Task-based language learning

Task-based language learning (TBLL), also known as 2 Denition of a Task

task-based language teaching (TBLT) or task-based
instruction (TBI) focuses on the use of authentic lan- According to Rod Ellis, a task has four main
guage and on asking students to do meaningful tasks us- characteristics:[4]
ing the target language. Such tasks can include visiting
a doctor, conducting an interview, or calling customer
1. A task involves a primary focus on (pragmatic)
service for help. Assessment is primarily based on task
meaning.
outcome (in other words the appropriate completion of
real world tasks) rather than on accuracy of prescribed
2. A task has some kind of gap (Prabhu identied the
language forms. This makes TBLL especially popular
three main types as information gap, reasoning gap,
for developing target language uency and student conand opinion gap).
dence. As such TBLL can be considered a branch of
3. The participants choose the linguistic resources
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).
needed to complete the task.
TBLL was popularized by N. Prabhu while working in
Bangalore, India.[1] Prabhu noticed that his students could
4. A task has a clearly dened, non-linguistic outcome.
learn language just as easily with a non-linguistic problem
as when they were concentrating on linguistic questions.
Major scholars who have done research in this area in- 3 In practice
clude Teresa P. Pica and Michael Long.
According to Jane Willis, TBLL consists of the pre-task, The core of the lesson or project is, as the name suggests,
the task cycle, and the language focus.[2]
the task. Teachers and curriculum developers should bear
in mind that any attention to form, i.e. grammar or voThe components of a Task are:
cabulary, increases the likelihood that learners may be
distracted from the task itself and become preoccupied
1. Goals and objectives
with detecting and correcting errors and/or looking up
language in dictionaries and grammar references. Al2. Input
though there may be several eective frameworks for cre3. Activities
ating a task-based learning lesson, here is a basic outline:
4. Teacher role

3.1 Pre-task

5. learner role

In the pre-task, the teacher will present what will be expected of the students in the task phase. Additionally,
in the weak form of TBLL, the teacher may prime the
students with key vocabulary or grammatical constructs,
although this can mean that the activity is, in eect, more
similar to the more traditional present-practice-produce
(PPP) paradigm. In strong task-based learning lessons,
learners are responsible for selecting the appropriate language for any given context themselves. The instructors may also present a model of the task by either doing it themselves or by presenting picture, audio, or video
demonstrating the task.[5]

6. Settings

Background

Task-based language learning has its origins in

communicative language teaching, and is a subcategory of it. Educators adopted task-based language
learning for a variety of reasons. Some moved to
task-based syllabus in an attempt to make language in the
classroom truly communicative, rather than the pseudocommunication that results from classroom activities
with no direct connection to real-life situations. Others,
like Prabhu in the Bangalore Project, thought that tasks 3.2 Task
were a way of tapping into learners natural mechanisms
for second-language acquisition, and weren't concerned During the task phase, the students perform the task, typwith real-life communication per se.[3]
ically in small groups, although this is dependent on the
1

5 RECEPTION

type of activity. And unless the teacher plays a particular dierent occasions.[7]
role in the task, then the teachers role is typically limited
to one of an observer or counsellorthus the reason for
it being a more student-centered methodology.
5 Reception
According to Jon Larsson, in considering problem based
learning for language learning, i.e. task based language
[6]
If learners have created tangible linguistic products, e.g. learning:
text, montage, presentation, audio or video recording,
learners can review each others work and oer construc...one of the main virtues of PBL is that it distive feedback. If a task is set to extend over longer periods
plays a signicant advantage over traditional
of time, e.g. weeks, and includes iterative cycles of conmethods in how the communicative skills of
structive activity followed by review, TBLL can be seen
the students are improved. The general ability
as analogous to Project-based learning.[6]
of social interaction is also positively aected.
These are, most will agree, two central factors
in language learning. By building a language
course around assignments that require students
4 Types of task
to act, interact and communicate it is hopefully
possible to mimic some of the aspects of learnAccording to N. S. Prabhu, there are three main cating a language on site, i.e. in a country where
egories of task; information-gap, reasoning-gap, and
it is actually spoken. Seeing how learning a lanopinion-gap.[7]
guage in such an environment is generally much
Information-gap activity, which involves a transfer of
more eective than teaching the language exclugiven information from one person to another or from
sively as a foreign language, this is something
one form to another, or from one place to another genthat would hopefully be benecial.
erally calling for the decoding or encoding of information from or into language. One example is pair work
Larsson goes on to say:
in which each member of the pair has a part of the total information (for example an incomplete picture) and
Another large advantage of PBL is that it enattempts to convey it verbally to the other. Another excourages students to gain a deeper sense of unample is completing a tabular representation with inforderstanding. Supercial learning is often a
mation available in a given piece of text. The activity
problem in language education, for example
often involves selection of relevant information as well,
when students, instead of acquiring a sense of
and learners may have to meet criteria of completeness
when and how to use which vocabulary, learn
and correctness in making the transfer.
all the words they will need for the exam next
Reasoning gap Reasoning-gap activity, which involves
week and then promptly forget them.
deriving some new information from given information
In a PBL classroom this is combatted by always
through processes of inference, deduction, practical reaintroducing the vocabulary in a real-world situsoning, or a perception of relationships or patterns. One
ation, rather than as words on a list, and by acexample is working out a teachers timetable on the bativating the student; students are not passive resis of given class timetables. Another is deciding what
ceivers of knowledge, but are instead required to
course of action is best (for example cheapest or quickactively acquire the knowledge. The feeling of
est) for a given purpose and within given constraints. The
being an integral part of their group also motiactivity necessarily involves comprehending and conveyvates students to learn in a way that the prospect
ing information, as in information-gap activity, but the
of a nal examination rarely manages to do.
information to be conveyed is not identical with that initially comprehended. There is a piece of reasoning which
connects the two.
Task-based learning is advantageous to the student beOpinion gap Opinion-gap activity, which involves iden- cause it is more student-centered, allows for more meantifying and articulating a personal preference, feeling, or ingful communication, and often provides for practical
attitude in response to a given situation. One example is extra-linguistic skill building. As the tasks are likely to
story completion; another is taking part in the discussion be familiar to the students (e.g.: visiting the doctor), stuof a social issue. The activity may involve using factual dents are more likely to be engaged, which may further
information and formulating arguments to justify ones motivate them in their language learning.

3.3

Review

opinion, but there is no objective procedure for demon- According to Jeremy Harmer, tasks promote language acstrating outcomes as right or wrong, and no reason to ex- quisition through the types of language and interaction
pect the same outcome from dierent individuals or on they require. Harmer says that although the teacher may

3
present language in the pre-task, the students are ultimately free to use what grammar constructs and vocabulary they want. This allows them, he says, to use all
the language they know and are learning, rather than just
the 'target language' of the lesson.[8] On the other hand,
according to Loschky and Bley-Vroman, tasks can also
be designed to make certain target forms 'task-essential,'
thus making it communicatively necessary for students to
practice using them.[9] In terms of interaction, information gap tasks in particular have been shown to promote
negotiation of meaning and output modication.[10][11]
According to Plews and Zhao, task-based language learning can suer in practice from poorly informed implementation and adaptations that alter its fundamental nature. They say that lessons are frequently changed to be
more like traditional teacher-led presentation-practiceproduction lessons than task-based lessons.[12]

8 See also
Communicative language teaching
Content-based instruction
Content and language integrated learning
English as a second or foreign language
Input hypothesis
Problem-based learning
Project-based learning
Second-language acquisition

9 References
6

Professional conferences and or9.1 Notes

ganizations
[1] Harmer 2001, p. 86.

As an outgrowth of the widespread interest in taskbased teaching, the Biennial International Conference
on Task-Based Language Teaching has occurred every
other year since 2005. Past conferences have been held
in Belgium,[13] the United States,[14] England,[15] New
Zealand,[16] and Canada,[17] with the 2015 conference
scheduled to take place in Leuven, Belgium, from 16
September to 18 September 2015.[18] These events promote theoretical and practical research on TBLT. In addition, the Japan Association for Language Teaching has a
special interest group devoted to task-based learning,[19]
which has also hosted its own conference in Japan.

[2] Willis 1996, pp. 135-136.

[3] Leaver & Willis 2004, pp. 78.
[4] Ellis 2003.
[5] Frost unknown.
[6] Larsson 2001.
[7] Prabhu 1987.
[8] Harmer 2001, pp. 79-80.
[9] Loschky & Bley-Vroman 1993.

Related approaches to language

teaching

[10] Doughty & Pica 1986.

[11] Pica, Kang & Sauro 2006.
[12] Plews & Zhao 2010.

Problem Based Learning is a student-centered pedagogy in which students learn about a subject in the
context of complex, multifaceted, and realistic problems.

[13] http://www.tblt.org/
[14] http://www.hawaii.edu/tblt2007/index.html
[15] http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/events/tblt2009/index.htm

Content-based instruction incorporates authentic

materials and tasks to drive language instruction.
Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is
an approach for learning content through an additional language (foreign or second), thus teaching
both the subject and the language. The idea of its
proponents was to create an umbrella term which
encompasses dierent forms of using language as
medium of instruction.[20]

[16] http://www.conferencealerts.com/show-event?id=
ca16a83x
[17] http://www.educ.ualberta.ca/tblt2013/
[18] http://www.tblt2013.ualberta.ca/
[19] http://tblsig.org/
[20] Content and language integrated learning. European
Commission. Retrieved 26 January 2013.

9.2

Bibliography

Doughty, Catherine; Pica, Teresa (1986). ""Information Gap Tasks: Do They Facilitate Second Language Acquisition?". TESOL Quarterly 20 (2): 305
325. doi:10.2307/3586546.
Ellis, Rod (2003). Task-based Language Learning
and Teaching. Oxford, New York: Oxford Applied
Linguistics. ISBN 0-19-442159-7.
Frost, Richard. A Task-based Approach. British
Council Teaching English. Retrieved September 21,
2015.
Harmer, Jeremy (2001). The Practice of English
Language Teaching (3rd ed.). Essex: Pearson Education.
Larsson, Jon (2001). Problem-Based Learning: A
possible approach to language education?" (PDF).
Polonia Institute, Jagiellonian University. Retrieved
27 January 2013.
Leaver, Betty Lou; Willis, Jane Rosemary (2004).
Task-Based Instruction In Foreign Language Education: Practices and Programs. Georgetown University Press. ISBN 978-1-58901-028-4.
Loschky, L.; Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar
and Task-Based Methodology. In Crookes, G.;
Gass, S. Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Philadelphia: Multilingual
Matters. ISBN 978-058524356-6.
Pica, Teresa; Kang, Hyun-Sook; Sauro, Shannon
(2006). Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles
and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28:
301338. doi:10.1017/s027226310606013x.
Plews, John L.; Zhao, Kangxian (2010). Tinkering
with tasks knows no bounds: ESL Teachers Adaptations of Task-Based Language-Teaching. TESL
Canada Journal. Retrieved 26 January 2013.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
Willis, Jane (1996). A Framework for Task-Based
Learning. Longman.

REFERENCES

10
10.1

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

Text

Task-based language learning Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task-based_language_learning?oldid=682060954 Contributors:

Edward, Bill Jpn, Merope, Espoo, Alansohn, Axeman89, Rjwilmsi, Malcolma, SmackBot, Bluebot, GoodDay, Jhonan, Tim Mahrt, Vhlede, CmdrObot, WVhybrid, MarshBot, VoABot II, Marukosu~enwiki, BrandeX, Cruxcriticorum, Mr. Stradivarius, ClueBot, Niceguyedc,
Davewillis, Arjayay, Bridies, Avoided, Addbot, LaaknorBot, AnomieBOT, Nifky?, FrescoBot, BenzolBot, DrilBot, Languageteacher1945,
Secondlifelanguageeducator, Zulfajri, Razzayo, Vjayant, Mr. Stradivarius on tour, BG19bot, Hirma, Matbury, BattyBot, Patrickchu, Tow,
Mogism and Anonymous: 43

10.2

Images

10.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0