-of-task unit surveys from
27 students and one focal participant’s portfolio entries were analyzed
both quantitatively and qualitatively. Findings demonstrate that stu-
dents’ perceptions toward TBLT changed over time and that diverse
factors affected how learners feel about task-based instruction. Find-
ings are discussed in light of developing localized TBLT curricula.
doi: 10.1002/tesq.381

T ask-based language teaching (TBLT) offers a rationale and process

for the implementation of language educational programs which use
tasks as a necessary and sufficient basis for syllabus design (Bygate, 2015;
Long, 2015a, 2015b; Norris, 2015; Van den Branden, 2006). Despite a
recent increase in the literature on task use in second language (L2)
teaching, far less research has been carried out demonstrating how the
various principles of TBLT can be successfully applied in L2 teaching con-
texts, especially at the curricular level (Byrnes, 2015; McDonough &
Chaikitmongkol, 2007; Van den Branden, 2006). Instead, most research
has focused intensively and narrowly on factors at play in task-based

632 TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 51, No. 3, September 2017

© 2017 TESOL International Association
performance and learning (e.g., task planning time, task complexity), pre-
dominantly from interactionist approaches to second language acquisi-
tion (SLA). As a result, critical gaps exist between SLA research and
actual practice in the field of TBLT.
Additionally, despite growing efforts to examine TBLT in foreign lan-
guage teaching contexts, far less research has been carried out investi-
gating how TBLT is implemented at the curricular level, perhaps due to
the limited number of longitudinal studies examining TBLT-specific
classes and programs (notable exceptions include Carless, 2004; McDo-
nough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007). Yet, to assess the effectiveness of a
task-based curriculum, a longitudinal study would be necessary which is
conducted, at a minimum, over the course of a semester. Furthermore,
it is important to extend research on TBLT to investigating student per-
spectives, particularly in parts of the world where TBLT may contrast in
important ways to traditional instruction. For example, some researchers
argue that Asia might be an inappropriate context for TBLT due to
learners’ limited real-world task needs outside the language classroom,
as well as the limited oral practice typical of large English classes in this
context (see Butler, 2011, for a review). Nonetheless, there is a growing
need to foster language abilities in Asia (Butler, 2004) and, of the little
TBLT research conducted in this context, examples can be found of
studies with positive results (e.g., McDonough & Chaikitmongkol,
2007). More research is needed, however, to understand how TBLT
courses can be designed and implemented in foreign language teaching
contexts, as well as how they are evaluated by the students themselves.
To fill this gap, the current study investigates South Korean univer-
sity students’ evolving perceptions toward a new one-semester class fol-
lowing a task-based syllabus. The course was designed based on a
needs analysis conducted with different stakeholders in the target con-
text, and thus is an example of localized TBLT. That is, the course was
designed based on the needs of these particular university students,
and their goals and future uses of English. This study contributes to
this special issue by adopting dynamic systems theory (DST; Larsen-
Freeman, 2012) to interpret learners’ evolving perceptions toward
TBLT as they were increasingly exposed to localized TBLT throughout
a semester-long course.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Principles of TBLT

TBLT represents an analytic approach to syllabus design (Wilkins,

1976, as cited in Long & Crookes, 1992). Analytic syllabi are distinct

A LOCALIZED TASK-BASED COURSE 633

from synthetic syllabi in that they do not divide up the language to be
presented in classrooms but instead involve holistic use of language
performed during communicative functions (Long, 2015b). In TBLT,
the curriculum is thus founded on the use of tasks as the basis for
instruction.
Advocates of TBLT argue that tasks promote language learning by
generating meaning-oriented contexts that naturally create opportuni-
ties for the input, interaction, and output processing that are facilita-
tive of L2 development (Long, 2015b; Skehan, 1996). Furthermore,
designing a task-based syllabus, which is based on needs analysis
results, has the potential to make language instruction more relevant
to students’ specific real-world needs, and thus raise their interest and
motivation in language learning (Robinson, 2001b) as well as boost
their foreign language enjoyment (Dewaele, Witney, Saito, & Dewaele,
2017). Because learners are the center of their learning in TBLT, they
are expected to be responsible for their own learning processes and
outcomes more than in teacher-fronted traditional methods. Thus,
learner autonomy is another potential benefit of TBLT. Tasks that
have been designed based on students’ real-world needs and include
multiple phases (e.g., Willis & Willis, 2007) are thought to help stu-
dents gain an understanding of their language needs and future goals,
as well as help them learn to monitor their progress and reflect on
their own learning.
However, despite these positive aspects of TBLT, questions have also
been raised, for example in terms of its effectiveness in introducing
new language forms and promoting the learning of diverse linguistic
features, particularly when instructional time is limited (e.g., Sheen,
1994; Swan, 2005). Additionally, whether TBLT is applicable to a vari-
ety of language learning settings other than English as a second lan-
guage (ESL) contexts has been continuously discussed (Carless, 2004,
2007; McDonough, 2015; McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007). Pro-
ponents of TBLT have responded to such criticisms, highlighting that
some of the concerns raised were not TBLT-specific issues, and also
that much instructed SLA research has supported the benefits of tasks
(Long, 2016).

Localized Task-Based Language Teaching: TBLT in Asian

Contexts of English as a Foreign Language (EFL)

McDonough (2015) calls task-based instruction which is developed

and modified within specific instructional contexts localized TBLT. This
concept is important because a major characteristic of TBLT is that it

634 TESOL QUARTERLY

is designed based on stakeholders’ needs which have to be situational.
As TBLT has received substantial attention from researchers and lan-
guage educators in recent decades, studies have been conducted in a
variety of Asian countries including China, Hong Kong, Thailand, and
Japan (Barnard & Nguyen, 2010; Butler, 2011; Carless, 2004, 2007,
2012; McDonough, 2015; McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007). This
research has shown that implementation of TBLT in Asia had resulted
in varying degrees of success (Li, 1998; Littlewood, 2007) due to sev-
eral contextual limitations including large class sizes, traditional
teacher-centered instruction, heavy focus on preparation for college
entrance exams, lack of students’ real-world English needs, and lack of
teacher competence as well as proper teacher training (Park, 2012).
Accordingly, TBLT had moved from “adoption to adaptation” (But-
ler, 2011, p. 43) toward task-supported language teaching or a weak
version of TBLT to address the above-mentioned limitations and ulti-
mately better suit the local needs and educational values in Asian EFL
settings (Carless, 2012). For example, Carless (2004) conducted class
observations during one school year and interviewed three teachers to
investigate the suitability of TBLT in Hong Kong school settings. In
his follow-up study, Carless (2007) carried out semi-structured inter-
views with EFL teachers and teacher educators to explore their percep-
tions of the task-based approach to teaching English in the Hong
Kong context. Based on his findings, Carless argued that the task-sup-
ported approach would be an adequate alternative to TBLT in Hong
Kong, suggesting that tasks should be modified to serve as a comple-
ment to more formal, form-focused instruction.
Similarly, Jeon and Hahn (2006) investigated Korean secondary
school teachers’ perceptions of the suitability of TBLT. A focus of the
study was the teachers’ understanding of the TBLT framework and
challenges to its implementation in the classroom. Most respondents
believed tasks are not appropriate for Korean learners due to Korea’s
teacher-centered, examination-focused educational system, even
though they were well aware of the advantages of TBLT in developing
learners’ interactive language skills and generating intrinsic motiva-
tion. Sato (2010) also reported overall negative perspectives on the
effectiveness of TBLT in the Japanese EFL context based on his review
of relevant studies. He contended that there is a big gap between the
goal of communicative activities carried out in TBLT and the expecta-
tions of Japanese students on classroom practice.
In sum, previous studies seem to echo Butler’s claims that “the CLT
or TBLT used in Asian classrooms should be considered as an
outcome of the natural consequence of searching for localized
task-supported teaching, rather than treated as poorly implemented or
lost-in-translation versions of the original forms” (2011, p. 49).

A LOCALIZED TASK-BASED COURSE 635

However, although the studies just reviewed provide some insight into
the general perceptions of TBLT and challenges associated with imple-
menting TBLT in Asian EFL contexts, details about the course syllabi
and the tasks included are limited. Therefore, it is unknown to what
extent the courses discussed in previous TBLT research were designed
with tasks as the organizing principle (i.e., an entire task-based course
syllabus). Furthermore, they were primarily carried out with a focus on
teachers’ perspectives of TBLT. Research is needed which brings atten-
tion to students’ perspectives and how they first react to a new method
of teaching and whether their opinions and perceptions change over
time as they gain more experience with TBLT.
One example of a successful localized TBLT course which considered
teacher and student perspectives is described in McDonough and Chaik-
itmongkol (2007). For over a 12-month period and using multiple
sources (e.g., task evaluation, observations, interviews, field notes), they
explored the reactions of learners and teachers to a new task-based
course. Overall, the findings indicated that both the teachers’ and the
students’ reactions became more positive over time. Additionally, the stu-
dents became more independent in their learning and also developed
academic skills and metacognitive strategies that could be used in other
courses. The initial concerns expressed by the teachers and learners
regarding the amount or type of grammar instruction were allayed, and
they came to realize the relevance of the task-based course to their real-
world academic needs. However, the study also demonstrated that both
EFL teachers and learners needed abundant time and support to adjust
to the TBLT course. Based on their findings, McDonough and Chaikit-
mongkol suggested that it is important to examine the feasibility of TBLT
in the local context in order to fit the educational culture and back-
grounds of the school, teachers, and students.

Dynamic Systems Theory and Changes in Learner Perceptions

Toward TBLT
Over the last few decades, many subdisciplines of SLA and L2 peda-
gogy have explored various language-related constructs and attempted
to explain the variability in L2 development found in much research
from dynamic systems perspectives (Larsen-Freeman, 2006, 2012,
2015). Research utilizing dynamic systems theory focuses on describing
and tracing emerging patterns in dynamic systems. In SLA, dynamic
systems refer to learners’ linguistic and nonlinguistic systems. Accord-
ing to Larsen-Freeman (2015), complex systems are open and adaptive
because they interact with their environment and other subsystems,
and react to changes in the environment. Finally, complex systems

636 TESOL QUARTERLY

show nonlinear patterns of development, which means that the ways
subsystems interact are often not predictable, and may only be observ-
able after the fact (D€ornyei, 2014).
Since DST was introduced in SLA, researchers have begun analyzing
learners’ interlanguage as dynamic systems, and examining how subsys-
tems change over time. One core feature of studies from a DST per-
spective is the use of longitudinal data through which dynamic
changes can be observable using both quantitative and qualitative
methods (Verspoor, de Bot, & Lowie, 2011). For instance, Larsen-Free-
man (2006) examined L2 learners’ oral and written language develop-
ment over time by analyzing accuracy, fluency, and complexity. The
findings suggest that although averaged group data indicated constant
improvement on all measures, individual learners’ patterns of develop-
ment in each area were far from linear and they all showed different
rates and trajectories of change. Additionally, Polat and Kim (2014)
examined the syntactic complexity, lexical diversity, and accuracy of
oral language development by an untutored advanced ESL learner for
one year. Their results indicated that each of these subcomponents
developed differently, which suggests intra-individual variability in L2
learning as well as dynamic interaction patterns among linguistic sub-
systems within one learner.
Other linguistic and nonlinguistic systems such as pragmatics and
individual differences have also been examined from DST perspectives
(Taguchi, 2011; Waninge, D€ ornyei, & de Bot, 2014). Oftentimes these
studies reported multicase studies and demonstrated intra-individual
variability as well as variability within stability (i.e., attractor state) for
the target systems using the microgenetic method. Waninge et al.
(2014) demonstrated the change and stability of four L2 learners’
motivation in their German and Spanish classes (a total of six sessions
of 45–50 min lessons) using Motometer and class observation. The
findings showed that learner motivation changed dynamically even
during one 45–50 min session, and that many factors contributed to
such changes. The findings highlight motivational changes on an indi-
vidual level, yet they also show predictable and stable phases (i.e., sta-
bility) within the specific learning contexts. This study is one of the
first studies which demonstrated how L2 motivation can be examined
from the perspective of DST, suggesting future directions for examin-
ing individual differences from DST perspectives in other areas.
Building on these recent empirical investigations of linguistic and
nonlinguistic systems, it can be said that learner perceptions toward
TBLT are likely not static but rather expected to show dynamic
changes over time due to a variety of factors and particularly when it is
new for students who are not accustomed to much oral interaction in
the classroom, such as in many Asian countries. Additionally, learner

A LOCALIZED TASK-BASED COURSE 637

perceptions toward TBLT may consist of many subsystems (e.g., task
difficulty, task motivation, task performance confidence, emotion,
beliefs in learning opportunities, and task enjoyment) which have pri-
marily been examined individually in the TBLT literature (e.g.,
D€ornyei & Tseng, 2009; Kim, 2009; Kim & McDonough, 2008;
Sasayama, 2016). To date, no study has examined how these subsys-
tems of learner perceptions interact with each other throughout a
semester.
In sum, the field of SLA has seen a dynamic turn in the analysis of
L2 development. However, this approach has not been systematically
adopted in the field of TBLT, and the examination of learner percep-
tions toward TBLT is something that would benefit from a DST
approach. Long (2016) identifies teacher education in TBLT as one of
the major “real” issues facing successful implementation of TBLT. We
believe that understanding the dynamic ways in which learner percep-
tions toward TBLT change throughout a semester can be informative
for teachers and program administrators wanting to implement TBLT
in their EFL courses. Thus, the current study investigated the imple-
mentation of a new one-semester TBLT course in a Korean EFL uni-
versity context. In particular, we examined learners’ evolving
perceptions of the TBLT course over one semester using two different
data sources, surveys and portfolios. The study was guided by the two
following research questions:
(1) How do Korean EFL learners perceive localized TBLT curric-
ula? Do their perceptions change over the period of one seme-
ster?
(2) How do one student’s perceptions toward task difficulty, her
emotions, task performance confidence, task enjoyment, task
motivation, and beliefs toward learning opportunities interact
over one semester?

METHODS
Participants, Instructor, and Instructional Context

The study was conducted at a private university in Korea. Partici-

pants included 18 female and 9 male adult Korean EFL students who
were enrolled in a required English course. This particular task-based
English class was offered for the first time during the semester in
which the study was conducted. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to
22 years (M = 18.56, SD = 0.85), and the length of previous English

638 TESOL QUARTERLY

study ranged from 6 to 15 years, with a mean of 9.5 years. They had
taken at least 6 years of mandatory English classes at junior high and
high school before entering the university. Their average TOEIC
bridge score was 109.17 (SD = 19.12, min = 76, max = 138) out of 180.
This suggests that the learners in the current study were beginner to
low intermediate learners.
The goal of the course, which met once a week for 2 hours over a 16-
week semester, was to help students improve their general English skills
by using a variety of educational practices. Prior to data collection,
there was no unified syllabus for different sections of the same course;
different instructors were free to create their own syllabi with different
textbooks. One class participated in the study. A total of 54 students
were enrolled in this class; however, data were only included for those
participants who attended all class sessions and completed all surveys.
To select a focal participant, we considered those students who per-
formed all tasks, were not majoring in English-related studies, and
who submitted all surveys and portfolios. One focal participant, Miran,
was selected for the case study, a 19-year-old female university student
whose major was Korean cultural studies. She was not concurrently tak-
ing any other English courses and had never studied abroad. She was
considered a high beginner (TOEIC bridge score = 116).
The first author, a native of South Korea, was the instructor of the
class. At the time of data collection, she had over eight years teaching
experience in both South Korea and the United States, and experi-
ence with both traditional and task-supported lessons. She had con-
ducted several TBLT projects prior to the current project, and was
very familiar with the process of designing English course syllabi.

Needs Analysis

The task-based syllabus was designed based on a needs analysis con-

sisting of interviews with four previous course instructors and four cur-
rent university students. Each interview lasted 30–40 minutes.
Questions for instructors centered on how they designed their previ-
ous general English courses (content and organization), what they
believed were the strengths and weaknesses of their classes, and what
they would change if they were to teach the same course again. Stu-
dent interviews focused on their interests and reasons for learning
English. The university academic calendar and current social events
(e.g., mayoral election) were also considered as part of the needs anal-
ysis, which was key for designing a localized task-based syllabus. For
instance, every May there is a university-wide festival, and data were
collected on different types of events occurring during the week-long

A LOCALIZED TASK-BASED COURSE 639

festival. Based on the needs analysis data, three major themes were
chosen for the task-based lessons: work, travel, and school events. Four
tasks were developed for each thematic unit and are described next.

Task-Based Instruction

Throughout the semester, the students received task-based instruc-

tion that included a total of 12 tasks organized in three thematic
topics: The World of Work, Traveling, and University Life Events. All tasks
were designed to be relevant to the learners’ current or future com-
municative needs either in Korean or English. For instance, The World
of Work was selected because there have been increasing demands for
communicative competence in English in the workplace and English
interviews are commonly required. Traveling was chosen since an
increasing number of university students go abroad for various pur-
poses (e.g., student exchange programs, intensive English programs,
leisure). University Life Events involve life on campus such as interacting
with international friends using English as a lingua franca or attending
English native speakers’ communication classes in Korea, a require-
ment in this context. As many researchers have noted, it is not easy to
identify students’ real-world needs for using English in EFL contexts.
Thus, tasks were designed to address university students’ interests and
daily conversation topics in South Korea.
Table 1 describes how each TBLT lesson was organized. Every class
included a pre-task phase (5 minutes long) designed to help students
become familiar with the task content and activate their topic-based
schemata. Students spent approximately 40 minutes to complete a task
in pairs, and 5 minutes for the post-task phase.

TABLE 1
Brief Overview of Task Phases within Lesson Plan

Pre-task phase (5 minutes)

• activating schema
• discussing the purpose of tasks
During-task phase (40 minutes)
• carrying out the task
Post-task phase (5 minutes)
• sharing task outcome
• self-reflection/evaluation

640 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials
Treatment tasks. Table 2 describes the topics of the 12 tasks. Tasks
were designed based on the following criteria that Ellis (2003)
described as positive characteristics of collaborative tasks: (1) tasks that
are relevant to learners’ current or future needs either in Korean or
English, (2) two-way tasks that naturally require information exchange,
and (3) convergent tasks. Tasks were also designed as focused tasks,
with specific linguistic goals in mind (Ellis, 2003): questions (Unit 1),
new vocabulary (Unit 2), and past tense (Unit 3).
In terms of task sequencing, several models have been introduced
in TBLT, and a common practice is to sequence tasks from simple to
complex (see Baralt, Gilabert, & Robinson, 2014, for a review). Based
on Robinson’s triadic component framework (task complexity, task dif-
ficulty, task condition), the 12 tasks used in the current study were
sequenced from simple to complex using reasoning demands. The
four tasks in Unit 1 do not require any reasoning to complete the task,
but in later units the degree of reasoning was increased. For instance,
tasks in Unit 1 required students to exchange information with each
other. Tasks in Unit 2 required learners to make a decision consider-
ing two factors, whereas in Unit 3 learners had to make a decision
considering four factors.

Portfolio. To meet course requirements, students were required to

submit portfolio entries, written in Korean, for each task in which they
indicated what they had learned that day while carrying out the task
(learning journal) (adapted from Mackey, Gass, and McDonough,
2000), and then evaluated the task and their own task performance
(reflection) (Kim, 2009; Robinson, 2001a). For the reflections, they
answered six questions that were organized into six categories: (1) task
TABLE 2
Topic of Each Task

Thematic Unit Topic

The World of Work Task 1 Working as a matchmaker
Task 2 Finding a part-time job
Task 3 Hiring employees
Task 4 Giving promotion opportunities
Traveling Task 1 Traveling in Seoul with an international friend
Task 2 Planning a class trip
Task 3 Staying in London
Task 4 Attending an intensive English program abroad
University Life Events Task 1 Describing events at a university festival
Task 2 Hosting an American friend
Task 3 Sharing an experience from university orientation
Task 4 Preparing for an election campaign for a mayor

A LOCALIZED TASK-BASED COURSE 641

difficulty; (2) emotion; (3) task performance confidence; (4) enjoy-
ment; (5) task motivation; and (6) learning opportunities. For each
item, two opposite statements were given on a 10-point Likert scale
(adapted from Kim, 2009; Robinson 2001a). The higher number for
each item indicates positive attitudes toward each aspect (Figure 1).

Learner perception survey. Learners also completed a perception

survey, in Korean, at the end of each unit. The Unit 1 survey included
15 items, and both the Unit 2 and Unit 3 surveys included 25 items
focusing on perceptions toward the usefulness of tasks in L2 learning
and students’ motivation and anxiety toward task performance as well
as English language learning in general. Each Likert item was pro-
vided with six scales from complete agreement (6) to complete disagreement
(1). Because the current study aimed to investigate learners’ percep-
tions toward task performance in each unit, we focused on only those
four survey items that related to this, three of which are Likert scale
and one open-ended: (1) “In the future, I want to take an English
class that uses similar tasks,” (2) “I believe the four tasks included in
the units were helpful for English learning,” (3) “I believe the four
tasks included in the units were more useful to learn question forms
(unit 1)/vocabulary (unit 2)/past tense (unit 3) than the materials
that I used in high/secondary school”; the open-ended one is (4)
“Please provide the strengths and weaknesses of tasks that you com-
pleted in this unit.”

Procedure

Table 3 describes the 16-week course plan for the new task-based
class. The first 2 weeks of the semester were devoted to familiarizing
learners to the use of oral tasks during pair work, in addition to com-
pleting the background questionnaire. Each unit was covered in 5

FIGURE 1. Task reflection items.

642 TESOL QUARTERLY

TABLE 3
Course Plan

Week/Day Procedure
Week 1/Day 1 Introduction to the course; getting to know each other
Week 2/Day 2 Practice tasks
Week 4/Day 4 Unit 1: Task 1
Unit 1: Task 2
Week 5/Day 5 Unit 1: Task 3
Unit 1: Task 4
Week 6/Day 6 Individual and collaborative posttask for Unit 1
Week 7/Day 7 Unit 1 Questionnaire
Week 8/Day 8 Unit 2: Task 5
Unit 2: Task 6
Week 9/Day 9 Unit 2: Task 7
Unit 2: Task 8
Week 10/Day 10 Individual and collaborative posttask for Unit 2
Week 11/Day 11 Unit 2 Questionnaire
Week 13/Day 13 Unit 3: Task 9
Unit 3: Task 10
Week 14/Day 14 Unit 3: Task 11
Unit 3: Task 12
Week 15/Day 15 Individual and collaborative posttask for Unit 3
Week 16/Day 16 Unit 3 Questionnaire

weeks. Throughout the semester, students worked with self-selected

partners.

Analysis

Learners’ (n = 27) survey data and one focal participant’s portfolio

were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Survey data were
analyzed using repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs).
Learners’ written data were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Research Question 1 examines how Korean EFL learners perceived

the localized task-based course, and whether their perceptions chan-
ged throughout the semester. To investigate this question, students’
responses to three questions on each of the unit surveys were analyzed
in detail: (1) whether they would want to continue their English
classes following a similar TBLT course format (interest in future
TBLT), (2) to what extent they thought tasks were useful for their
English learning (usefulness), and (3) whether or not they thought a

A LOCALIZED TASK-BASED COURSE 643

TBLT approach is more effective than the traditional English lessons
that they had in high/secondary school (effectiveness).
Table 4 displays the descriptive statistics for the three survey items.
Each statement included six options ranging from I completely agree with
this statement (6) to I completely disagree with this statement (1). Three
repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted for each item to investi-
gate whether students’ opinions changed for each item throughout
the semester. For students’ interest toward TBLT, there was a signifi-
cant difference over time, F(2, 52) = 6.827, p = .002, partial eta
squared = .208. Post-hoc analyses indicated significant differences
between Unit 2 and Unit 3 (t = 3.863, p = .001, d = 0. 52) and Unit 1
and Unit 3 (t = 3.122, p = .013, d = 0.61) with small effect sizes. This
suggests that students’ interest toward TBLT increased gradually. For
the usefulness question, students consistently agreed the tasks were
useful for language learning, and there was no significant change over
time F(2, 52) = .247, p = .782. For effectiveness, the tasks in each unit
were designed as focused tasks with specific linguistic goals in mind
(Ellis, 2003), and students were asked whether they believe TBLT was
more effective than traditional instruction for learning questions (Unit
1), new vocabulary (Unit 2), and past tense (Unit 3). Results of a
repeated-measures ANOVA indicated a significant difference among
the three units, F(2, 52) = 3.674, p = .032, partial eta squared = .124.
Post-hoc analysis indicated significant differences between Unit 1 and
Unit 2 (t = 2.32, p = .028, d = .59), and Unit 2 and Unit 3 (t = 2.37, p
= .026, d = .69). Students only believed that the tasks in Unit 2, which
targeted new vocabulary words related to traveling, were more useful
than their previous traditional instruction.
Students’ written responses to the open-ended question about the
strengths and weaknesses of the tasks were coded qualitatively. (Com-
mon themes are identified and summarized in Table 5.) Comments
were originally written in Korean but translated to English here. For
Unit 1, 70% (19/27) of the students mentioned a strength of the tasks

TABLE 4
Student Perceptions Toward TBLT Over Time

Effectiveness
of TBLT vs.
Interest in Usefulness of Tasks Traditional
Future TBLT for English Learning Instruction

Unit M SD M SD M SD
Unit 1 3.85 1.19 4.15 0.99 3.56 1.28
Unit 2 3.93 1.27 4.30 0.95 4.33 0.92
Unit 3 4.52 1.01 4.15 1.23 3.78 0.93

644 TESOL QUARTERLY

they did. Most of these comments demonstrate that the students liked
the interactiveness of the tasks and the speaking practice. For exam-
ple, one student said,
Although I do not feel like this class helps me to improve my grammar
skills, I gained confidence in speaking. It was also interesting to work
with my partner and correct each other’s mistakes.
Additionally, five students mentioned a high degree of engagement in
class, as shown in the following comment:
Honestly I like that this class requires interaction and active participa-
tion compared to my high school English classes. I would never imag-
ine that I could create English questions orally. However, through this
class, I can construct English questions.
This student also stated that he was able to learn how to create ques-
tions, which was one of the task-induced features.
Interestingly, students did not make the same kind of comments for
the strengths of the Unit 2 tasks. In comparison, they focused more
on specific task features, for example the vocabulary needed and the
task content. A few also mentioned the fact that the tasks were
repeated as being a strength:
These tasks were very useful for learning new words. Although they
were difficult words, as we encountered them while repeating the tasks,
it became easier for me to learn these words compared to simply trying
to memorize them.

TABLE 5
Summary of Student Responses to Open-Ended Question on Strengths and Weaknesses of
Tasks

Strengths
Unit 1 Speaking practice (12)
High engagement in class (5)
Learned how to ask questions (4)
Unit 2 Learned new vocabulary words (14)
Benefits of task repetition (4)
Matches with my interests (5)
Unit 3 Communication-oriented lessons (13)
Student-centered class environment (5)
Weaknesses
Unfamiliar class format (10)
Too much work in class (7)
Low English proficiency level for
doing tasks (6)
Not enough grammar and
vocabulary-focused lessons (5)
Lack of grammar lessons (5)
Tasks were challenging (7)
Too much work in class (4)
Tasks were challenging (3)

Note. The numbers in parentheses indicate the number of students who mentioned each
comment. The total number of comments does not match the total number of students
because one student sometimes addressed more than one theme.

A LOCALIZED TASK-BASED COURSE 645

Unit 1 tasks were also repeated but this feature of the task-based
instruction may have only become obvious as a strength when it came
time to learn vocabulary. After Unit 3 nearly 50% of the students (13/
27) still saw the communicative aspect of the tasks as a strength.
Analysis of students’ responses about the weaknesses of the tasks
demonstrates some changes over time as well. At the end of Unit 1,
more than one-third of the students (10/27) commented that the class
format was unfamiliar but such comments did not appear after later
units, demonstrating that students became accustomed to the task-
based class format.
This class was based on real-world tasks. This might be the reason why
I became interested in each class. Although I had no idea about what I
was supposed to do in the beginning, I have gradually noticed that I
can actually speak in English by participating in tasks that were cus-
tomized according to our real-life.
A reoccurring theme throughout was related to there being too much
work in class, although fewer than 25% of the students (7/27) made
such a comment after Unit 1 and only 15% (4/27) after Unit 3. Com-
ments also related to a lack of grammar practice (after Units 1 and 2)
and vocabulary (after Unit 1). The first student comment above and
the following demonstrate this concern:
This class offers communication-oriented lessons. However, I am afraid
there are not many grammar learning opportunities. I don’t feel like
my grammar is getting better although I study a lot.
After Unit 3, however, no comments related to grammar or vocabulary
were made, perhaps because Unit 3 focused on the past tense, and stu-
dents were aware of that.
There was only one mention of the unit themes in the student com-
ments for Unit 2. Five students commented that the travel theme
matched their interests and they saw the tasks as helpful for learning
vocabulary. Several students mentioned that because they were inter-
ested in traveling, including studying abroad, the tasks were in line
with their needs, as shown in the following comment:
I am very interested in going to Europe. Thus I found these tasks
very interesting since they made me feel like I am actually going
there. Learning new words by looking up the words in real contexts
was very helpful. However, it was still challenging to learn how to use
them.
Students also seemed to be able to see the authenticity of the task con-
tent and the process of task performance, as evidenced by this com-
ment made by a student about the student orientation task:

646 TESOL QUARTERLY

 This task focuses on a student orientation. This reminded me of my
first day as a new student, attending the student orientation. It was
interesting to compare my orientation and the orientation information
provided in the task.
This comment suggests that when the task content focuses on some-
thing relevant to students’ lives, even if it is something they would
more likely participate in using Korean, they may show more interest
in completing the task.
The second research question addressed how different aspects of
one learner’s perceptions toward the new task-based course interacted
with each other. We chose one focal participant, Miran, and examined
12 portfolio entries that were submitted throughout the semester, one
at the end of each task. Miran’s portfolio entries and other artifacts
from class such as her task worksheets and class notes were analyzed
qualitatively to investigate her evolving perceptions toward TBLT as
she performed more collaborative tasks throughout the semester. Fig-
ure 2 demonstrates the trajectory of how different aspects of Miran’s
perceptions toward tasks and her task performance interacted over
time. As suggested in Verspoor et al. (2011), we used a smoothing
technique to sketch the general trend of each subsystem of learner
perceptions; the solid line shows the raw data points, and the same
colored dotted polynominal line is a trend line (i.e., smoother).
Despite some variability, within each subsystem polynomial trend lines
show an increase in positive perception responses over time (the
higher the number, the more positive the response).
van Dijk, Verspoor, and Lowie (2011) suggest the use of moving min-
max graphs, which highlight “the general pattern of variability, while
keeping the raw data visible” (p. 75). This method of visualization shows
the dynamics of each variable in more depth. The min-max technique
uses a moving window, which overlaps with the previous windows. For
instance, the first min-max value was calculated based on the first three
time periods (Task 1, Task 2, Task 3), and the next min-max value was
calculated based on the same measurement occasions minus the first
and plus the next (i.e., Task 2, Task 3, Task 4). This technique shows the
bandwidth of observed scores of that participant, highlighting the differ-
ences between the min and max points using a moving window. The
amount of variation can be observed based on the bandwidth: the wider
the bandwidth, the greater the amount of variation. In other words,
when the min and max line opens into wider windows, it is indicative of
greater volatility in a subsystem during those times (called phase shifts).
Figures 3–8 show moving min-max windows for all six subsystems: (1)
task difficulty, (2) emotion, (3) task performance confidence, (4) enjoy-
ment, (5) task motivation, and (6) learning opportunities.

A LOCALIZED TASK-BASED COURSE 647

11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Task difficulty Emoon Task performance confidence

Enjoyment Task movaon Learning opportunies

FIGURE 2. Miran’s perception changes over time. [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

The same task procedure was repeated four times with different
topics within each of the three task units (e.g., The World of Work, Travel-
ing, and University Life Events). This was reflected in Miran’s rating for
task difficulty (see Figure 3). Miran found the first task of each unit to
be the most difficult (i.e., the higher the number, the easier the task
seems to be); the min-max window tended to open up during the first
task in each unit (particularly for Unit 1 and Unit 2). The general pat-
tern demonstrates that as she repeated the same task procedure in each
unit, the task difficulty rating changed to indicate less difficulty with
task performance. In particular, although she stated in her portfolio
entry that she did not understand the directions clearly for Task 1 in
Unit 1, she acknowledged the benefits of repeating tasks for later units:
I did not understand the directions well (Task 1, Unit 1).
Due to the repeated structures, I became familiar with this task (Task
3, Unit 2).
In general, tasks in the first unit (The World of Work) showed noticeable
variability for all subsystems, as all min-max windows opened more
spread apart. Also they all show noticeable differences between the
very first task (Task 1 in Unit 1; i.e., initial state) and the next two
tasks, following a linear pattern. As a result, there were large differ-
ences between min-max values for each subsystem in that unit. In
terms of variability, the second and third units show more variability,
particularly with Miran’s emotions and confidence level with her task
performance. With regard to the interaction between her emotions

648 TESOL QUARTERLY

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Task difficulty Min Max

FIGURE 3. Moving min-max graph for task difficulty.

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Emoon Min Max

FIGURE 4. Moving min-max graph for task emotion.

and other areas of task perception, she wrote the following in her
reflection:
Although I was able to memorize some of the words from last week’s
tasks, I could not remember the meaning. I had issues with time man-
agement during this task because I had a difficult time pronouncing
some words.

A LOCALIZED TASK-BASED COURSE 649

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Task performance confidence Min Max

FIGURE 5. Moving min-max graph for task performance confidence.

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Enjoyment Min Max

FIGURE 6. Moving min-max graph for enjoyment.

The Unit 2 (Traveling) tasks provided more language input than the
Unit 1 (The World of Work) tasks because the former were designed as
focused tasks to introduce useful words for traveling. Miran noticed
that, and commented that the language input for those tasks were use-
ful resources. This was confirmed by her portfolio report where she
listed new language features that she had learned during each task
(Section 1). Although she listed five features on average in the other
units, she listed about 10 linguistic features for each task in Unit 2,
which were mainly new vocabulary words. However, it was obvious that

650 TESOL QUARTERLY

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Task movaon Min Max

FIGURE 7. Moving min-max graph for task motivation.

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Learning opportunies Min Max

FIGURE 8. Moving min-max graph for learning opportunities.

she felt frustrated with unfamiliar words, particularly during Task 3 in

Unit 2 (see Figure 4) when Miran showed the highest level of confi-
dence in terms of her performance; she felt frustrated while complet-
ing the task because she could not remember some of the words that
she encountered in previous tasks. When she performed the last task
of Unit 2, she not only felt confident with task performance but also
enjoyed carrying out the task (i.e., enjoyment). Such variability is

A LOCALIZED TASK-BASED COURSE 651

shown in Figure 4 (Emotion) and Figure 5 (Task performance confi-
dence).
Turning to self-confidence, results demonstrate that her confidence
with task performance in English increased throughout the semester.
However, she expressed a lack of confidence speaking in English when
she performed the tasks in Unit 3, which required her to talk about
her university life with a partner. For instance, she stated the following
about the orientation task (Task 3):
Compared to the last unit’s tasks, during this task I was trying to make
complete sentences using the correct “Subject + Verb” formations. I
still cannot make perfect sentences.
Another noticeable pattern for Miran was how her view toward her
partner changed. During Task 3 in Unit 1, she stated that working
with a partner was hard since both of them made mistakes with spel-
ling and they had poor pronunciation. However, for Task 4 in Unit 2
she wrote, “Nowadays my partner can help me with vocabulary so that
we could finish the tasks quickly and accurately.” Finally, for Unit 3
she stated, “I feel like working with a partner could help me learn
more than twice as much as when I work alone.”
Among the six subsystems of student perceptions toward task perfor-
mance, three of Miran’s systems (i.e., enjoyment, motivation, and per-
ception toward the amount of learning opportunities) started low but
steadily increased throughout the units, perhaps as she became more
accustomed to the new type of tasks and class format which required
collaborative speaking tasks, as shown in the following comment:
When the professor said this was the last task, I felt “already?” When I
participated in the first task in this class, I felt embarrassed about
speaking in English and recording my speaking with my partner. How-
ever, over time I became accustomed to doing tasks with my partner,
and nowadays I even joke with my partner when speaking in English. I
gained confidence with my English from this class.
Her enjoyment increased more gradually (Figure 6), whereas her moti-
vation and perception of learning opportunities were low after the first
task but quickly increased and remained high throughout the seme-
ster, as demonstrated by less variability in the moving min-max graphs
(Figures 7 and 8).

DISCUSSION

Over the past few decades, an increasing amount of attention has

been given to TBLT from various perspectives. In particular, a large

652 TESOL QUARTERLY

amount of recent interactionist SLA research has applied TBLT princi-
ples in designing and implementing instructional tasks (see Kim, 2015,
for a review). These studies were often conducted apart from the regu-
lar course curricula and within a rather short amount of time (cf.
McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007).
Research Question 1 examined students’ perceptions of the TBLT
course via responses on a questionnaire given at the end of each of
the three units (three Likert-style questions and one open-ended ques-
tion). Results of the Likert questions demonstrated that as the seme-
ster progressed students expressed more interest in taking a TBLT
course again in the future, yet their opinion of the usefulness of TBLT
for learning English did not change and remained rather neutral.
Although the students’ interest in participating in TBLT increased
gradually, their beliefs about the usefulness of tasks for English learn-
ing and the effectiveness of TBLT compared to traditional instruction
showed more variability. They believed that TBLT was more effective
than their previous style of (traditional) instruction for learning of
vocabulary but not necessarily for grammar, as shown by the highest
ratings for Unit 2, which offered written task input with new vocabu-
lary. As a part of the task-based course requirements, students submit-
ted portfolio entries, in which they reflected on what they learned
from that day’s class. Not surprisingly, vocabulary was the most fre-
quently reported language area.
Responses to the open-ended question about the strengths and
weaknesses of the TBLT course showed that a number of students
made remarks about the course format being unfamiliar after complet-
ing Unit 1 but never again, indicating that they became accustomed to
the new format over time. They liked the interactiveness of the tasks
and the opportunities for speaking practice, which have traditionally
been rare in this context. Although several students stated that they
did not see the connection between speaking practice and the learn-
ing of grammar, they did feel that repetition of the tasks in Unit 2 was
helpful for learning vocabulary. The tasks were also repeated in the
other units, but for some reason many did not mention the benefit of
task repetition in Units 1 and 3. It may be the case that students
appreciated repeating the tasks when they were focused tasks for new
words, because new vocabulary items were more salient to these low-
level students as they appeared in the task input (Unit 2 tasks).
One of the most important aspects of TBLT is the use of authentic
tasks. Many researchers have raised a concern regarding the use of
tasks in EFL contexts because it is difficult to identify what exactly
counts as authentic in these contexts (Butler, 2011). In the current
study, the tasks were carefully designed with this in mind. Students
were provided with contexts where they would use English (e.g.,

A LOCALIZED TASK-BASED COURSE 653

traveling in London) but some of the scenarios in the tasks were also
chosen based on topics related to students’ everyday lives. These could
be contexts where Korean would normally be spoken (e.g., mayoral
election). Such practice in English could some day become useful in si-
tuations where they need to explain these (many times cultural) events
in English to people from other countries. In localized TBLT contexts,
although the task content or task outcome might not be immediately
relevant to the students, designing tasks using the content that they
are familiar with and interested in seems important to increase their
task motivation. This was shown with Miran’s data. After the first two
tasks, she demonstrated a fairly stable level of task motivation. Thus we
argue that the same standards for “authenticity” cannot be applied to
both ESL and EFL contexts. By incorporating their current real-life
experiences into task design, students seemed to have been able to
make connections between tasks and their real-world activities in the
current study.
Research Question 2 focused on one beginner focal participant’s
evolving perceptions over time, and in particular how different aspects
of her perceptions, called subsystems in a dynamic systems framework,
interact with each other. Miran’s case demonstrates how her percep-
tions toward the task-based class changed positively in many ways (e.g.,
self-confidence, her beliefs in learning opportunities through task per-
formance). However, interesting variability was observed within each
system particularly for emotion and self-confidence during task perfor-
mance. From a DST perspective, several factors (e.g., target features
such as new vocabulary words, task types, amount of task input, task
complexity), besides the amount of experience with tasks, were found
to be associated with the variability within the subsystems of the whole
system (i.e., learner perceptions toward TBLT). This supports a
dynamic view of learner perceptions toward their learning experiences
(Larsen-Freeman, 2012). What seems to be the important finding is
the role of task repetition in learner perceptions. As shown with Mir-
an’s data, although she repeated the same task procedure four times
in each unit, the trajectory of her change in perceptions for the three
units was not unified, which is in line with the claims from DST (Lar-
sen-Freeman, 2013). This finding suggests the potential benefits of tak-
ing a DST approach when examining task design and implementation
variables in TBLT research.
Several pedagogical and methodological implications can be drawn
from this study. First, and perhaps most importantly, results of this
study suggest that TBLT can be successfully implemented in an Asian
EFL context when the course is designed following localized curricula
based on a needs analysis. However, the data also show that there may
be some obstacles in terms of student perceptions toward collaborative

654 TESOL QUARTERLY

tasks. Students may show an initial reluctance to the new format but
over time most should grow accustomed to it. Several may need rein-
forcement that they can also learn grammar during speaking practice.
Miran’s case study showed how she initially had more negative views
toward carrying out collaborative tasks during the first two tasks in
Unit 1. Eventually, her views became more positive, particularly toward
the last task in the semester (Task 4 in Unit 3) after several phase
shifts, demonstrating continuing changes within the system.
Perhaps one way to ease the transition to a TBLT curriculum and help
students become familiar with tasks and the effects of tasks is by provid-
ing explicit metacognition instruction (e.g., Fujii, Ziegler, & Mackey,
2016) or task modeling (Kim, 2013). When implementing new
approaches to language teaching, stakeholders such as teachers or
administrators often worry about the negative aspects of the curricular
change. Yet, the current study demonstrates how Miran and the other
students changed their perceptions toward tasks over one semester as
they became more accustomed to this approach. The majority of task-
based studies only implemented a limited number of tasks and exam-
ined learning outcomes and/or student perceptions of the tasks. How-
ever, results of the current study suggest that such a short period of
observation might not be enough to capture the real picture of how stu-
dent perceptions change over time in response to different factors.
Based on the variability found at different levels (between the tasks,
between the units), it is important that instructors of task-based courses
pay attention to students’ needs as well as the students’ understanding
of the task goals. It is also important to recognize that in many institu-
tional settings teachers are not able or allowed to deviate from the syllabi
and the curricula that have been in place unless their institutions agree
on revisions (McDonough, 2015). Therefore, implementation of a task-
based course in many contexts could be very challenging.
Some limitations of the current study should be acknowledged. First,
completion of the perception survey was optional, and only the data from
the students who completed all of the surveys were included in this study.
It is possible then that the results maybe be positively skewed if the more
motivated students more often completed the survey. There is evidence
in that data, however, of negative comments suggesting that students who
did fill out the survey had no problem providing their opinions on the
weaknesses of the tasks. Additionally, because the current study did not
follow an experimental design and attempt to control many variables, we
acknowledge that a variety of factors beyond exposure to TBLT could
have impacted students’ perceptions, such as the order of topics used in
the units. However, this is a reality in classroom-based research, and the
findings should be interpreted with these considerations in mind. In the
current study, one student’s portfolio submission was analyzed for

A LOCALIZED TASK-BASED COURSE 655

Research Question 2. We acknowledge that it is difficult to examine com-
plex constructs (e.g., emotions, self-confidence, task motivation, etc.)
using one data source. Therefore, future studies would benefit from
including a larger number of participants, as well as triangulating more
data sources, such as interviews with students, focus groups, and class
observations. MacIntyre’s (2012) idiodynamic method may also be worth
exploring as a way to capture more of the dynamics and change impor-
tant in DST. Future research may also benefit from employing separate
evaluative or assessment measures of L2 development in an attempt to
demonstrate that implementation of TBLT leads to positive learning out-
comes.
Finally, the instructor of the TBLT course was also a researcher spe-
cializing in TBLT and had considerable experience designing tasks.
Thus the quality of the TBLT course may be attributable to her famil-
iarity with TBLT. How other teachers not as familiar with TBLT would
be able to implement a semester-long TBLT course in this context is
worthy of future research.

CONCLUSION

In this study we analyzed students’ evolving perceptions toward

TBLT in a Korean university EFL context, and also focused on how
one particular student’s perceptions of task difficulty, as well as her
emotions, self-confidence, task enjoyment, task motivation, and beliefs
toward learning opportunities changed throughout the semester. By
examining students’ perceptions over one semester, we observed that,
for most, attitudes toward TBLT changed positively over time. An anal-
ysis of these results using DST supports some stability as well as vari-
ability within complex dynamic patterns of student perceptions, and
demonstrates that students need time to adjust to a new pedagogical
approach. Future longitudinal research is warranted to provide more
insights into the effects of TBLT from DST perspectives. Furthermore,
considering the very important role that teachers play in implement-
ing TBLT curricula, future research is needed that investigates teacher
training in this area as well as the kind of support they require during
initial implementation of new task-based courses.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to the co-editors of the special issue and the anonymous reviewers
who provided insightful and constructive comments on earlier versions of this arti-
cle. Any remaining errors are our own.

656 TESOL QUARTERLY

THE AUTHORS

YouJin Kim is an associate professor in the Department of Applied Linguistics and

English as a Second Language at Georgia State University. Her primary research
interests involve second language acquisition, particularly focusing on the role of
interaction and individual differences, and task-based language teaching.

YeonJoo Jung is currently a doctoral candidate in the Department of Applied Lin-

guistics and English as a Second Language at Georgia State University. Her
research interests include second language acquisition and task-based language
teaching. Within SLA, her primary focus is on the application of experimental
techniques from psychology to second language processing and acquisition.

Nicole Tracy-Ventura is an assistant professor in the Department of Modern Lan-

guages at the University of South Florida. Her research interests include second
language acquisition, study abroad, task-based language teaching, and learner cor-
pus research.

REFERENCES

Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (Eds.). (2014). Task sequencing and
instructed second language learning. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.
Barnard, R., & Nguyen, G. V. (2010). Task-based language teaching (TBLT): A
Vietnamese case study using narrative frames to elicit teachers’ beliefs. Lan-
guage Education in Asia, 1, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.5746/LEiA/10/V1/A07/
Barnard_Nguyen
Butler, Y. G. (2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teach-
ers need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan.
TESOL Quarterly, 38, 245–278. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588380
Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based lan-
guage teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
31, 36–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000122
Bygate, M. (2015). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language
teaching. Language Learning Journal, 44, 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09571736.2015.1039566
Byrnes, H. (2015). Linking “task” and curricular thinking: An affirmation of the
TBLT educational agenda. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the devel-
opment of TBLT (pp. 193–224). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ re-interpretation of a task-based innovation
in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 639–662. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3588283
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools:
Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35, 595–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.system.2007.09.003
Carless, D. (2012). TBLT in EFL settings: Looking back and moving forward. In A.
Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign lan-
guage contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 345–358). Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Dewaele, J.-M., Witney, J., Saito, K., & Dewaele, L. (2017). Foreign language enjoy-
ment and anxiety: The effect of teacher and learner variables. Online first. Lan-
guage Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817692161

A LOCALIZED TASK-BASED COURSE 657

D€ornyei, Z. (2014). Researching complex dynamic systems: “Retrodictive qualita-
tive modelling” in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 47, 80–91.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000516
D€ornyei, Z., & Tseng, W.-T. (2009). Motivational processing in interactional tasks. In
A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language
research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 117–134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Fujii, A., Ziegler, N., & Mackey, A. (2016). Learner–learner interaction and
metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger
(Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and
research agenda (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Jeon, I. J., & Hahn, J. W. (2006). Exploring EFL teachers’ perceptions of task-
based language teaching: A case study of Korean secondary school classroom
practice. Asian EFL Journal, 8, 123–143.
Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner–learner interaction. Sys-
tem, 37, 254–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.003
Kim, Y. (2013). Promoting attention to form through task repetition in. In K.
McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational
contexts (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Kim, Y. (2015). The role of tasks as vehicles for language learning in classroom
interaction. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction
(pp. 163–181). Malden, MA: Wiley.
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the
collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language
Teaching Research, 12, 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086288
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy
in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied
Linguistics, 27, 590–619. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). Complex, dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary
theme for applied linguistics? Language Teaching, 45, 202–214. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0261444811000061
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013). Chaos/complexity theory for second language acquisition/de-
velopment. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0125
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Ten “lessons” from complex dynamic systems theory:
What is on offer. In Z. D€ ornyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational
dynamics in language learning (pp. 11–19). London, England: Multilingual Matters.
Li, D. (1998). It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers’ per-
ceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea.
TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677–697. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588000
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East
Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444807004363
Long, M. (2015a). TBLT: Building the road as we travel. In M. Bygate (Ed.),
Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Long, M. (2015b). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Mal-
den, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Long, M. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0267190515000057

658 TESOL QUARTERLY

Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus
design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587368
MacIntyre, P. D. (2012). The idiodynamic method: A closer look at the dynamics
of communication traits. Communication Research Reports, 29, 361–367. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2012.723274
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive inter-
actional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
McDonough, K. (2015). Perceived benefits and challenges with the use of collabora-
tive tasks in EFL contexts. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the develop-
ment of TBLT (p. 225–246). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions
to a task based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 107–132.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00042.x
Norris, J. M. (2015). Thinking and acting programmatically in task-based language
teaching. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT
(pp. 27–57). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Park, M. (2012). Implementing computer-assisted task-based language teaching in
the Korean secondary EFL context. In A. Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe (Eds.),
Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts:Research and implementation
(pp. 215–240). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Polat, B., & Kim, Y. (2014). Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal
case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics, 35, 184–207.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt013
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production:
Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–
57. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, cognition and second language syllabus
design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robin-
son (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Sasayama, Y. (2016). Is a “complex” task really complex? Validating the assumption
of cognitive task compexity. Modern Language Journal, 100, 231–254.
Sato, R. (2010). Reconsidering the effectiveness and suitability of PPP and TBLT
in the Japanese EFL classroom. JALT Journal, 32, 189–200.
Sheen, R. (1994). A critical analysis of the advocacy of the task-based syllabus.
TESOL Quarterly, 28, 127–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587202
Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruc-
tion. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp.
17–30). Oxford, England: Heinemann.
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction.
Applied Linguistics, 26, 376–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami013
Taguchi, N. (2011). Pragmatic development as a dynamic, complex process: Gen-
eral patterns and case histories. Modern Language Journal, 95, 605–627.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01246.x
Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to
practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
van Dijk, M., Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2011). Variability and DST. In M. Verspoor,
K. De Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.). A dynamic approach to second language development:
Methods and techniques (pp. 55–84). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Verspoor, M., De Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (Eds.). (2011). A dynamic approach to second
language development: Methods and techniques. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John
Benjamins.

A LOCALIZED TASK-BASED COURSE 659

Waninge, F., D€ ornyei, Z., & de Bot, K. (2014). Motivational dynamics in language
learning: Change, stability, and context. Modern Language Journal, 98, 704–723.
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12118
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses: Theory into practice. Bulletin CILA (Com-
e e), 24, 5–17.
mission interuniversitaire suisse de linguistique appliqu
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.

660 TESOL QUARTERLY