Languagehttp://ltr.sagepub.

com/
Teaching Research

Taking teacher education to task: Exploring the role of teacher education in

promoting the utilization of task-based language teaching
Greg Ogilvie and William Dunn
Language Teaching Research 2010 14: 161
DOI: 10.1177/1362168809353875

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/14/2/161

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Language Teaching Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/14/2/161.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 18, 2010

What is This?

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

 LANGUAGE
TEACHING
RESEARCH

Language Teaching Research

Taking teacher education to

14(2) 161–181
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permissions: http://www.
task: Exploring the role of sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1362168809353875
teacher education in http://ltr.sagepub.com

promoting the utilization of

task-based language teaching

Greg Ogilvie and William Dunn

University of Alberta

Abstract
Despite its theoretical appeal and research-based support, task-based language teaching (TBLT)
continues to have a somewhat limited influence on actual second language teaching practices in
many contexts. This study considers the relationship between teacher education and the broader
use of TBLT. It investigates the effects of a constructivist-based curriculum course on student
teachers’ disposition towards the principles of TBLT. It also addresses their utilization of the
approach during their teaching practicum. Based on both quantitative and qualitative analyses, the
findings suggest that the course increased the student teachers’ disposition towards TBLT, but that
the positive disposition did not tend to translate into actual use or implementation during the
practicum.The article argues that while teacher education programs have the potential to promote
innovation in educational practices, several factors remain to be addressed, including cultural norms
in education and the lack of support for student teachers.

Keywords
task-based language teaching, second language teacher education, constructivism, teacher
beliefs, innovation

I   Introduction
From its early manifestation in American Government Language Institutions for teaching
adults foreign languages (Shehadeh, 2005) and the Bangalore Communicational Teaching
Project (Prabhu, 1987), task-based language teaching (TBLT) has evolved into a promi-
nent trend in second language instruction (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). The prominence of the

Corresponding author
William Dunn, Department of Secondary Education, 341 Education South, Edmonton, Alberta,T6G 2G5, Canada
Email: wdunn@ualberta.ca

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

162 Language Teaching Research 14(2)

approach is evident based on the number of recently published books and volumes that
focus specifically on TBLT (e.g. Willis, 1996; Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Ellis,
2003, 2005; Leaver & Willis, 2004; Nunan, 2004; Edwards & Willis, 2005; Van den Bran-
den, 2006a; Willis & Willis, 2007; Samuda & Bygate, 2008). This literature has advanced
knowledge about the pedagogical principles of TBLT and the variables and characteristics
of tasks that promote second language acquisition. Nonetheless, few studies have investi-
gated the implementation of TBLT beyond the identification of issues encountered when
experienced teachers attempt to utilize TBLT (e.g. Carless, 2004; McDonough & Chaikit-
mongkol, 2007; Tinker Sachs, 2007) and a theoretical analysis of the characteristics of the
approach that inhibit its adoption (Markee, 1997). Much less attention has been directed
toward analysing the role that teacher education programs can play in promoting the uti-
lization of TBLT. This article seeks to address this gap by reporting the effects of a
constructivist-based curriculum course on student teachers’ disposition towards TBLT
and their utilization of the approach during their teaching practicum. The research ques-
tions the study addresses are:

1. What influence did the course have on the student teachers’ disposition towards,
and their utilization of, TBLT as a pedagogical innovation?
2. What factors influenced the student teachers’ instructional decisions during the
teaching practicum that followed the curriculum course?

II   Defining task-based language teaching as an innovation

The central component of TBLT, namely the task, has been defined in the literature in many
different ways, though there is general agreement that tasks are language learning activities
that are focused on meaning (e.g. Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004; Skehan, 1998), that involve a
clear goal or outcome (e.g. Breen, 1987; Ellis, 2003; Prabhu, 1987; Skehan, 1998; Willis,
1996), and that reflect how language is used in ‘authentic’ non-pedagogical contexts
(e.g. Ellis, 2003; Long, 1985; Skehan, 1998). Because most current approaches to second
language pedagogy make some use of tasks, Ellis (2003) proposed the terms ‘task-based’ and
‘task-supported’ as a way of distinguishing TBLT from approaches that use tasks primarily as
a means of practicing linguistic forms after they have been explicitly taught. As noted by Ellis
(2003), some task-supported approaches use a Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP)
model, in which a particular linguistic form is first presented, then practiced through con-
trolled activities such as drills, and finally used in freer language production. The assumption
underlying this model is that language learning proceeds in a linear fashion through formal
instruction that is followed by activities to reinforce learning and promote automatization.
In contrast, TBLT represents innovation at both the philosophical and methodological
levels. At the philosophical level, TBLT views second language acquisition as an organic
process that is not directly influenced by formal instruction, but which is fostered through
the meaningful use of language. At the methodological level, TBLT invites students to act
as language users rather than learners, with the explicit analysis of language structures and
forms emerging from difficulties experienced during the completion of tasks (e.g. Willis,
1996). Thus, rather than being organized around pre-determined ‘teaching points’ (All-
wright, 2005), a task-based syllabus is organized around, and proceeds from, tasks.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

Greg Ogilvie and William Dunn 163

III   Review of implementation literature

Applied linguists have identified a number of issues that inhibit the application of task-
based principles to classroom settings. One of the major impediments identified in the
literature is the perceived feasibility of the approach (Markee, 1997). For many educa-
tors the absence of resources designed for TBLT poses a feasibility problem because it
requires them to design their own materials, a significant burden for teachers whose time
is already taxed (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Zhang, 2007). Time constraints are also an
issue when considering the limited time available to prepare students for examinations.
The use of pencil and paper tests that emphasize grammatical knowledge and written
skills leave teachers with the dilemma of teaching to the test or risking poor exam scores
by following a task-based approach (Carless, 2002; Tinker Sachs, 2007).
The feasibility of implementing TBLT has also been undermined by classroom man-
agement issues (Van den Branden, 2006b). Carless (2004) found tensions in the class-
rooms he observed between aspirations to carry out tasks and desires to maintain a quiet,
orderly environment. Elsewhere he noted that teachers struggled to find a balance between
utilizing communicative tasks and maintaining control in the classroom (Carless, 2002).
Difficulties maintaining a productive learning environment were found to be particularly
prevalent in large classes (Zhang, 2007) and classes with younger learners (Carless, 2004).
While perceptions of feasibility are major impediments to the utilization of TBLT, so is
the compatibility of the approach with teachers’ beliefs and teaching practices (Van den
Branden, 2006b; Tinker Sachs, 2007). Conventional teaching practices have focused on the
introduction and mastery of explicit linguistic content. This has contributed to an intuitive
understanding of language learning as developing in the same manner as other skills, such
as learning to drive a car or hit a tennis ball. Therefore, adopting TBLT would require not
only a change in teaching practices but also a shift in teachers’ perceptions of the teaching–
learning process. For many teachers this shift would be impossible, even if desired, because
of their limited linguistic abilities (Markee, 1997; Zhang, 2007) or repertoire of teaching
skills (Van den Branden, 2006b). Moreover, adopting a task-based approach would risk
antagonizing students for whom the approach was not compatible with their expectations
(Willis, 1996). For example, McDonough and Chaikitmongkol (2007) noted initial resis-
tance from students when a task-based syllabus was adopted at an institute in Thailand
based on dissonance between the instruction received and students’ expectations that gram-
mar would be the focus of the class. Such an expectation has been found to be prevalent in
other contexts, as well. In a study of second language students in the USA and Colombia,
Schulz (2001) found that students from both countries strongly supported explicit grammar
instruction and corrective feedback. Finally, drawing on a diffusion of innovation perspec-
tive, Markee (1997) noted that the level of visibility influences the likelihood that innova-
tions will be adopted. Therefore, the dominance of PPP in language classrooms acts as a
significant impediment (Skehan, 1996, 1998; Thornbury, 1999).
Despite the numerous impediments to the implementation of TBLT, studies have reported
successes under certain circumstances. For example, Van den Branden (2006b) described a
region-wide in-service teacher education initiative in Flanders. The initiative was somewhat
successful in training teachers to use TBLT largely because of the carefully designed struc-
ture of the program to provide teachers with support and guidance over a period of time and
the presence of supportive partners at different levels of implementation.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

164 Language Teaching Research 14(2)

IV  Teacher education and the management of change

Teacher education programs are optimally positioned to provide an impetus for change in
educational practices. Socially-based research has demonstrated that pre-service teachers are
strongly influenced by what Lortie (1975) labeled the ‘apprenticeship of observation’: years
spent in a classroom as a learner. During these formative years, individuals establish under-
standings about the teaching–learning process that become entrenched in their belief systems
(Pajares, 1992). Consequently, they create schemata through which new information is inter-
preted (Kagan, 1992). If left unchallenged, these tacit beliefs continue to influence teachers’
thinking and maintain traditional practices. However, pre-service teacher education programs
can address these tacit understandings through reflective practice and critical analysis before
they become further entrenched, thus facilitating the change process.
Furthermore, pre-service teacher education occurs at a time of transition and signifi-
cant growth. When pre-service teachers embark on the journey of becoming a profes-
sional educator, they undertake a process of transformation from learner to teacher.
During this process of change, individuals are more amenable to innovation than later in
their careers when practical knowledge has become stabilized (Beijaard & Verloop,
1996). Moreover, teacher education programs can provide a safe, secure environment in
which to experiment with novel approaches. Practicing teachers are restricted in their
opportunities for experimentation due to contextual and time pressures associated with
their work. Pre-service teachers, on the other hand, are able to reflect upon pedagogy and
develop professional skills without the constraints of immediate performance. In addi-
tion, pre-service teachers enjoy a level of support from professors and mentors that is not
available to many teachers in the field. However, literature on the implementation of
TBLT has predominantly focused on in-service teacher education (e.g. Van den Branden,
2006b; Zhang, 2007), and has not adequately considered the potential influence of pre-
service teacher education in promoting innovation.

1  Traditional teacher education

For teacher education programs to support innovation, they must foster opportunities to
promote conceptual change and encourage continual growth. Teacher education programs
are often based on traditional practices (Freeman, 1996) in the form of the ‘tell, show,
guide’ model of education (Myers, 2002). The ‘tell’ component of this approach often
manifests itself in the form of classroom lectures, with the other components addressed
through occasional micro-teaching activities and practical field experiences. This approach
to teacher education adheres to a training paradigm in which student teachers are viewed
as tabula rasa on which experts may inscribe their expertise. The ‘tell, show, guide’
approach therefore has a limiting effect on professional development. Moreover, scholars
have questioned its efficacy in addressing tacit conceptions of education and promoting
change through cognitive restructuring. Richardson (1997, p. 3) wrote:

The traditional approach to teaching – the transmission model – promotes neither the interaction
between prior and new knowledge nor the conversations that are necessary for internalization
and deep understanding. The information, if acquired at all, is usually not well integrated with
other knowledge held by the students.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

Greg Ogilvie and William Dunn 165

Thus, the knowledge may be used to successfully complete an assignment or a test but
not to restructure how an individual approaches the task of teaching.

2   Constructivist-based approach to teacher education

Recognizing the deficiencies in the ‘tell, show, guide’ approach, scholars have advocated
a teacher education program that uses students’ knowledge and experiences as the start-
ing point in preparing to become a teacher (Edwards, 1996; Winitzky & Kauchuk, 1997;
Richardson, 2003). Such an approach would promote professional development through
the explicit analysis of personal practical knowledge (Golombek, 1998; Tsang, 2004)
and the critical analysis of theoretical knowledge (Gass, 1995). Tillema (2004, p. 143)
described the approach in the following manner:

Using lay theories or (student) teachers’ initial beliefs as a starting point for explicating the
implicit know-how contained in them while at the same time gradually insert and link new
prevalent and adjacent knowledge on teaching to the knowledge base of the student; thus pre-
paring and scaffolding teacher learning with ‘adequate’ reflective conceptions before engaging
in the immediacy and pressures of classroom teaching.

While this approach has not been extensively investigated through empirical research,
Fosnot (2005) effectively applied it to promote the implementation of constructivist
approaches.

V  The study

This exploratory study was carried out to investigate the influence of a constructivist
based curriculum course in promoting pedagogical innovation among student teachers in
the field of second language education.

1   Description of the course

The research focused on a curriculum course for second language education minors at a
Canadian university. The course immediately preceded a teaching practicum and was
designed for students with limited prior knowledge of pedagogical theories and little or
no experience teaching in a classroom setting. In addition to introducing current theo-
ries of second language education and historical trends in language pedagogy, the course
provided opportunities for students to practically apply concepts through microteaching
activities, simulations, lesson planning, lesson activities, etc. Praxis was further devel-
oped by encouraging critical reflection from multiple perspectives (e.g. a language
acquisition perspective, a critical pedagogy perspective, a practical implementation per-
spective). In contrast to courses based on the ‘tell, show, guide’ paradigm of teacher
education that ignore the subjectivity of student teachers, the constructivist nature of
the course involved starting from students’ own prior knowledge and experiences while

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

166 Language Teaching Research 14(2)

promoting the analysis of their tacit assumptions in relation to second language pedagogy
and the concepts introduced in the class. Consequently, the focus of the course was not on
the memorization of information or the training of student teachers to use a particular
approach, but rather the development of skills and awareness for making sound instruc-
tional decisions based on contextual factors. Based on the teacher education literature, it
was presumed that the explicit expression and analysis of student teachers’ prior experi-
ences and tacit assumptions of second language pedagogy would make them more ame-
nable to innovations such as TBLT. Nonetheless, due to the relatively short duration of the
course (approximately 37 hours of class time) and the diverse biographies and skill levels
of the student teachers, it was assumed that the course would simply provide the impetus
for innovation in the second language classroom and that further pre-service and in-ser-
vice professional development would be required to promote substantive change.

2   Participants

Data were collected from third-year education students in two sections of the second
language curriculum course. Both sections were taught by the same instructor, who was
also the primary researcher. In order to maintain research ethics, the researcher did not
elicit participation in the study until after the teacher–student relationship had ended.
This would also mitigate the pressure to provide what might be deemed socially accept-
able responses. Of the 37 students in the two sections, 12 volunteered to be involved in
the research, and only data from these 12 students are included in the findings.

VI   Data collection and analysis

Data were drawn from a variety of sources completed at three junctures of time: the begin-
ning of the course, the end of the course, and after the teaching practicum. At the beginning
of the course, a reflection assignment was completed and a questionnaire about pedagogical
beliefs was administered. At the conclusion of the course, the pedagogical beliefs question-
naire was re-administered and students also prepared a philosophy of second language
teaching and accompanying reflections at that time. Interviews were conducted following
the practicum. Each type of data is described below along with the method of analysis.

1   Beginning of the course

a Written reflections: On the first day of class, students were asked to reflect in writing on
their own prior experiences as language learners and to analyse and provide written com-
ments about a series of lesson plans that reflected different models of second language
instruction, including TBLT and PPP. This information was analysed qualitatively in
order to assess how early experiences as a learner shaped the students’ beliefs about sec-
ond language learning and teaching and as a means of getting at students’ beliefs regard-
ing the characteristics of effective second language teaching.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

Greg Ogilvie and William Dunn 167

b Pedagogical beliefs questionnaire: At the beginning of the curriculum course, students

also completed a pedagogical beliefs questionnaire (see Appendix 1) designed by the
researcher to assess their beliefs about various aspects of language teaching. The question-
naire was modeled after the instrument used in Karavas-Doukas (1996), which focused on
five aspects of language pedagogy (group work, error correction, teacher role, learner con-
tributions, and grammar). However, to broaden the scope of the investigation, eight addi-
tional topics common within the second language education literature were added. Due to
the absence of a comprehensive theory for second language pedagogy, these additional
topics were selected based on their perceived importance in understanding student teach-
ers’ pedagogical philosophy. Each of the 13 topics was addressed through one positive and
one negative statement, resulting in a total of 26 items. Students were asked to express their
level of agreement toward each item using a 5-point Likert scale. The use of both positive
and negative statements facilitated the use of the split-half method to assess the reliability
within each pair of statements (see Appendix 1). The split-half reliability coefficient for
each pair was established by administering the questionnaire to 52 students and then cor-
relating the responses to each pair. The relationship between two statement pairs (i.e. the
role of the teacher and student vs. teacher-directed instruction) was not deemed to be ade-
quately robust; therefore, these statements were excluded. After eliminating these pairs, the
overall split-half reliability coefficient for the questionnaire was rw = 0.87, above the level
of internal consistency normally achieved by Likert scales (Oppenheim, 1992).
The responses from the pedagogical beliefs questionnaire were used to assess each stu-
dent’s disposition towards the utilization of TBLT. This was done by first determining
which items on the pedagogical beliefs questionnaire reflected a disposition toward TBLT
(for a breakdown, see Appendix 1). For example, a strong agreement with the notion of
immediate error correction would suggest a less favorable disposition toward TBLT than
would strong agreement with an emphasis on developing fluency in the classroom. In addi-
tion to ignoring the two statement pairs that were deemed unreliable, a statement pair relat-
ing to culture in the language classroom was excluded, as culture was not deemed to be a
defining feature of TBLT. The remaining 20 items from the questionnaire were used to
calculate TBLT disposition scores derived from the numerical value of the responses on the
5-point Likert scale. Numerical values were established for statements that demonstrate a
positive disposition towards TBLT by assigning one for a response of ‘strongly disagree’
moving along a continuum to five for a response of ‘strongly agree’, while statements
demonstrating a negative disposition towards TBLT were scored in reverse. The result was
an 80-point scale ranging from 20 (very low disposition towards using TBLT) to 100 (very
high disposition). Raw scores on the 80-point scale were converted to percentages.

2   End of the course

a Pedagogical beliefs questionnaire: Students completed the same pedagogical beliefs

questionnaire again approximately 10 weeks later at the end of the course. A new TBLT
disposition score was calculated using the procedure described above. The purpose of
re-administering the questionnaire and calculating a new score was to gauge to what
extent the students’ disposition toward TBLT had changed.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

168 Language Teaching Research 14(2)

b Teaching philosophy and reflections: Also at the end of the course, students were asked to
visually represent their philosophy of second language teaching and learning. The visual rep-
resentation was accompanied by a written description of their teaching philosophy and an
explication of how their views of language teaching had been shaped by various influences
including the curriculum course. These materials were analysed qualitatively and in compari-
son with the data collected earlier in the course as a means of identifying shifts in beliefs.

3   Following the teaching practicum: interviews

After completing their practicum, participants took part in individual interview sessions to
better understand how their pedagogical beliefs were formed and the influences on their
teaching practices. Each session lasted approximately two hours and included a semi-
structured conversational interview about the practicum experience as well as detailed discus-
sions of lessons that the student teachers had used during their practicum. The sessions were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed qualitatively for insights
into students’ beliefs about language teaching, how these beliefs had been shaped, and the vari-
ous factors that influenced student teachers’ instructional decisions during the practicum.

VII   Findings and discussion

1   Influence of the curriculum course
The analysis of the written reflections from the beginning of the course indicated that most
of the students’ past language learning experiences involved teacher-centered instruction
organized around the explanation of linguistic forms, followed by varying degrees of com-
municative activities to practice the forms. Given this background, it is not surprising that at
the beginning of the course, the students expressed more favorable views of the PPP lesson
than the TBLT lesson. For example, in commenting on the PPP lesson, one student wrote:

Very effective – teaches the same concept in many different ways … [It would be] very appeal-
ing if I have trouble understanding.

Another student wrote:

By using a variety of drills the lesson is effective.

A third student commented:

This lesson makes classroom management very easy. The focus on lecture and individual work
discourages disruptive behavior and keeps the students on task.

These comments suggest that the perceived value of the PPP lesson was attributed, in
part, to language practice drills and greater ease of classroom management in a more
teacher-centered environment.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

Greg Ogilvie and William Dunn 169

In contrast, most of the students questioned the pedagogical value of the TBLT lesson.
One student commented on the lesson in the following manner:

Horrible! … No grammatical learning.

Another student wrote:

There is very little focus on language acquisition. I think the lesson fails to teach the gram-
matical concept at hand.

A third student stated:

I don’t see the point of the lesson. It seems to be more of a discussion session than learning
session. Nothing seems to be related to a second language.

These comments demonstrate the degree to which students initially equated effective
second language teaching with an emphasis on explicit grammatical instruction and a
syllabus organized around linguistic forms.
By the end of the course, however, there was evidence that some students’ views had
evolved with respect to second language teaching and TBLT. This evidence came largely
from the analysis of the TBLT disposition scores, which showed an overall increase in
the mean score at the end of the course in relation to the mean at the beginning of the
course. A statistical comparison of the pre- and post-course means (t-test) indicated that
the increase was significant at the p < 0.05 level (t = 2.35, p = 0.0193). Table 1 presents
these figures along with a comparison of each student’s scores. Further analysis revealed
a high degree of variation among the students. While one student’s score nearly doubled
by the end of the course, most other students showed small to moderate gains in their
disposition toward TBLT, and two students recorded a decrease. It is noteworthy that the
student with the highest TBLT disposition score at the beginning of the course showed a
small decrease but still had the second highest score at the end of the course.
In order to determine whether the overall increase in disposition scores could be
attributed to attitudes toward specific aspects of TBLT, an analysis of responses to each
item of the pedagogical beliefs questionnaire was carried out. The analysis involved
calculating the change in Likert-scale points for each questionnaire topic between the
beginning of the course and the end of the course. The findings, which are summarized
in Table 2, indicated that the change in disposition scores was primarily attributable to
changes in views of error correction and explicit grammar instruction. Only the ques-
tionnaire topic pertaining to a focus on process versus product showed an overall
decrease in disposition toward TBLT.
Analysis of the students’ teaching philosophies and accompanying reflections
collected at the end of the term provided additional evidence that students had begun
to interrogate their views of second language teaching as a result of the course. One
student wrote, for example, that:

[The course had] a particularly catalytic effect.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

170 Language Teaching Research 14(2)

Table 1 Comparison of TBLT disposition scores at beginning and end of course

Student Beginning of course End of course Difference
TBLT disposition TBLT disposition between scores
score (percent) score (percent)
1 42.50 53.75   11.25
2 43.75 82.50   38.75
3 45.00 63.75   18.75
4 50.00 60.00   10.00
5 55.00 58.75    3.75
6 55.00 68.75   13.75
7 55.00 61.25    6.25
8 56.25 46.25 –10.00
9 56.25 58.75    2.50
10 57.50 61.25    3.75
11 58.75 67.50    8.75
12 82.50 76.25   –6.25
Mean 54.79 63.23    8.44
s.d. 10.39   9.66   12.44
Notes: Statistical comparison of means from beginning and end of course (t-test): t = 2.3487*; p = 0.0193.

Table 2 Change in disposition toward TBLT for each questionnaire topic

Questionnaire topic Increase in Decrease in Total change
TBLT-based TBLT-based in disposition
perspective perspective toward TBLT
Error correction 23 7 +16
Explicit grammar instruction 20 8 +12
Negotiation of syllabus 13 3 +10
Focus on language study vs. Language use 14 5   +9
Syllabus design 13 4   +9
Fluency vs. accuracy 12 4   +8
Use of exercises and drills 12 5   +7
Promoting learner autonomy   9 3   +6
Group work   9 3   +6
Focus on process vs. product   7 9   –2
Note: Numbers refer to the change in Likert scale points between the beginning of the course and the end
of the course for all 12 students combined.

She added:

I did not realize how much of an impact my experiences as a learner would have on my beliefs
until this year. Until recently, I might have been inclined to believe that the way I was taught
was the right way to teach.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

Greg Ogilvie and William Dunn 171

In the case of other students, however, the influence of the course in promoting a change
in views about language teaching was less pronounced. For example, one student wrote:

My beliefs in language learning have not changed much, but the class has allowed me to look
at other concepts of language teaching and validate my opinion or challenge it, leading to valu-
able reflection.

This comment suggests, perhaps, that even in cases where the course did not promote
major change in a student’s teaching philosophy, the critical reflection and analysis
encouraged in the class may have prompted a more thorough examination of students’
pre-held views of second language pedagogy.

2   Influence of the practical field experience

At the end of the curriculum course many of the students had a favorable disposition
towards TBLT and expressed interest in using the approach during the five-week teach-
ing practicum. Nonetheless, data from interviews conducted at the conclusion of the
teaching practicum suggested that the principles of TBLT had been utilized only spar-
ingly. Students reported a variety of reasons for not implementing TBLT; however,
these reasons may be categorized under three headings: epistemological frame, cultural
norms, and lack of support.

a Epistemological frame: A few student teachers followed in this study indicated that
they did not utilize TBLT because they could not perceive its epistemological value. In
other words, they did not perceive how knowledge (declarative or procedural) could be
generated through tasks without linguistic content provided by the teacher. Instead, they
expressed an epistemological frame that posited learning as a structured, predictable
process. For example, one student teacher stated:

From the start they [students] need some kind of material.

Comments from other student teachers suggested that having students use language that
was not explicitly provided by the teacher was deemed to be a potential source of frus-
tration, especially for beginning students who have not yet built up a broad repertoire of
linguistic resources. One student teacher working in an ESL setting commented:

Starting strictly from the task, for me, is a little bit difficult unless it is a task which kind of
follows the objective of a previous unit and they have a little background for it. Then we can
[do it]. But I think when beginners have so little [knowledge], that’s very hard for them to do
any kind of activity.

This perspective was shared by another student teacher, who stated:

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

172 Language Teaching Research 14(2)

I thought the TBLT was pretty difficult … and I think that might frustrate kids. And maybe it
doesn’t provide enough reinforcement or practice.

The notion that repetitive practice is required before opportunities for free commu-
nication can occur was also expressed by a student teacher working in a Japanese
language classroom. This student commented that she preferred a very structured les-
son with communicative activities serving to reinforce concepts after explicit instruc-
tion. She stated:

Then [after completing a number of exercises and worksheets] we can do this orally and if they
are feeling creative, okay let’s have you guys create a dialogue, you have to use these verbs,
tenses within it but the topic is up to you and the time limit is up to you.

This student teacher expressed a view of communication as the end, rather than the
means, of developing communicative ability.
Interestingly, student teachers who had studied in Canadian French immersion pro-
grams tended to show a greater recognition of the value of tasks in promoting acquisi-
tion. For example, one student teacher stated:

I was in French immersion so I think I already had a pretty good idea of what works for learn-
ing language. So that was more sort of task-based and group work and doing an activity with
a different goal, as opposed to like a PPP. Because that was how I learned and I think I learned
French really well compared to other languages I have learned, which was not very well.

She further explained:

I think we probably learned more from the tasks than from actually explicitly learning it
[language].

French immersion shares with TBLT the view that meaningful communication is the
optimal means of developing communicative competence, thus offering the former
immersion students a means of conceptualizing the value of TBLT.

b Cultural norms: Also apparent in the student teachers’ explanations for the absence
of TBLT during their practicum was the perceived need to adhere to cultural norms and
expectations related to teaching. Although western educators are generally viewed as
having a significant amount of flexibility to adopt non-traditional roles such as that of
a ‘facilitator’ or ‘guide’, cultural norms of the teacher as an expert who controls learn-
ing episodes continue to permeate western teaching (Britzman, 2003). For second lan-
guage educators, these expectations manifest themselves as linguistic expertise (often
related to grammar) and control of the learning process through emphasizing discrete
linguistic items as the content of instruction. The need to adhere to these cultural norms
was apparent for some of the student teachers, particularly those individuals who could
not easily command the appearance of expertise. One student teacher stated:

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

Greg Ogilvie and William Dunn 173

When you walk into a language classroom many students are expecting to see someone
who almost would speak it as their first language. And it is very rare that you would find
a redhead speaking Japanese as my first language. So going into that, knowing that I don’t
have the intuitive expert knowledge … I found that I was almost show-boating a little bit
that I could explain yeah this is why this happens and having to do the language and going
a little further. It does change the way I teach, that I will have more activities and I will
have more explanation, maybe more than is needed. Trying to show the students, yes I do
understand.

In order to establish her legitimacy as a teacher this student felt the need to demonstrate
her expertise through lengthy explanations and controlled activities. TBLT would not
allow for such overt demonstrations of expertise, thus limiting its value in the eyes of this
student teacher.
In addition to general expectations about teachers, the norms of specific contexts
also had a restrictive influence on student teachers. One German student teacher was
placed with a mentor who relied on distance education materials to instruct the class.
The mentor did not want the routines or schedule of the class to be interrupted; thus,
the student teacher was forced to continue the strategy of providing students with
worksheet after worksheet of drills and exercises to complete. A Spanish student
teacher felt covertly restricted by the norms of the classroom in which she was placed.
She explained:

Everything is the same and [the mentor] teaches all of her classes, French or Spanish, the exact
same. They do the exact same things and so it’s very structured. I didn’t really feel I had much
room to move just because she was so organized and she had everything set out and they had
a pattern and all of her students were used to it.

Although she believed her mentor would have allowed her to experiment with alternative
approaches, she refrained from doing so because she felt it would be difficult for her
mentor to carry on after she had left.
Perhaps the greatest factor promoting adherence to the norms of the teaching context
was the student teachers’ knowledge that their performance would be evaluated by their
mentors. Within the structure of the teacher education program at this particular institu-
tion, the mentors, who are practicing teachers, had the final say in the evaluation.
Although a representative from the university regularly observed student teachers and
discussed pedagogical issues with both the student teachers and the mentors, this indi-
vidual played only a minor role in preparing the students’ teaching evaluation. As a
result, student teachers feared receiving a poor evaluation if they experimented with an
approach that their mentors were not familiar with or did not advocate. A Spanish stu-
dent teacher stated:

The one thing I found about the [practicum] is that you have to do exactly what the teacher
says because if you don’t, like they’re marking you, right, and pretty much you know I did
anything they wanted me to just because they say if I pass or fail. You knew in the back of your
mind that you’re always being judged.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

174 Language Teaching Research 14(2)

Another Spanish student teacher commented:

You have someone watching you like a hawk, not to see if you mess up, but that you don’t
agree with what they are doing. And it is difficult … you have all these grand ideas and they
are like scared that you are going to criticize them and that you are going to look at what they
are doing and go, well that doesn’t agree with what I just learnt.

In order to avoid confrontation, this student teacher adopted instructional practices

that were similar to her mentor’s. In doing so she avoided challenging her mentor’s
competence and damaging her relationship with the individual who would assess her
performance.
The effect of cultural norms on second language teaching practices has been dis-
cussed in previous research. In a study involving recent graduates of a TESL course,
Richards and Pennington (1998) identified the teaching culture of a particular context
as a powerful factor influencing teaching practices. They noted that although the course
had emphasized the principles of communicative language teaching, graduates of the
program followed traditional practices that maintained the authority of the teacher and
emphasized the efficient coverage of content. Experimentation was hindered due to
risks inherent in challenging cultural norms and the negative perceptions of one’s teach-
ing competence that may result from practices that fall outside of the ‘tried and true’
paradigm of teaching.

c Lack of support: A third identified factor that restricted student teachers’ use of TBLT
during their practical field experience was the absence of support. One reason for the
lack of support was that most of the field-experience mentors were not familiar with
TBLT. They tended to be experienced teachers who had been educated in the principles
of audiolingualism or communicative language teaching. Therefore, they did not have
the background needed to support student teachers in implementing TBLT. A French
student teacher commented that she had attempted to utilize a task in her class; however,
the lesson was a total disaster. She recalled:

They ended up talking and doing something else because they couldn’t do it.

She wasn’t aware of the source of her difficulties and her mentor was not able to provide
assistance because he did not utilize interactive strategies in his classroom. She explained:

I just didn’t know what to do in order to be effective. So I mostly did explicit instruction and
then gave them a lot of exercises to practice.

Lack of support from her mentor led her to resort to familiar teaching practices.
A second reason for the lack of support was that the structure of the teacher education
program promoted a divide between theoretical investigation and practical experiences.
Student teachers were obligated to complete the curriculum course prior to embarking on

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

Greg Ogilvie and William Dunn 175

their practical field experience. This meant that they were exposed to theoretical con-
cepts in a way that was largely disconnected from classroom practice. As one student
teacher related, this created unrealistic expectations that led to feelings of frustration:

You have all this information that you’ve had thrown at you and it’s the most stressful semes-
ter you’ve had and you’re supposed to somehow magically filter it all and use it usefully and
put it into practice. Well, that’s not how it works.

This comment suggests that support is needed to translate theory into practice. However,
because the program was structured such that course instructors were not involved in the
practical field experience, support was not available during the crucial period of
implementation.
The lack of support in the form of resources was a third factor that made implement-
ing TBLT very difficult. At most schools where the student teachers were assigned to
complete their practicum, the primary resource available was a textbook. As Richards
and Rodgers (2001) noted, most published textbooks are not designed for a task-based
syllabus. As a result, utilizing TBLT would require students to either adapt existing mate-
rials or develop their own materials that correspond to the approach. Both of these
options require a significant time investment, something that was not always available to
the student teachers. When asked if the time required to develop materials inhibited her
use of TBLT, one student teacher replied:

Exactly, but that’s what I tried to do. Like I tried to make everything from scratch.

When this was not feasible due to time constraints, she altered her instruction to match
the materials available to her. The result was the continued use of exercises to develop
students’ accuracy. She lamented:

It’s just frustrating in that regard and I didn’t just want to give them worksheets, but that’s all
I had for resources and you know I was drained.

Developing task-based lessons without the guidance of resources was not only time-
consuming but also mentally taxing. A Spanish student teacher commented:

I don’t have like a giant bag on my shoulder that I can just pull all these different ideas out of.

Unable to consistently think up creative tasks to implement in her class, this student
teacher resorted to instruction based on the textbook.

VIII   Conclusions

The findings of this study suggest that a constructivist-based approach to teacher

education can have a positive influence on student teachers’ disposition towards

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

176 Language Teaching Research 14(2)

innovation. By explicitly confronting the tacit assumptions about second language

pedagogy developed during their apprenticeship of observation and by critically ana-
lysing the various influences on second language instruction, student teachers
became more amenable to innovation in the form of TBLT. This demonstrates the
potential value of pre-service teacher education in addressing the tacit barriers that
inhibit innovation.
Nonetheless, further research is needed to investigate the longitudinal influence of
constructivist-based teacher education on teachers’ instructional decision-making given
that the results of this study also indicated factors that inhibited the utilization of TBLT
during a teaching practicum, such as cultural norms, a lack of support, and an entrenched
epistemological frame. The findings corroborate other research that has demonstrated
the complexity of implementing TBLT among in-service teachers (e.g. Markee, 1997;
Van den Branden, 2006b; Tinker Sachs, 2007) and highlight the importance of refining
pre-service teacher education programs in order to more effectively link theory and prac-
tice. One way of improving this link might be for pre-service teacher education programs
to combine a constructivist-based approach, as described here, with the type of guidance
and support outlined in Van den Branden (2006b). Only after greater attention is devoted
to issues of implementation will the principles of TBLT regularly be put into practice.

Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Leila Ranta and two anonymous Language Teaching Research reviewers for
their very helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this article.

References
Allwright, D. (2005). From teaching points to learning opportunities and beyond. TESOL
Quarterly, 39, 9–31.
Beijaard, D. & Verloop, N. (1996). Assessing teachers’ practical knowledge. Studies in Educa-
tional Evaluation, 22, 275–86.
Breen, M. (1987). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Language Teaching, 20, 157–74.
Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.) (2001). Researching pedagogical tasks: Second lan-
guage learning, teaching, and testing. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Carless, D. (2002). Implementing task-based learning with young learners. ELT Journal, 56, 389–96.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary
schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 639–62.
Edwards, C. (1996). Learning to learn how to teach: Developing expertise through experience. In
J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 99–107). Oxford:
MacMillan Heinemann.
Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (Eds.) (2005). Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching.
London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (Ed.) (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

Greg Ogilvie and William Dunn 177

Fosnot, C.T. (2005). Teachers construct constructivism: The center for constructivist teaching/
teacher preparation project. In C.T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and
practice (pp. 263–75). New York: Teachers College Press.
Freeman, D. (1996). The ‘unstudied problem’: Research on teacher learning in language teaching.
In D. Freeman & J.C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 351–78).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gass, S.M. (1995). Learning and teaching: The necessary intersection. In F.R. Eckman, D. High-
land, P.W. Lee, J. Mileham, & R.R Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and
pedagogy (pp. 3–20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Golombek, P.R. (1998). A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge. TESOL
Quarterly, 32, 447–64.
Kagan, D. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist,
27, 65–90.
Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitudes to the commu-
nicative approach. ELT Journal, 50, 187–98.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quar-
terly, 40, 59–82.
Leaver, B.L. & Willis, J.R. (Eds.) (2004). Task-based instruction in foreign language education:
Practice and programs. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Long, M.H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.),
Input and second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Markee, N. (1997). Managing curricular innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDonough, K. & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based
EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 107–32.
Myers, C.B. (2002). Can self-study challenge the belief that telling, showing, and guided practice
constitute adequate teacher education? In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Improving teacher
education practices through self-study (pp. 130–42). London: Routledge Falmer.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oppenheim, A.N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London:
Pinter.
Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–32.
Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J.C. & Pennington, M. (1998). The first year of teaching. In J.C. Richards (Ed.), Beyond
training (pp. 173–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. 2nd Edition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In
V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education (pp. 3–14). London: Falmer.
Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J. Raths & A.C. McAninch (Eds.), Teacher
beliefs and classroom performance: The impact of teacher education (pp. 1–22). Greenwich:
Information Age Publishing.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

178 Language Teaching Research 14(2)

Samuda, V. & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Hampshire: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role
of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA–Colombia. The Modern Language
Journal, 85, 243–258.
Shehadeh, A. (2005). Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications.
In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching
(pp. 13–30). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis &
D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 17–30). Oxford: MacMillan
Heinemann.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Harlow: Longman.
Tillema, H.H. (2004). Embedding and immersion as key strategies in learning to teach. In
H.P.A. Boshuizen, R. Bromme, & H. Gruber (Eds.), Professional learning: Gaps and transi-
tions on the way from novice to expert (pp. 141–56). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Tinker Sachs, G. (2007). The challenges of adopting and adapting task-based cooperative teach-
ing and learning in an EFL context. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, & M. Verhelst
(Eds.), Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective
(pp. 235–64). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Tsang, W.K. (2004). Teachers’ personal practical knowledge and interactive decisions. Language
Teaching Research, 8(2), 163–98.
Van den Branden, K. (Ed.) (2006a). Task-based language education: From theory to practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Branden, K. (2006b). Training teachers: Task-based as well? In K. Van den Branden (Ed.),
Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
Winitzky, N. & Kauchuk, D. (1997). Constructivism in teacher education: Applying cognitive the-
ory to teacher learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education (pp. 59–83).
London: Falmer.
Zhang, E.Y. (2007). TBLT innovation in primary school English language teaching in mainland
China. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, & M. Verhelst (Eds.), Tasks in action: Task-based
language education from a classroom-based perspective (pp. 68–91). Newcastle: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.

Notes
1 An anonymous reviewer commented that some items in the questionnaire are double-
barreled, meaning that a respondent could agree with one part of the statement but not the
other. Although this deficiency is recognized, it is not deemed to be a significant issue
since each topic of the questionnaire was addressed by two items, and the split-half reli-
ability coefficients for the double-barreled items in relation to the corresponding item
were 0.89 or higher.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

Greg Ogilvie and William Dunn 179

Appendix 1 Pedagogical beliefs questionnaire

Questionnaire items Disposition Topic addressed by the Split-half reliability
toward TBLT statement pair coefficient
Student errors must be – Error correction 0.89
regularly corrected in order
to avoid bad habits.
Errors are a natural part +
of language learning
(interlanguage development).
Therefore, large amounts of
correction is a waste of time.
Activities used in a – Focus on process or 0.72
language classroom ought product
to have a clear focus with
predetermined outcomes.
The outcome of lessons is +
unpredictable because every
student is unique and will
cause the lesson to proceed
in a different manner.
Explicit grammar – Explicit grammar 0.89
instruction is an important instruction
element of any foreign
language program.
Studying grammar promotes +
knowledge about language
rather than the ability to use
language. Therefore, explicit
grammar instruction should
be limited.
Group work activities are + Group work 0.93
important for creating a
cooperative environment in
which students feel
comfortable interacting with
their peers. The genuine
interaction created through
group work activities is
crucial in developing
communicative competence.
Group work activities should –
be used sparingly because
students learn each other’s
errors and spend more time
goofing around and talking in
the mother tongue, than
productively completing tasks.

(Continued)

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

180 Language Teaching Research 14(2)

Appendix 1 (Continued)
Questionnaire items Disposition Topic addressed by the Split-half reliability
toward TBLT statement pair coefficient
Drills are important for – Use of exercises and drills 0.98
developing accuracy by
promoting the formation of
positive habits.
Exercises/drills are useless +
because they don’t develop
skills/knowledge that can be
transferred to real-life
situations.
Courses should be organized – Syllabus design 0.74
around progressively more
difficult forms (grammati-
cal concepts) or functions
(greetings, requests, etc.).
Activities are the most +
effective means to organize a
syllabus.
Since learners enter into – Negotiation of syllabus 0.93
the classroom with little
or no knowledge about
the target language, they
are not in a position to
suggest what the content of
the lesson should be or
what activities are useful
for their learning.
Tasks and activities +
should be negotiated
and adapted to suit the
students’ needs rather
than exclusively determined
by the teacher.
Training students to take – Promoting 0.97
responsibility for their own learner autonomy
learning is futile because they
do not have the maturity to
direct their own learning.
Since each student enters +
the language classroom
with different skills,
knowledge and learning
abilities, the language
teacher must help them
develop individual strategies
for improving their learning.

(Continued)

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014

Greg Ogilvie and William Dunn 181

Appendix 1 (Continued)
Questionnaire items Disposition Topic addressed by the Split-half reliability
toward TBLT statement pair coefficient
Grammatical correctness is – Fluency and accuracy 0.84
the most important
criterion by which language
performance should
be judged.
The main focus of language +
programs is to develop
students who are able to
communicate fluently.
Explicit knowledge about – Focus on language study 0.73
grammatical forms and rules or language use
is essential in learning a
language.
For most students language +
is acquired best when used
as a vehicle for doing a task
rather than studied in an
explicit manner.
* As the expert, the role of – Role of the teacher 0.59
the language teacher is to
impart knowledge to
students through
explanations, notes,
activities, etc.
* Learners bring a wealth of +
knowledge and experience
about language learning to the
classroom. Teachers simply
facilitate skill development
by creating an environment
conducive to learning.
* To facilitate effective – Student or teacher 0.56
learning, a brief presentation directed
must set the direction for
the lesson.
* Teachers do not need to +
plan all activities in a lesson
but must be flexible and able
to adapt instruction based
on students’ performance in
class.

Notes: * Deleted from analysis due to low split-half reliability coefficient

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 10, 2014