Abstract. This article is a critical analysis of Cutting Edge Third Edition Unit 7 Task section.

The article explores to what extent the Task section in Unit 7 from Cutting Edge Third Edition is

based on Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) approach. The analysis showed that the Task

in this unit is more grammar focused than meaning oriented. In theory, the main focus of TBLT

is meaning, i.e., spontaneous use of the language to produce real-world situational tasks. The

Task in Unit 7 of this book found to be controlling in terms of grammar that should be used

when producing the language. As was investigated, there are three phases of TBLT which should

be followed when creating 'task-like' activities. According to these phases of TBLT, grammar

should be fixed after the task has been produced. More importantly, the grammar correction

should be based on spontaneous mistakes learners make while doing the task.

Key words: Cutting Edge Third Edition, Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) approach, unit

analysis, task analysis

A critical analysis of a task in Cutting Edge Third Edition

Introduction

In this article, I will analyze the pedagogical sequence taken from Cutting Edge Third Edition for

intermediate level students, and in particular, a ‘Task’ in ‘Unit 7: Must See!’ (Cunningham,

Moor, Bygrave 2013). Cutting Edge Third Edition (Intermediate level) has been designed under

‘distinctive’ task-based approach to language learning “that helps learners achieve their goals”

(Cunningham, Moor, Bygrave 2013). It praises itself by stating:

The task-based approach focuses learners on the skills areas they need to practice,

improving their learning outcomes and giving them a sense of achievement. Students
 build their confidence by learning from the models and then doing the tasks

(https://www.pearsonelt.com/catalogue/general-english/cutting-edge-3e.html).

The rising interest of second language teachers in task-based language teaching (TBLT) and

limited availability of resources and textbooks in it are the considerable matter of concern in

second language teaching. The textbooks produced incorporating TBLT are only known from

Nunan (see e.g., Nunan 2001). For busy teachers to create their own materials who are not secure

enough, the textbooks implementing this framework are generally “few and far between” (Hobbs

2011, p. 489; Van den Branden et al., 2009).

1. Pedagogical sequence: Cutting Edge Third Edition (Intermediate)

Cutting Edge Third Edition contains 12 units and each of them has a task which focuses on

speaking and sometimes follow-up writing activities. It is clear from this point that the authors

were mainly focusing on communication and meaning as Cunningham et al. (2013) state “…

dramatic video clips, information-rich texts and engaging tasks provide a springboard for

learners to engage in meaningful speaking and writing activities that reflect the reality of the 21 st

century”. However, if these ‘tasks' are genuinely a task will be analyzed through an activity in

Unit 7: Must See which is headed as a Task on page 66 in Students' Book.

2. Task-based language teaching

a. Definitions of a task

Task-based language teaching has been the centre of a broad range of researchers and teachers

who admitted at least one feature of it: tasks focusing primarily on meaning distinguished from

form-focused communicative activities. This point has lead into a variety of research papers (see,

for example, Long 1985; Prabhu 1987; Candlin 1987; Long and Crookes 1992) on the viability

of TBLT over 3Ps (Presentation, Practice, and Production) in developing effective

communication in the second language (L2) outside the classroom.

What is a task? There are a few definitions offered by researchers (e.g., Long 1985; Richards,

Platt, and Weber 1985; Crookes 1986; Prabhu 1987; Breen 1989; Nunan 1989; J. Willis 1996;

Bachman and Palmer 1996; Skehan 1998; Lee 2000; Bygate, Skehan, and Swain 2001) who

referred to different features of a task, but the meaning being primary. Nunan (1989), for

example, highlighted meaning by defining “[…] comprehending, manipulating, producing, or

interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather

than form”. J. Willis (1996) defines “[Tasks are] activities where the target language is used by

the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome”. Bachman and

Palmer (1996) define “[…] a language use task as an activity that involves individuals in using

language for the purpose of achieving a particular goal or outcome in a particular situation”.

These authors highlighted outcome or goal in a task. However, many researchers and teachers

agree on completeness of Skehan’s (1998) definition:

“A task is an activity in which

 meaning is primary

 learners are not given other people’s meanings to regurgitate

 there is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities

 task completion has some sort of priority

 the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome”.

For Skehan (1998), the task is a meaningful activity where learners produce their own

meaningful actions by not simply repeating others; related to real life situations and the outcome

should be assessed.

b. Principles shaping TBLT

Although there are varying views and beliefs about TBLT, these are fundamental principles on

which many authorities agree:

Task-based instruction should be based on ‘natural’ or ‘naturalistic’ approach to learning a

language, which encourages meaning rather than linguistic forms (e.g., Prabhu 1987; Nunan

1989; J. Willis 1996; Skehan 1998; Ellis 2003).

The activities should be learner-centred rather than techer-centred (e.g., J.Willis 1996; Skehan

1998; D. Willis 2003).

In order to foster accuracy in the target language which is not purely possible through naturalistic

approach, the intervention is important (Harley and Swain 1984).

TBI should provide an opportunity for ‘focus on form’ by ‘drawing students’ attention’ to those

language items incidentally occurred during communication (Long 1991).

Communicative tasks are appropriate in this approach (Nunan 1989; J. Willis 1996; Skehan

1998; Ellis 2003).

Formal language features may be beneficial in ‘pre-’ or ‘post-task’ stages as they will boost

‘noticing’ (Schmidt 1990, 2001).

‘Traditional’ approaches involving ‘proactive’ instruction are ineffective and isolated from

communication (e.g., Doughty and Williams 1998; Fotos 1998; Willis and Willis 2001;

Robinson 2001).

c. Success criteria for tasks in L2 classroom

Willis and Willis (2007), suggested six criteria for success with tasks for L2 teachers who want

to implement meaning-focused interactive tasks in their classrooms. These criteria determine

how much ‘task-like’ an activity is. “The more confidently we can answer yes to each of these

questions the more task-like the activity” (Willis and Willis 2007: 13). Although these success

criteria do not provide with "watertight definition of what constitutes a task, they will provide us

with guidelines for the design of activities which are task-like in that they involve real language

use" (Willis and Willis 2007: 13).

“1. Does the activity engage learners’ interest?

2. Is there a primary focus on meaning?

3. Is there an outcome?

4. Is success judged in terms of outcome?

5. is completion a priority?

6. Does the activity relate to real-world activities?”

The criteria outlined above might cause some difficulties for English as a foreign/second

language (EFL/ESL) teachers to judge. Willis and Willis (2007), thus, point out that the first

criterion is judged with learners’ engagement in the task where they focus on meaning. They

‘engage in meaning’ to reach an outcome. Hobbs (2011), argues that many textbooks confuse

between communicative tasks which are supposed to ‘focus on meaning’ and activities that are

actually ‘focus on language form’. Therefore, I would like to analyze the Task in my critique

against these six criteria.

d. Components of the TBL framework

It is true that the majority of EFL/ESL teachers follow 3Ps approach where they introduce one

linguistic item followed by controlled practice and the so-called ‘free' production activities. In

such classrooms, the activities occur one by one in isolation, not as one whole activity. In

contrast, TBLT looks at a task as “one component in a larger framework” (J. Willis 1996: 40).

The framework comprises three phases: ‘pre-task’, ‘task cycle’ and ‘language focus’ (J. Willis

1996).

In the pre-task stage, learners get introduced to the lesson topic, the task, topic-specific

vocabulary, and phrases. This phase involves the role of the teacher giving instructions to useful

vocabulary for further successful task completion and the students noting down those

expressions. Students, individually, take some time to prepare for the task.

The task cycle includes a task, where learners work in pairs or small groups to produce similar to

that they have listened or read in pre-task, a planning, which provides learners with an

opportunity to ‘prepare’ and ‘rehearse’ what they have produced (oral or written tasks), and a

report, where they present or display their spoken and written reports. The learners are supposed
to use their previous background knowledge and ‘whatever’ language they know so far to carry

out the task. The teacher’s role is facilitating learning with providing help with language at any

cycle of the task as well as monitoring the pair/group work and giving feedback for the final

reports of learners.

The third phase is language focus, consists of ‘analysis' and ‘practice' components. Again, the

teacher gives instruction to that language form occurred during the task cycle phase. J. Willis

(1996: 40) argues that it is useful to focus on form at the last phase of a task as learners have

already produced language for meaning in task cycle and when reporting they worry less as they

are not concerned much with the language they use. She points out that in task-based teaching,

much of the work is carried out by students.

The second essential point I would like to include in the critique is whether the textbook follows

these three phases of TBLT.

A critical analysis of a Task: Talk about a show you love or hate

The task in Unit 7 is speaking task to give individually a short talk about a film or TV

programme that they either loved or hated. The additional Share Your Task in Teacher’s

Resource Book offers teachers to nominate a stronger student as a presenter and join together all

reviews made by individual students into one to be recorded later so the students knew why they

are doing the task. The Teacher's Book does not restrict teachers in using textbook materials,

rather it contains suggestions on how to adapt and provides step-by-step instructions to follow as

an additional idea and states not to be afraid in adapting the tasks to suit a particular group

according to their ages, interests, and levels of proficiency (Teacher’s Resource Book: 23).

Six success criteria for a task in Cutting Edge Third Edition (Intermediate)
 1. Is the activity engaging learners’ interest?

What makes a task interesting? According to Hobbs (2011), this question is “the hardest to

judge” (p. 492). The general factors such as students' interests, needs for real-life situations,

cognitive as well as linguistic challenges and their feeling of achievement in task completion

make a task interesting. There are some other factors which are related to learners’ interest which

are teacher’s enthusiasm, clear instructions; the size of the class and students background

(previous) knowledge and experience. This criterion heavily relies on teacher’s own experience

or instinct for what will work or won’t with a particular class or group.

The topic of the task might be ‘intrinsically’ motivating and engaging for many learners. Brown

(1994), who emphasizes the significance of ‘intrinsic motivation’ in the classroom, argues that

traditional school generating ‘extrinsic motivation’ “focuses students too exclusively on the

material or monetary rewards of an education rather than instilling an appreciation for creativity

and for satisfying some of the more basic drives for knowledge and exploration” (p. 40). The

task on TV programmes (film or live show) successfully suit and consistent with the ‘course-

specific motivational components’ developed by Dörnyei (1994a: 280) on the proposal of Keller

(1983), and later by Crookes and Schmidt (1991), ‘intrinsic interest’; the ‘relevance’ of the

instruction to the personal needs of learners, or goals and values; their success ‘expectancy’ and

outcome ‘satisfaction’ of an activity.

2. Is there a primacy of meaning?

As discussed earlier, many textbooks confuse between communicative tasks focusing on

meaning and activities focusing on the certain target language. How to identify what tasks

actually do focus on meaning? Willis and Willis (2007: 14) state that “if the activity is

introduced without any preceding language study then it is almost certain that there will be a

focus on meaning, on the exchange of opinions and supporting arguments”. If there were

introductory sentences using certain language forms or instructions explicitly stating to use the

target language in their speaking or writing activities. They argue that “[So] the more we try to
control the language that learners produce, the more learners are likely to be concerned with

form rather than meaning, and the less task-like the activity becomes” (14). However, as Willis

and Willis (2007: 14) agree on is that introducing vocabulary before an activity is necessary

since “communication crucially depends on vocabulary” but not necessarily grammar.

Hobbs (2011), confirms the argument that it depends on the instructions of the activity. The tasks

asking to focus on language forms and ‘useful expressions’ before they speak are not really tasks

but language practice activities. Learners see ‘useful expressions’ as task requirement. He argues

that asking students to “speak in complete sentences” using those expressions would be even

hard for native speakers. These tasks would cause difficulties in making meaning and sound

unnatural.

Unit 7 looks at two language forms: -ed/-ing adjectives and the passives. These grammar items

are introduced with explicit grammar explanation followed by controlled practice. The task in

this unit which is on TV programmes provides with useful language containing the adjectives

ending in –ed and –ing and the passives as well. In ‘giving information’ section, for example,

there are phrases such as ‘It’s written/produced/directed/composed by; It’s based on; It’s set in’

and so on. And in ‘giving your opinion’ section, the expressions ‘I thought it was (really

amazing/disappointing); The worst thing about it was (the dancing)’ are given. Therefore, I

question that the task successfully meets the criterion and it focuses on language practice rather

than on communication with meaning.

3. Does the task have an outcome?

In terms of outcome, many textbook activities ask learners to discuss general questions on the

topic. But what is the purpose of discussion other than practicing language item? What is the

reason for others to listen to each other? For example, if the task asks students to simply discuss

on TV programmes they like or dislike without any conclusion, it has no outcome. Many

secondary teachers are aware that many textbooks do not engage learners in “authentic-sounding
dialogues” (Hobbs 2011: 490). This lack of engagement results in lack of outcome or goal (op.

cit.: 490).

Williams, Cunningham, and Moor (2013) claim that "[The] primary focus is on achieving a

particular outcome or product, rather than on practicing specific language" (Teacher's Resource

Book: 18). The outcome of the task is to give a talk to class on TV programme they have chosen.

The students have to listen to others and make notes on what they have said and ask their own

questions. Also, ‘Share Your Task’ box gives additional ideas for teachers to extend the one they

did in class. The ideas here include audio or video montage; radio or TV programme with a

‘presenter'; role play as a film a short narrative story; and many others. The task is engaging in a

sense that it involves learners in the process of creation of varying outcome related to TV

programmes.

4. Is success judged in terms of the outcome?

“This will depend on how the teacher handles the activity” (Willis and Willis 2007: 14). The

teacher’s role in the class facilitating, monitoring and giving feedback. If the teacher circulates

among students by correcting them this “moves the criteria for success towards accuracy” and

the activity is form-focused rather than outcome or goal-oriented. If, on the other hand, the

teacher assists learners with the discussion or an activity with clarifying meaning, opinion, and

ideas then “this reinforces the importance of outcome” (op. cit.: 15).

In this respect, the Teacher’s Book makes this point salient to teachers by stating that when

language errors are noticed before or during the performance, "it is usually best not to interrupt

the flow of the task, but to make a note of points to cover later on" (23). Thus, the textbook

clearly demonstrates that the teachers should focus on meaning and outcome, not the language

form.

5. Is the task completion priority?

Learners should be given “reasonable time” for the completion of the activity (Willis and Willis

2007: 15). Giving time is crucial as the best tasks might fail under the insufficient amount of

time than they actually require (Hobbs 2011).

Students benefit from planning time for different purposes: accuracy, fluency, and complexity of

sentences they use (Foster and Skehan 1996). This argument is well supported by the study

conducted by Foster and Skehan (1996) to investigate the effect of planning on three speaking

tasks with 32 college students.

Cutting Edge Third Edition does provide with planning time and claims that “planning time is

very important if learners are to produce the best language that they are capable of” (Teacher’s

Resource Book: 23). Planning time merits all level learners under either detailed or undetailed

planning, in particular, the learners with a lack of confidence. The Teacher’s Book asks teachers

not to encourage students using their notes while performing.

The task in Unit 7 instructs learners to make notes individually based on the questions in the task

while preparing for a presentation to the class. Thus, I confirm that this activity is ‘task-like’ in

terms of this criterion.

6. Is there a connection to real-world activities?

Willis and Willis (2007: 15) identify the three ‘levels' of activities. The level 1 is called ‘level of

meaning' which gives the opportunity to meaning producing which is useful in real-world

situations. They will be using the language with general interest topics. In some cases, they will

make meaning with the language they are already familiar with, and in other cases, they need to

make new meanings.

The level 2 is the ‘level of discourse’ where learners practice everyday life discourse such as

“expressing opinions and constructing arguments to support those opinions”; they will be

“agreeing and disagreeing; explaining, elaborating, and organizing their arguments; relating to

arguments produced by others; and so on”.

Level 3 is the ‘level of activity’ they quite could be engaged in which “easily occur in the real

world”. In future, they might discuss this topic.

The Unit 7 topic s one of the actual topics nowadays between teenagers and young adults, and

also between older people. However, the task in it does not fully meet the three levels of this

criterion. In their future studies or careers, they are unlikely to present a TV/radio programme.

But, the skills and vocabulary they acquired they will definitely need in future, like recording,

creating audio or video montage, and putting the items together, and so on especially for those

students who will be working in the media industry.

Three phases of a task in Cutting Edge Third Edition

a. Pre-task phase

The pre-task phase is the most important step in a task and should take responsibility on leading

to a successful completion of it. The aim of this stage, as Ellis (2003) notes, should serve as a

preparatory phase for the performance of a task. This stage includes “the various activities that

teachers and students can undertake before they start the task” (Ellis 2003:243). As this is a

crucial step, it should involve all learners actively by giving them maximum exposure and

generating interest in a task (J. Willis 1996:43).

i. Pre-task activities

The ‘preparation’ stage for the task with vocabulary and listening activities are consistent with

the activities identified by J. Willis (1996). She argues that “direct pre-teaching” of words might

be problematic as there are students with different levels. She suggests a list of activities which

“rehearse topic language in a stimulating way”. The exercise 1a is similar with J. Willis' (1996:

44) ‘Matching phrases to pictures' where there is a list of words in the box to choose from to

match with the picture of the particular type of entertainment. The additional vocabulary exercise

2 gives more practice with vocabulary where students choose from the box ‘three most important

things’ for each entertainment from exercise 1a.

 ii. Giving instructions to task

Exercise 3a is listening to four people who talk about the film or show they have seen. The aim

of this step in the pre-task phase to ensure that learners “understand what the task involves, what

its goals are and what outcome is required” (J. Willis 1996: 44). There is a number of ways to

instruct to the task. One of them as J. Willis (1996) points out is playing audio or video recording

doing a similar task.

b. Task cycle

This phase includes three steps as mentioned earlier.

i. Task step

Students, in pairs or small groups, do the task (J. Willis 1996). In this case, learners work

individually in exercise 1a to give a talk to the class on the TV programme.

ii. Planning step

Exercise 1b ensures that students plan what they are going to say. There is an additional exercise

2, where learners pair up with peers and rehearse their talks. It will be beneficial for them to

make their statements complex (Foster and Skehan 1996).

iii. Reporting step

J. Willis (1996: 59) argues that there is a “clear purpose for listening” to others when reporting.

Likewise, the exercise 3 instructs to listen to others and to make notes about the questions in

exercise 1a and to ask them at the end.

c. Language focus

The activities focusing on language analysis are “sometimes called consciousness-raising

activities, language awareness activities or even meta-communicative tasks, i.e. tasks that focus

explicitly on language form and use” (J. Willis 1996: 102). Language focus should not be

isolated or ‘decontextualized’ as it follows the task cycle (J. Willis 1996; Gurzynski-Weiss and

Révész 2012).
The unit task is not followed by language focus activities. Students are to analyze the data taken

from the previous activities (listening or speaking). The teacher's role here to look at common

errors occurred during the task and provide with practice activities combined with analysis

activities.

Conclusion

I looked at two main points in my analysis: is the task in Unit 7 in Cutting Edge Third Edition

consistent with the six criteria of ‘task-like’ activities identified by Willis and Willis (2007); and

does the task follow three phases model?

With respect to the first question, although the task matched most of the criteria of task-likeness

of the activity it is safe to say that it focuses on form rather than meaning. The textbook is

constructed in a way that it first focuses on grammar with careful and controlled practice and

explicit explanation in the input. The practical realization of the Task in this particular unit is

used as a tool for consolidating previously taught grammar which is –ed/-ing adjectives and the

passives. Therefore, the task fails for the criterion of "meaning is primary" (Skehan 1998; Willis

and Willis 2007 and others). Next is the connection of the task with the real world situations

which makes me say that in the real world it is very unlikely that they will present radio/TV

programmes to the audience. In short, the task does not satisfy main criteria of ‘task-like’

activities.

As regarding the three-phase structure of the task, overall, it follows pre-task, task-cycle phases

with the exception for post-task phase. It does not mention about focusing on form and suggest

any related activities. The textbook focuses on the form before the task not after task cycle as it

should be. Therefore, it is also teachers responsibility to focus on language as immediate

feedback to occurring errors after the cycle when meaning-making is already practiced and

learners are ready (J. Willis 1996; Gurzynski-Weiss and Révész 2012).
To conclude, I would say that on the whole, the task is satisfactory apart from those limitations

mentioned.

Total word count: 4001

References

Bachman, L., and Palmer, A. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. R.K. Johnson (ed.). The
Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bygate, M., P. Skehan, and M. Swain. (eds.). (2001). Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second
Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Longman.

Candlin, C. N. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. C. N. Candlin & D. F. Murphy

(Eds.). Language learning tasks (pp. 5-22). Lancaster and London: Lancaster University.

Crookes, G. (1986). Task classification: a cross-disciplinary review. Technical Report No. 4.

Honolulu: Centre for Second Language Classroom Research, Social Science Research Institute,
University of Hawaii.

Crookes, G. & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: reopening the research agenda. Language
Learning 41, pp. 469-51.

Cunningham, S., Moor, P., Bygrave, J. (2013). Cutting Edge Third Edition: Intermediate.
Student’s Book. China: Pearson Education Limited
de la Fuente, M.J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: investigating the role of
pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research 10 (3), pp. 263-
295.

Dörnyei, Z. (1994a). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern
Language Journal 78 pp. 273— 84.

Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds). (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Teaching and Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Foster, P., Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language
performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, pp. 299-323.

Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal 52(4)
pp. 301–7.

Gurzynski-Weiss, L., Révész, A. (2012). Tasks, Teacher Feedback, and Learner Modified Output
in Naturally Occurring Classroom Interaction. Language Learning 62(3), pp. 851-879.

Harley, B. and Swain, M. (1984). The inter- language of immersion students and its implica-
tions for second language teaching. A. Davies, C. Criper, and A. Howatt (eds.). Interlanguage.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hobbs, J. (2011). Practical steps towards task-based teaching. In A. Stewart (Ed.), JALT2010
Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.

Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigelruth (ed.). Instructional

design theories and models: an overview of their current status, pp. 383—434.

Kim, Y., Jung, Y., Tracy-Ventura, N. (2017). Implementation of a Localized Task-Based Course in
an EFL Context: A Study of Students’ Evolving Perceptions. TESOL Quarterly 51 (3), pp. 632-660.

Lee, J. (2000). Tasks and Communicating in Language Classrooms. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisi- tion: task-based language
training. K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (eds.). Modelling and assessing second language
acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. K. de Bot,
R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (eds.). Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syl- labus design. TESOL
Quarterly 26, pp. 27-56.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, D. (2001). Expressions: Meaningful English communication. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richards, J., Platt, J. and Weber. H. (1985). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. London:
Longman.

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic frame-
work for examining task influences on SLA. P. Robinson (ed.). Cognition and Second Language
Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics
11 (2), pp. 129–58.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. P. Robinson (ed.). Cognition and Second Language Instruction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M. and Norris, J.M. (eds.). (2009) Task-based language teaching:
A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Williams, D., Cunningham, S., Moor, P. (2013). Cutting Edge Third Edition: Intermediate.
Teacher’s Resource Book. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited.

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

Willis, D. and Willis, J. (2001). Task-based language learning. R. Carter and D. Nunan (eds.). The
Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Willis, D. (2003). Rules, Patterns and Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Websites

Cutting Edge Third Edition. Sarah Cunningham and Peter Moor.

https://www.pearsonelt.com/catalogue/general-english/cutting-edge-3e.html)