Task-based language learning (TBLL), also known as task-based language teaching (TBLT)

or task-based instruction (TBI) focuses on the use of authentic language and on asking students
to do meaningful tasks using the target language. Such tasks can include visiting a doctor,
conducting an interview, or calling customer service for help. Assessment is primarily based on
task outcome (in other words the appropriate completion of real world tasks) rather than on
accuracy of prescribed language forms. This makes TBLL especially popular for developing
target language fluency and student confidence. As such TBLL can be considered a branch of
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).

TBLL was popularized by N. Prabhu while working in Bangalore, India.[1] Prabhu noticed that
his students could 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 include
Teresa P. Pica and Michael Long

According to Jane Willis, TBLL consists of the pre-task, the task cycle, and the language
focus.[2]

The components of a Task are:

1. Goals and objectives

2. Input
3. Activities
4. Teacher role
5. learner role
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 syllabi in an attempt to make language in the classroom truly
communicative, rather than the pseudo-communication that results from classroom activities
with no direct connection to real-life situations. Others, like Prabhu in the Bangalore Project,
thought that tasks were a way of tapping into learners' natural mechanisms for second-language
acquisition, and weren't concerned with real-life communication per se.[3]

Definition of a Task
According to Rod Ellis, a task has four main characteristics:[4]

1. A task involves a primary focus on (pragmatic) meaning.

2. A task has some kind of ‘gap’ (Prabhu identified the three main types as information gap,
reasoning gap, and opinion gap).
3. The participants choose the linguistic resources needed to complete the task.
4. A task has a clearly defined, non-linguistic outcome.

In practice
The core of the lesson or project is, as the name suggests, the task. Teachers and curriculum
developers should bear in mind that any attention to form, i.e. grammar or vocabulary, increases
the likelihood that learners may be distracted from the task itself and become preoccupied with
detecting and correcting errors and/or looking up language in dictionaries and grammar
references. Although there may be several effective frameworks for creating a task-based
learning lesson, here is a basic outline:

Pre-task

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 effect, 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]

Task

During the task phase, the students perform the task, typically in small groups, although this is
dependent on the type of activity. And unless the teacher plays a particular role in the task, then
the teacher's role is typically limited to one of an observer or counsellor—thus the reason for it
being a more student-centered methodology.[citation needed]

Review

If learners have created tangible linguistic products, e.g. text, montage, presentation, audio or
video recording, learners can review each other's work and offer constructive feedback. If a task
is set to extend over longer periods of time, e.g. weeks, and includes iterative cycles of
constructive activity followed by review, TBLL can be seen as analogous to Project-based
learning.[6]

Types of task
According to N. S. Prabhu, there are three main categories of task; information-gap, reasoning-
gap, and opinion-gap.[7]

Information-gap activity, which involves a transfer of given information from one person to
another – or from one form to another, or from one place to another – generally calling for the
decoding or encoding of information from or into language. One example is pair work in which
each member of the pair has a part of the total information (for example an incomplete picture)
and attempts to convey it verbally to the other. Another example is completing a tabular
representation with information available in a given piece of text. The activity often involves
selection of relevant information as well, and learners may have to meet criteria of completeness
and correctness in making the transfer.

Reasoning gap Reasoning-gap activity, which involves deriving some new information from
given information through processes of inference, deduction, practical reasoning, or a perception
of relationships or patterns. One example is working out a teacher’s timetable on the basis of
given class timetables. Another is deciding what course of action is best (for example cheapest or
quickest) for a given purpose and within given constraints. The activity necessarily involves
comprehending and conveying information, as in information-gap activity, but the information to
be conveyed is not identical with that initially comprehended. There is a piece of reasoning
which connects the two.
Opinion gap Opinion-gap activity, which involves identifying and articulating a personal
preference, feeling, or attitude in response to a given situation. One example is story completion;
another is taking part in the discussion of a social issue. The activity may involve using factual
information and formulating arguments to justify one’s opinion, but there is no objective
procedure for demonstrating outcomes as right or wrong, and no reason to expect the same
outcome from different individuals or on different occasions.[7]

Reception
According to Jon Larsson, in considering problem based learning for language learning, i.e. task
based language learning:[6]

...one of the main virtues of PBL is that it displays a significant advantage over
traditional methods in how the communicative skills of the students are improved. The
general ability of social interaction is also positively affected. These are, most will agree,
two central factors in language learning. By building a language course around
assignments that require students to act, interact and communicate it is hopefully
possible to mimic some of the aspects of learning a language “on site”, i.e. in a country
where it is actually spoken. Seeing how learning a language in such an environment is
generally much more effective than teaching the language exclusively as a foreign
language, this is something that would hopefully be beneficial.

Larsson goes on to say:

Another large advantage of PBL is that it encourages students to gain a deeper sense of
understanding. Superficial learning is often a problem in language education, for
example when students, instead of acquiring a sense of when and how to use which
vocabulary, learn all the words they will need for the exam next week and then promptly
forget them.
In a PBL classroom this is combatted by always introducing the vocabulary in a real-
world situation, rather than as words on a list, and by activating the student; students are
not passive receivers of knowledge, but are instead required to actively acquire the
knowledge. The feeling of being an integral part of their group also motivates students to
learn in a way that the prospect of a final examination rarely manages to do.

Task-based learning is advantageous to the student because it is more student-centered, allows

for more meaningful communication, and often provides for practical extra-linguistic skill
building. As the tasks are likely to be familiar to the students (e.g.: visiting the doctor), students
are more likely to be engaged, which may further motivate them in their language
learning.[according to whom?]

According to Jeremy Harmer, tasks promote language acquisition through the types of language
and interaction they require. Harmer says that although the teacher may 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[by whom?] to promote negotiation of meaning
and output modification.[10][11]
According to Plews and Zhao, task-based language learning can suffer 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-practice-production
lessons than task-based lessons.[12]

Bibliography

 Doughty, Catherine; Pica, Teresa (1986). ""Information Gap" Tasks: Do They Facilitate
Second Language Acquisition?". TESOL Quarterly 20 (2): 305–325.
 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
April 12, 2006.
 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?". 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: 301–338.
 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.
Teaching approaches: task-based learning

By Tim Bowen

What is TBL?
How often do we as teachers ask our students to do something in class which they would do in
everyday life using their own language? Probably not often enough.

If we can make language in the classroom meaningful therefore memorable, students can process
language which is being learned or recycled more naturally.

Task-based learning offers the student an opportunity to do exactly this. The primary focus of
classroom activity is the task and language is the instrument which the students use to complete
it. The task is an activity in which students use language to achieve a specific outcome. The
activity reflects real life and learners focus on meaning, they are free to use any language they
want. Playing a game, solving a problem or sharing information or experiences, can all be
considered as relevant and authentic tasks. In TBL an activity in which students are given a list
of words to use cannot be considered as a genuine task. Nor can a normal role play if it does not
contain a problem-solving element or where students are not given a goal to reach. In many role
plays students simply act out their restricted role. For instance, a role play where students have to
act out roles as company directors but must come to an agreement or find the right solution
within the given time limit can be considered a genuine task in TBL.

In the task-based lessons included below our aim is to create a need to learn and use language.
The tasks will generate their own language and create an opportunity for language acquisition
(Krashen*). If we can take the focus away from form and structures we can develop our
students’ ability to do things in English. That is not to say that there will be no attention paid to
accuracy, work on language is included in each task and feedback and language focus have their
places in the lesson plans. We feel that teachers have a responsibility to enrich their students’
language when they see it is necessary but students should be given the opportunity to use
English in the classroom as they use their own languages in everyday life.

How can I use TBL in the classroom?

Most of the task-based lessons in this section are what Scrivener** classifies as authentic and
follow the task structure proposed by Willis and Willis***.

Each task will be organized in the following way:

 Pre-task activity an introduction to topic and task

 Task cycle: Task > Planning > Report
 Language Focus and Feedback

A balance should be kept between fluency, which is what the task provides, and accuracy, which
is provided by task feedback.

A traditional model for the organization of language lessons, both in the classroom and in
course-books, has long been the PPP approach (presentation, practice, production). With this
model individual language items (for example, the past continuous) are presented by the teacher,
then practised in the form of spoken and written exercises (often pattern drills), and then used by
the learners in less controlled speaking or writing activities. Although the grammar point
presented at the beginning of this procedure may well fit neatly into a grammatical syllabus, a
frequent criticism of this approach is the apparent arbitrariness of the selected grammar point,
which may or may not meet the linguistic needs of the learners, and the fact that the production
stage is often based on a rather inauthentic emphasis on the chosen structure.

An alternative to the PPP model is the Test-Teach-Test approach (TTT), in which the
production stage comes first and the learners are "thrown in at the deep end" and required to
perform a particular task (a role play, for example). This is followed by the teacher dealing with
some of the grammatical or lexical problems that arose in the first stage and the learners then
being required either to perform the initial task again or to perform a similar task. The language
presented in the ‘teach’ stage can be predicted if the initial production task is carefully chosen
but there is a danger of randomness in this model.

Jane Willis (1996), in her book ‘A Framework for Task-Based Learning’, outlines a third model
for organizing lessons. While this is not a radical departure from TTT, it does present a model
that is based on sound theoretical foundations and one which takes account of the need for
authentic communication. Task-based learning (TBL) is typically based on three stages. The first
of these is the pre-task stage, during which the teacher introduces and defines the topic and the
learners engage in activities that either help them to recall words and phrases that will be useful
during the performance of the main task or to learn new words and phrases that are essential to
the task. This stage is followed by what Willis calls the "task cycle". Here the learners perform
the task (typically a reading or listening exercise or a problem-solving exercise) in pairs or small
groups. They then prepare a report for the whole class on how they did the task and what
conclusions they reached. Finally, they present their findings to the class in spoken or written
form. The final stage is the language focus stage, during which specific language features from
the task and highlighted and worked on. Feedback on the learners’ performance at the reporting
stage may also be appropriate at this point.

The main advantages of TBL are that language is used for a genuine purpose meaning that real
communication should take place, and that at the stage where the learners are preparing their
report for the whole class, they are forced to consider language form in general rather than
concentrating on a single form (as in the PPP model). Whereas the aim of the PPP model is to
lead from accuracy to fluency, the aim of TBL is to integrate all four skills and to move from
fluency to accuracy plus fluency. The range of tasks available (reading texts, listening texts,
problem-solving, role-plays, questionnaires, etc) offers a great deal of flexibility in this model
and should lead to more motivating activities for the learners.

Learners who are used to a more traditional approach based on a grammatical syllabus may find
it difficult to come to terms with the apparent randomness of TBL, but if TBL is integrated with
a systematic approach to grammar and lexis, the outcome can be a comprehensive, all-round
approach that can be adapted to meet the needs of all learners.

Tasks: Getting to know your centre

The object of the following two tasks is for students to use English to:

 Find out what resources are available to them and how they can use their resource room.
  Meet and talk to each of the teachers in their centre.

To do these tasks you will require the PDF worksheets at the bottom of the page.

Task 1: Getting to know your resources

Level: Pre-intermediate and above

It is assumed in this lesson that your school has the following student resources; books (graded
readers), video, magazines and Internet. Don’t worry if it doesn’t, the lesson can be adjusted
accordingly.

Pre-task preparation: One of the tasks is a video exercise which involves viewing a movie clip
with the sound turned off. This can be any movie depending on availability, but the clip has to
involve a conversation between two people.

Pre-task activity: In pairs students discuss the following questions:

 Do you use English outside the classroom?

 How?
 What ways can you practise English outside the classroom?

Stage one - Running dictation

Put the text from worksheet one on the wall either inside or outside the classroom. Organize your
students into pairs. One student will then go to the text, read the text and then go back to her
partner and relay the information to her. The partner who stays at the desk writes this
information. When teams have finished check for accuracy. You can make this competitive
should you wish.

Stage two
In pairs students then read the Getting To Know Your Resources task sheet (worksheet two).
Check any problem vocabulary at this stage. This worksheet can be adapted according to the
resource room at your school.

 Stage three
Depending on how the resources are organized in your centre, students then go, in pairs, to the
resource room or wherever the resources are kept and complete the tasks on the task sheet.
 Stage four
Working with a different partner students now compare and share their experience.
 Stage five - Feedback
Having monitored the activity and the final stage, use this opportunity to make comments on
your students’ performance. This may take form of a correction slot on errors or pronunciation,
providing a self-correction slot.

Task 2 - Getting to know your teachers

Level: Pre-intermediate and above
Students may need at least a week to do this activity, depending on the availability of the
teachers in your centre

Pre-task activity: In pairs students talk about an English teacher they have had.

 What was her name?

 Where was she from?
 How old was she?
 Do you remember any of her lessons?
 What was your favourite activity in her class?

Stage one
Using the Getting To Know Your Teachers task sheet (worksheet three) and the Interview
Questions (worksheet four) students write the questions for the questionnaire they are going to
use to interview the teachers.

Stage two
To set up the activity students then interview you and record the information.

Stage three
Depending on which teachers are free at this time they can then go and interview other teachers
and record the information. You may wish to bring other teachers into your class to be
interviewed or alternatively give your students a week or so to complete the task, interviewing
teachers before or after class, or whenever they come to the centre.

Stage four
Working with a different partner students compare their answers and experiences then decide on
their final answers on the superlative questions.

Stage five
Feedback and reflection. Allow time for students to express their opinions and experiences of the
activity. Provide any feedback you feel is necessary.

Further activities

The Get To Know Your Resources task sheet could be turned into a school competition entry
form. Possible prizes could include a video or some readers.
Task Based learning
TBL Methodology - “What is Task Based
Learning”?
Task based learning is a different way to teach languages. It can help the student
by placing her in a situation like in the real world. A situation where oral
communication is essential for doing a specific task. Task based learning has the
advantage of getting the student to use her skills at her current level. To help
develop language through its use. It has the advantage of getting the focus of the
student toward achieving a goal where language becomes a tool, making the use of
language a neccissity.
Why choose TBL as language teaching method? We have to ask ourselves that
question, because if we, as language teachers, don’t know which method we are
teaching according to or if we do not think about teaching methodology in relation
to the different types of learners, to levels, to materials and last but not least to the
learning processes of the individual learner, we might as well not teach!
Therefore, when we choose TBL, there should be a clear and defined purpose of
that choice. Having chosen TBL as language teaching method, the teacher thereby
recognizes that “teaching does not and cannot determine the way the learner’s
language will develop” and that “teachers and learners cannot simply choose what
is to be learned”. “The elements of the target language do not simply slot into place
in a predictable order” (Peter Skehan 19).
This means that we, as teachers, have to let go of the control of the learning
process, as if there ever was one! We must accept that we cannot control what each
individual learner has learnt after for example two language lessons and as Peter
Skehan says “instruction has no effect on language learning” (18).
In TBL the learner should be exposed to as much of the foreign language as
possible in order to merely observe the foreign language, then hypothesize over it,
and that is individually, and finally experiment with it.
One clear purpose of choosing TBL is to increase learner activity; TBL is
concerned with learner and not teacher activity and it lies on the teacher to produce
and supply different tasks which will give the learner the opportunity to
experiment spontaneously, individually and originally with the foreign language.
Each task will provide the learner with new personal experience with the foreign
language and at this point the teacher has a very important part to play. He or she
must take the responsibility of the consciousness raising process, which must
follow the experimenting task activities. The consciousness raising part of the TBL
method is a crucial for the success of TBL, it is here that the teacher must help
learners to recognise differences and similarities, help them to “correct, clarify and
deepen” their
perceptions of the foreign language. (Michael Lewis 15). All in all, TBL is
language learning by doing.
“TASKS are activities where the target language is used by the learner for a
communicative
purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome” As defined by Willis. That means a
task can be anything from doing a puzzle to making an airline reservation.
A Task-Based approach to Language
• allows for a needs analysis to be matched to identified student needs
• is supported by the research findings of classroom-centered language learning
• allows evaluation to be based on testing referring to task-based criterion
• allows for form-focussed instruction
So we should select topics that will motivate learners, engage their attention and
promote their language development as efficiently as possible.

What are the advantages of TBL

1. Task based learning is useful for moving the focus of the learning process from
the teacher to the student.
2. It gives the student a different way of understanding language as a tool instead
of as a specific goal.
3. It can bring teaching from abstract knowledge to real world application.
4. A Task is helpful in meeting the immediate needs of the learners and provides a
framework for creating classes, interesting and able to address to the students
needs.
The structural framework of TBL
Just in order to see the TBL cycle, we are enclosing the following framework

Pre Task
Raise consciousness
Introduction to subject and task.
Thorough introduction to topic by teacher
Use of pictures, posters and demonstrations

Task Cycle
Working with and using the target language:
Activities like pair work, group work
Exercises like information gap activities
Gradual increase in the importance of
Planning, Report, Presentation

Post Task
Selecting, identifying and classifying
common words and phrases.
Practice of language and
phrases in classroom.
Building personal dictionaries.
Let us have a brief explanation about the different phases:
The pre-task phase introduces the class to the topic and the task, activating topic-
related words and phrases
The task cycle offers learners the chance to use whatever language they already
know in order to carry out the task, and then to improve the language, under teacher
guidance, while planning their reports of the task. In the task stage the students
complete the task in pairs and the teacher listens to the dialogues. Then the teacher
helps to correct the completed tasks in oral or written form. One of the pairs
performs their dialogue in front of the class and once the task has been completed
the students will hear the native speaking teachers repeat the same dialogue so
they can compare it with their own.
The last phase in the framework, language focus, allows a closer study of some
of the specific features occurring in the language used during the task cycle.
The teaching techniques required for task-based learning are not very different
from those of ordinary language teaching. The differences lie in the ordering and
weighting of activities and in the fact that there is a greater amount of student
activity, and less direct, up-from teaching.

Issues concerning task based learning

It is important to be aware of some pitfalls concerning the use of task based
learning. Since it encourages students to use their own langauge and vocabulary, it
is neccessary for the teacher to help students expand these. Otherwise students will
not learn new phrases or words by them selves, but only increase skills in using the
language the student already possesses.
This can also be solved by having students change who they work with, so that
the stronger students can work with the students who are at a lower level. Where the
stronger student should be told to focus on using more advanced words and
phrases. This does not help the stronger students though, for that they will need the
aid of the teacher.
Another very important thing to remember is that even though after the task
cycle is complete, the learning process is not. The evaluation part is critical for the
students to become self aware of the learning they have just gone through. Put
crudely there are two parts in the learning process of task based learning of equal
import. The first is to do the work and go through the tasks, the second is to get the
student to think about what it is he or she has just gone through. If you the teacher
do not follow up in the post task, half of the task based learning process is wasted.
TBL activities - examples
Good advice
• Use the foreign language as much as possible.
• Use only mother tongue when necessary for explanation of exercises.
• The pre-task is meant to help create a good atmosphere for learning without
anxiety. Give words and supporting sentences for students to use.
• The pre-task must supply words, phrases, ideas to support the individual student in
the main task.
• Remember that a pre-task can be anything from for example:

o audio text
o a video clip
o a brainstorm activity
o a small exercise ( cloze, cross word etc. )
o photos (what do you see?)
o webpage ( what do you see?)

- Anything that will promote the foreign language and set the minds of the students
into a certain context and atmosphere
.
• The main task must facilitate a process where each student can activate and use
his/her own strategies.
• Teacher role in the main task: monitoring the processes of the students working
with the main task.
• Remember the importance of the last step, the consciousness raising activities:

o Students repeat their process and their work with the main task – must
be performed in class – the process will make students realize that
language is diverse and that many different structures and words give
meaning and can be used for communication.
o The teacher must pick up and draw attention to relevant grammatical
and se mantic points in this last phase of the TBL-cycle.
Beginner’s level - English for special purposes – technical English

Tools: “What’s this device?”

Pre-task
Ask students to give names of tools. Write them on the blackboard. Add also
standard sentences such as “this is a hammer”, “this is a spanner” etc.

Bring a tool box and show real tools to the student. Say or make students say “This
is a hammer” and so on.

If you can, show a short instruction video, where some typical tools are used and
where the language is not too difficult. Let students add new names to the tools on
the blackboard.

Prepare a memory game with selected tools (10-15). The memory game must
consist of pictures and written names of tools.

Split the class into groups of 3-4 students and let two groups play against each other
in the memory game. Do not play the game with only two students in the game. This
may create a lot of fear and anxiety for the individual student who cannot remember
all the tools and will do the contrary of what is intended with the pre-task – namely to
create a good and safe learning environment.

Ruler Hammer

Screwdriver Saw

Pliers Tester

Jack Drill

Follow the memory game with a “What’s this device” exercise for the whole group.
This exercise should be run by the teacher.
Let the students see one sentence at a time. They should read and understand each
sentence. Let one student read a sentence out aloud, and let others help in the
translation, so that this becomes a joint exercise.
When all sentences have been exposed, the students can hopefully guess the name
of the device/tool.
Main Task
What’ this device?

1. This device is longer than it is wide

2. This device can be held in your hand
3. This device is made of wood and metal
4. This device can have many different sizes
5. This device is used to put other things in place
6. You have to use energy for this device
7. You have to lift your arm and make it fall to use
this device
8. You need this device to put something on the wall
9. You use this device to hammer on things.

Try to guess the name of this device.

The student should now be split into groups of two-three people. Each group must
now produce their own “What’s this device” exercise. They have to choose a tool
from the memory game. The teacher should leave help-sentences and phrases on
the blackboard for students to use if they need to. The teacher monitors the process
of the production in the different groups and helps only when it is really needed. The
student exercise should be written down, so that it can be used as either an oral
exercise or a reading exercise. When all groups have finished an exercise and are
satisfied with the result, the groups must test the exercise with other groups.

Language consciousness activities

When the groups have tried out their exercise several times with different groups,
the teacher must ask for the attention in the class room again and take over the
process. The teacher must now point out a group and ask the group to repeat their
exercise and show each sentence on the black board. The aim is to give full
attention to the language production of this particular group, to look at the
sentences, the choice of words and the grammatical structures. At this point the
teacher can pick out good examples from the student production and can at the
same time open up for specific grammatical points. Other groups can add
suggestions and ask questions.

This is also the time and place for the teacher to draw attention to some things that
have been monitored by the teacher during the group work. This activity should be
repeated and at least two or three groups should be asked to present their exercise.
In this way teaching grammar becomes a lively and relevant activity for the students,
because they have all delivered and taken part in the examples that are used for
explaining grammatical rules.
Intermediate level – working with texts
You can easily use the method TBL for working with texts at an intermediate level.
All you have to do is to be creative and to simply think of a way to turn text reading
into a task for the students. Have a pair of scissors, glue, photos maybe and an
open and creative mind ready.

Pre-task
• audio text
• a video clip
• a brainstorm activity
• a small exercise ( cloze, cross word etc. )
• photos (what do you see?)
• webpage ( what do you see?)
• matching exercise with new and difficult vocabulary from the text
The most important thing in the pre-task is to focus on the preparation of the main
task. To prepare the students for learning new vocabulary, new phrases, new
contexts and areas of investigation. The pre-task should always make students feel
ready and comfortable before working with the main task and when working with
texts, it is always important to include the main theme of the text and new
vocabulary from the text in the phase of the pre-task.

Main Task
Non fiction, example:
Split the text into different sections and give the sections numbers. The sections
must be divided according to the content. You must hand the text to the students
with the marked sections and numbers. You must also hand out another piece of
paper with a specific format, like the one below.
You must read the text and fill in the format. Look at the sections in the text and
write down the most important information from each section in the first column.
Write down your own experience, opinion, knowledge about the information you find
in the text in the second column.
The text Your own opinion/experience/knowledge

You can let the students work together or alone when they read and fill in the format.
When everybody has finished with the text and the format, students should be given
time to tell each other what they have chosen to write down in the format.
The motivating element here is that it becomes a choice of the student which
information to put into the format and that each student will have to make a case for
his/her choice when talking about the text in class.
When students tell each other what they have chosen to put down in the format,
they are also given a time to work with difficult words and phrases from the text.
Here they can ask each other about meanings without being exposed to the
attention of the whole class and they can ask the teacher about words and phrases
that they did not understand fully in the reading process.
The teacher can walk around in the class room and monitor the students reading
and filling in the format and the teacher can listen to the students when they talk
about they own work with the text. This phase leaves the teacher with a chance and
opportunity to listen in and pick up good examples, but more importantly, to pick up
problems and misunderstandings related to the text and the specific language.
Language consciousness activities
You can choose to let different students write their own result from the format on the
black board. It should never be only one student alone at the black board. It must
always be more than one student who delivers the examples for the consciousness
raising activities. Remember that it is always motivating to see for yourself what
other students have come up with – especially when you have chosen your own
answers for specific reasons and put an effort into it. You must use that feeling as
motivation factor in your classes.
You can also choose to do the same activity as an oral activity, where you ask
students to read what they have written down in their format. You must then yourself
write down some relevant examples on the black board.
It is important to pick up the relevant grammatical points in this phase of the TBL
cycle. This is a crucial moment for documenting the necessity of extra work with
specific grammatical elements for the students at this level. And you have the full
attention of the students, be cause they have delivered the examples that you work
with jointly in class for language consciousness raising activities

Fiction – short stories, example of:

When you work with fiction and if a text has a straight forward plot, it is easy for you
as a teacher to clip up the text and turn the text reading process itself into a common
task between a group of students.
The following example is meant to be a main task, but can be expanded with a task
like the one described about, using a format for students to fill in. Obviously the
following example should not stand alone, but should be included into a full TBL-
cycle, like the one described above.
• Divide the text into small sections – logical in relation to the story plot.
• Take a pair of scissors and cut up the text into the sections you have chosen. It
should not be more than 4-6 sections.
• Mark each section with letters or numbers.
• Divide the class into groups that match the number of sections.
• Lay the pieces of text (the different cut up sections) on the table, text down, in front
of each group and let each student in a group pick up one of the pieces.
• Ask the students to read their own piece of text by themselves.
• When all students in a group have read their own piece of text, they must give tell
the rest of the group what the text says.
• Everybody in a group must tell about his/her piece of text.
• The group must now try to put the story into the right sequence.
Short story Adjectives/descriptive language

Main character

Other characters

Setting 1

Setting 2

Problems/Themes
A Task-based approach

This article presents an overview of a task-based learning approach (TBL) and highlights its
advantages over the more traditional Present, Practise, Produce (PPP) approach.

In recent years a debate has developed over which approaches to structuring and planning and
implementing lessons are more effective.

 Present Practise Produce

 The problems with PPP
 A Task-based approach
 The advantages of TBL
 Conclusion

Present Practise Produce (PPP)

During an initial teacher training course, most teachers become familiar with the PPP paradigm.
A PPP lesson would proceed in the following manner.

 First, the teacher presents an item of language in a clear context to get across its meaning. This
could be done in a variety of ways: through a text, a situation build, a dialogue etc.
 Students are then asked to complete a controlled practice stage, where they may have to
repeat target items through choral and individual drilling, fill gaps or match halves of sentences.
All of this practice demands that the student uses the language correctly and helps them to
become more comfortable with it.
 Finally, they move on to the production stage, sometimes called the 'free practice' stage.
Students are given a communication task such as a role play and are expected to produce the
target language and use any other language that has already been learnt and is suitable for
completing it.

The problems with PPP

It all sounds quite logical but teachers who use this method will soon identify problems with it:

 Students can give the impression that they are comfortable with the new language as they are
producing it accurately in the class. Often though a few lessons later, students will either not be
able to produce the language correctly or even won't produce it at all.
 Students will often produce the language but overuse the target structure so that it sounds
completely unnatural.
 Students may not produce the target language during the free practice stage because they find
they are able to use existing language resources to complete the task.

A Task-based approach

Task -based learning offers an alternative for language teachers. In a task-based lesson the
teacher doesn't pre-determine what language will be studied, the lesson is based around the
completion of a central task and the language studied is determined by what happens as the
students complete it. The lesson follows certain stages.
  Pre-task: The teacher introduces the topic and gives the students clear instructions on what
they will have to do at the task stage and might help the students to recall some language that
may be useful for the task. The pre-task stage can also often include playing a recording of
people doing the task. This gives the students a clear model of what will be expected of them.
The students can take notes and spend time preparing for the task.
 Task: The students complete a task in pairs or groups using the language resources that they
have as the teacher monitors and offers encouragement.
 Planning: Students prepare a short oral or written report to tell the class what happened during
their task. They then practise what they are going to say in their groups. Meanwhile the teacher
is available for the students to ask for advice to clear up any language questions they may have.
 Report: Students then report back to the class orally or read the written report. The teacher
chooses the order of when students will present their reports and may give the students some
quick feedback on the content. At this stage the teacher may also play a recording of others
doing the same task for the students to compare.
 Analysis: The teacher then highlights relevant parts from the text of the recording for the
students to analyse. They may ask students to notice interesting features within this text. The
teacher can also highlight the language that the students used during the report phase for
analysis.
 Practice: Finally, the teacher selects language areas to practise based upon the needs of the
students and what emerged from the task and report phases. The students then do practice
activities to increase their confidence and make a note of useful language.

The advantages of TBL

Task-based learning has some clear advantages

 Unlike a PPP approach, the students are free of language control. In all three stages they must
use all their language resources rather than just practising one pre-selected item.
 A natural context is developed from the students' experiences with the language that is
personalised and relevant to them. With PPP it is necessary to create contexts in which to
present the language and sometimes they can be very unnatural.
 The students will have a much more varied exposure to language with TBL. They will be exposed
to a whole range of lexical phrases, collocations and patterns as well as language forms.
 The language explored arises from the students' needs. This need dictates what will be covered
in the lesson rather than a decision made by the teacher or the coursebook.
 It is a strong communicative approach where students spend a lot of time communicating. PPP
lessons seem very teacher-centred by comparison. Just watch how much time the students
spend communicating during a task-based lesson.
 It is enjoyable and motivating.

Conclusion

PPP offers a very simplified approach to language learning. It is based upon the idea that you can
present language in neat little blocks, adding from one lesson to the next. However, research
shows us that we cannot predict or guarantee what the students will learn and that ultimately a
wide exposure to language is the best way of ensuring that students will acquire it effectively.
Restricting their experience to single pieces of target language is unnatural.

For more information see 'A Framework for Task-Based Learning' by Jane Wills, Longman;
'Doing Task-Based Teaching' by Dave and Jane Willis, OUP 2007.
Also see www.willis-elt.co.uk
Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT)

At any given time there are certain trends in second language education
that influence both teaching and learning. One of the latest trends in SLL
approaches is task-based language teaching (TBLT), which emphasizes the
use of authentic language through meaningful tasks. In this section we will
explore task-based language teaching (TBLT), student and teacher roles with
this method and some examples of tasks that can be used in the classroom.

What is task-based language teaching (TBLT)?

Task-based learning focuses on the use of authentic language through meaningful tasks such as
visiting the doctor or a telephone call. This method encourages meaningful communication and
is student-centred.

Characteristics:

 Students are encouraged to use language creatively and spontaneously through tasks and
problem solving
 Students focus on a relationship that is comparable to real world activities
 The conveyance of some sort of meaning is central to this method
 Assessment is primarily based on task outcome
 TBLT is student-centered

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is the latest trend in SLL approaches. Although it has produced
very positive results in certain contexts (eg small class sizes of immigrant children), like every method
that has preceded it, TBLT is also revealing its weaknesses. Broady (2006) notes that TBLT may not
provide sufficient "Interaction Opportunities." Bruton (2005) identifies other concerns:
  There is no acquisition of new grammar or vocabulary features
 Everything is left to the teacher
 Not all students are or will be motivated by TBLT
 Some students need more guidance and will not or cannot `notice´ language forms (grammar)
or other elements of accuracy
 Students typically translate and use a lot of their L1 rather than the target language in
completing the tasks.

back to top

What are the student and teacher roles in TBLT?

Teacher Says Teacher Does Students Says Student Does Why?
Presents task in Primes students Students speak among Students prepare Provides practical lingui
the TL with key themselves to organize either a written or skill building.
vocabulary and and complete task. oral report to When tasks are familiar
constructions Students present final present to class. students, they are more l
task (sometimes orally). to be engaged and motiv
Students learn languages
through problem-solving

back to top

What are some examples of tasks that can be used in the

classroom?
David Nunan (2001) distinguishes between “real-world or target tasks, which are communicative
acts that we achieve through language in the world outside the classroom, and pedagogical tasks,
which are carried out in the classroom. I subdivide pedagogical tasks into those with a rehearsal
rationale and those with a pedagogical rationale” (Nunan, 2001). The goal of the language
teacher is try to develop pedagogical tasks thatare as close to real-world tasks as possoble, thus
creating activities that are meaningful and relevant to students.

Complete the activity below to explore ways to practice grammar and

communication in a task-based manner. In your opinion, would these tasks be
motivating for students? Why or why not?

Write the past tense form of these verbs: go, is, are, do, have, work, study, buy, pick, make, put,
read.

Grammar Activity

Now think of four things you did yesterday. Write sentences in the blanks.
First I got up and _____________________________________________
Then, _______________________________________________________
Next, _______________________________________________________
Finally, ______________________________________________________
Communicative activity

Write three hobbies or activities you like / like doing.

1. _______________________________________________________
2. _______________________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________________

Ask each person in your group what they like / like doing. Decide on a suitable gift for each
person. (Exerices adpated from David Nunan, The English Centre, University of Hong Kong,
December 2001)

How Far Do the Theories of Task-Based Learning Succeed in

Combining Communicative and from-Focused Approaches to L2
Research
Dr Huajing ZHAO
Abstract:
Debate about the importance of attention to linguistic form and accuracy in
language learning has been a feature of language learning research and discussion
for more than 20 years. Many have examined the relative merits and efficacy of a
focus on language form and accuracy as contrasted with a focus on meaning and
fluency, in an attempt to determine the key to successful second language
acquisition (Murphy, 2005:295). Researchers have pointed out there are clear
disadvantages to an extreme focus in either direction and the most sensible way to
proceed would be covering both form and meaning, accuracy and fluency
(Seedhouse, 1997).
Despite the broad consensus that is emerging on the beneficial effect of attention to
form and the possibility of integrating this successfully into a communicative
approach (Murphy, 2005), concerns remain about how best to achieve this. The
purpose of this article is to investigate the role that task-based learning theories
plays in combining communicative and form-focused approaches in L2 research by
answering the following five questions in a sequence: (1) What is
task-based learning? (2) What is the communicative approach and what is its
relationship with task-based learning? (3) What is the form-focused approach and
what is its relationship with task-based learning? (4) Why do we need to combine
the communicative approach with the form-focused approach? (5) How do task-
based learning and teaching succeed in combining communicative and form-
focused approaches? Finally, in the conclusion section of the article, certain
issues that might warrant our attention concerning this topic are put forward
according to the prior clarification.
Key Words:
Task-based learning, Communicative language teaching, Form-focused language
teaching

INTRODUCTION
An enormous growth of interest in task-based language learning and teaching has
been seen in recent years (e.g., Ellis, 2000, 2003; Skehan; 2003b and Littlewood,
2004). The reasons for such a phenomenon may be complex and one of the
reasons, according to Willis (1996, in Swan, 2005:378), may be that it offers the
possibility of combining ‘the best insights from communicative language teaching
with an organized focus on language form’ and thus avoiding the drawbacks of
more narrowly form-centred or communication-centred approaches.

A number of researchers have highlighted the importance of prompting learners to

‘notice’ or attend to language forms, or to promote each other to do so (e.g.,
Doughty and Varela, 1998;
Murphy, 2005) whether within or outside the formal teaching environment. Foster
and Skehan (1999:216) note that form-orientated approaches have largely been
replaced by an emphasis on meaningful tasks seeking to balance attention to both
accuracy and fluency. However, they also point out that ‘learners have limited
attention capacities an d that different aspects of comprehension and language
production, i.e. accuracy, complexity and fluency, compete for these capacities’.
Van Patten (1990; 1996, in Ellis, 2001:8) suggests that learners have difficulties
in attending to form and meaning at the same time and often prioritize one at the
expense of the other. According to Lightbown and Spada (1993:105), ‘classroom
data from a number of studies offer support for the view that form-focused
instruction and corrective feedback provided within the context of a
communicative program are more effective in promoting second language learning
than programs which are limited to an exclusive emphasis
on accuracy on the one hand or an exclusive emphasis on fluency on the other.’

TASK-BASED LEARNING
1.1 What is a task?
Tasks hold a central place both in current second language acquisition research and
in language pedagogy (Ellis, 2003). This is evident in the large number of recent
publications relating to task-based learning and teaching (e.g., Willis 1996; Skehan
1998; Ellis, 2003). Then, what exactly is a ‘task’? It should be acknowledged from
the start that in neither research nor language pedagogy is there complete
agreement as to what constitutes a task, which makes the definition problematic.
Ellis (2003) lists a number of definitions of task in his book, which address the
following dimensions: (1) the scope of a task; (2) the perspective from which a
task is viewed; (3) the authenticity of a task; (4) the linguistic skills required to
perform a task; (5) the psychological processes involved in task performance, and
(6) the outcome of a task. In this article, I’d like to adopt Littlewood’s (2004)
viewpoint on the definitions of task and clarify it further with those definitions
listed by Ellis.

According to Littlewood (2004:320), ‘definitions of task range along a continuum

according to the extent to which they insist on communicative purpose as an
essential criterion.’ There are three points along the continuum, from the least
emphasis on focus on meaning to the most:
• For some researchers, communicative purpose is not an essential criterion at all.
Breen (1987, in Ellis, 2003:4), for example, defines a task as ‘a structured plan for
the provision of opportunities for the refinement of knowledge and capabilities
entailed in a new language and its use during communication’. He specifically
states that a ‘task’ can be ‘a brief practice exercise’ or ‘a more complex workplan
that requires spontaneous communication of meaning’. Estaire and Zanon (
1994: 13) work with this broad definition but distinguish two main categories of
task within it: ‘communicative tasks’, in which the ‘learner’s attention is focused
on meaning rather than form’,
and ‘enabling tasks’, in which the ‘main focus is on linguistic aspects (grammar,
vocabulary, pronunciation, functions, and discourse).’
• Moving along the continuum, some researchers do not go so far as to define
tasks purely in communicative terms but clearly think of them primarily as
involving communication.
Thus Stern (1992:195) associates tasks with ‘realistic language use’ when he writes
that ‘communicative exercises...provide opportunities for relatively realistic
language use, focusing the learner’s attention on a task, problem, activity, or topic,
and not on a particular language point’.
• Moving still further along the continuum, some researchers wish to restrict the
use of the term to activities where meaning is primary. Take Nunan’s (1989)
definition for example, in his opinion, ‘a task is a piece of classroom work which
involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing, or interacting in the
target language while their attention is principally focus on meaning rather than
form. The task should have a sense of completeness, being able to stand alone as a
communicative act in its own right’. Besides, Skehan (1996) also points that ‘a task
is an activity in which meaning is primary; there is some sort of relationship to the
real world; task completion has some priority; and the assessment of task
performance is in terms of outcome’. However, no matter how restricted the
definitions are pointed to the communicative purpose, most researchers do not
deny the necessity of focusing on form when learners engage in tasks.
As Ellis (2003:5) points out:
When learners engage in tasks they do not always focus on meaning and act
as language users .... While a task requires a learner to act primarily as a language
user and give focal attention to message conveyance, it allows for peripheral
attention to be paid to deciding what forms to use. Also, when performing a task,
learners’ focal attention may switch momentarily to form as they temporarily adopt
the role of language learners... the extent o which a learner acts as language user
or language learner and attends to message or code when undertaking tasks

1.2 What is task-based learning?

Task-based language learning was defined by Breen (1987:23) as ‘any structured
language learning endeavour which has a particular objective, appropriate content,
a specified working procedure, and a range of outcomes for those who undertake
the task.’ In this view, ‘task’ is assumed to refer to all kinds of work plans that
have the overall purpose of facilitating language learning, from the simple and
brief exercise type to more complex and lengthy activities such
as group problem solving or simulations and decision making (Wesche and
Skehan, 2002). In this article, the terms ‘task-based learning’ and ‘task-based
approach’ are used interchangeably and all of them are used in a strictly
circumscribed sense, following R. Ellis (2003).
According to Ellis (2003), there are two ways of using tasks in language teaching,
they are task-supported language teaching (tasks are incorporated into traditional
language-based approaches to teaching) and task-based language teaching (tasks
have beentreated as units of teaching in their own right and whole courses are
designed around them). In both cases, tasks have been employed to make language
teaching more communicative. Tasks, therefore, are an important feature of
communicative language teaching. In other words, task-based learning and
teaching places the task centrally, as the unit of syllabus design, with language use
during tasks as the driving force for language development (Wesche and Skehan,
2002). This interpretation is linked to second language acquisition research that
suggests that ‘interlanguage development will come about, not through control and
practice, but through the meaningful use of language and the engagement of more
naturalistic acquisitional processes’ (Skehan and Foster, 1997:186).
Ellis (2003) points out that the overall purpose of a task-based approach is to create
opportunities for language learning and skill development through collaborative
knowledge building. Hence while proponents of task-based teaching naturally vary
in their emphases and beliefs, there is broad agreement on several principles. For
example, once we look through the principles proposed by Willis (1996) and
Skehan (1998); Ellis (2003) and Swan (2005), the following common principles
can be obtained:
• Instructed language learning should primarily involve ‘natural’ or ‘naturalistic’
language
use, based on activities concerned with meaning rather than language.
• Instruction should motivate learners to engage in language use rather than
teacher control.
• Students should be primarily focused on meaning when they carry out a task.
• There should be opportunities for focusing on form.
• Formal pre- or post-task language study will be useful.

From these principles, we may conclude that task-based teaching is ready to

combine form- and meaning-based approaches. As referred to at the very
beginning, researchers in recent years have shown particular interest
in task-based approach. Wesche and Skehan (2002:218) state that ‘task-based
instruction is particularly interesting because it is associated on the one hand with
considerable research activity and on the other with active pedagogic investigation
and materials preparation’. Ellis (2003) identified a number of rather different
approaches to use tasks in language pedagogy, such as task-based teaching
associated with humanistic language teaching and the ‘process syllabus’ advocated
by Breen and Candlin (1980). He finally pointed out that these kinds of
approaches to task-based teaching reflect the issues that figure prominently in
current discussions of language pedagogy, such as the role of meaning-focused
activities, the need for more learner-centred curricula, the contribution of learner-
training, and the need for some focus-on-form. Hence, task-based pedagogy
provides ‘a way of addressing these various concerns and for this reason alone is
attracting increasing attention’ (Ellis, 2003:33).

2. COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH
2.1 What is communicative language teaching?
Communicative language teaching (CLT) aims to develop the ability of learners to
use language in real communication. It is directed at enabling learners to function
interactionally and transactionally in an L2. In this respect, the goal of CLT is not
so different from that of earlier methods such as the audiolingual or oral-situational
method, which also claimed to develop the ability to use language
communicatively. The difference, then, lies in that CLT drew on very different
models of language (Ellis, 2003:27). To adopt Widdowson’s (1978) terms, whereas
structural approaches to teaching focus on usage, i.e. the ability to use language
correctly, communicative language teaching is directed at use, i.e. the ability to use
language meaningfully and appropriately in the construction of discourse.

Over the past several decades, CLT has evolved in response to changing views on
the nature of communicative language use and the abilities that underlie it.
Nevertheless, from the beginnings of CLT to the present, it has been possible to
distinguish a ‘weak’ version of it from a ‘strong’ one. According to Howatt (1984),
the weak and strong versions of CLT share the same objectives but reflect different
assumptions about how second languages are learned. The former is based on the
assumptions that the components of communicative competence can be identified
and systematically taught. It essentially implies that there is a set of classroom
practices that describes and exemplifies relationships between form a nd meaning
(Wesche and Skehan, 2002). In contrast, the strong version of CLT rests on the
assumption that communicative language ability is mainly acquired through
communication. Therefore, instruction is organised around situations, oral and
written texts, skill or knowledge domains, or tasks that require communicative
language use of various kinds. Though task-based teaching is not the only way of
achieving a strong version of CLT, it has been an interesting development of CLT
(Ellis, 2003). The current situation of CLT is complex, as the weak forms have
increasingly appropriated elements of communicative language use into the
classroom, and the strong forms have increasingly sought ways to incorporate a
focus on form and language awareness into classroom practice (Wesche and
Skehan, 2002). We can see then, the distinction between a weak and a strong
version of CLT parallels the distinction between task-supported language teaching
and task-based language teaching. Tasks in the weak version are viewed as a way
of providing communicative practice for language items that have been introduced
in a more traditional way. They are only a necessary while not sufficient basis for a
language curriculum. In contrast, the strong version regards tasks as both necessary
and sufficient for learning. They are a means of enabling learners to learn a
language by experiencing how it is used in communication (Ellis, 2003).

2.2 Communicative language teaching and task-based learning

On the one hand, as referred to above, task-based language teaching constitutes a
strong version of CLT. Actually, communicative language teaching is the origin of
task-based language teaching (Skehan, 2003b). During the 1970s there were
considerable moves within language teaching to embrace the communicative
approach. At that time, the assumption seemed to be that it was not enough in
language teaching to focus only on language structure, but that this
needed to be accompanied by a concern to develop the capacity to express
meanings (Widdowson, 1978). The implications of these pedagogic developments
were widespread, and influenced the design of syllabus, the methodology and
assessment of language teaching and an early and influential proposal for the use
of task-based approaches (Skehan, 2003b). On the other hand, communicative
language teaching may be increasingly replaced in some contexts by approaches
comparable in principle but different in degree or in contextualization.
Task-based language teaching could be considered simply a more thoroughgoing
version of CLT. It may be that versions of task-based teaching with clear
provision for focus on form will show that continued progress is possible in
promoting accuracy and complexity, as well as fluency (Wesche and Skehan,
2002).

3. FORM-FOCUSED APPROACH
3.1 What is form-focused instruction?
The area of form-focused instruction (FFI) has attracted considerable attention
over the last 30 years. Initially, it was conceptualised in relation to method, a little
later as a type of exposure distinct from natural exposure, a little later still as a set
of classroom processes, and, increasingly, as a set of psycholinguistically
motivated pedagogic options (Ellis, 2001:12

Current interest in focus on form is motivated, in part, by the findings of

immersion and naturalistic acquisition studies that suggest that when classroom
second language learning is entirely experiential and meaning-focused, some
linguistics features do not ultimately develop to target like levels despite plentiful
meaningful input and opportunities for interaction (Ellis, Basturkmen and Loewen,
2001). What’s more, on the basis of the classroom research work which indicates
that pedagogical interventions embedded in primarily communicative activities can
be effective in overcoming classroom limitations on SLA (second language
acquisition), a strong claim has been made that ‘focus on form may be necessary to
push learners beyond communicatively effective language toward target like
second language ability.’ A somewhat weaker claim is that, ‘even if such a focus
may not be absolutely necessary, it may be part of a more efficient language
learning experience in that it can speed up natural acquisition processes’ (Doughty
and Williams, 1998:2).
As far as the term of FFI is concerned, there exist broad and narrow definitions.
Ellis (2001) used ‘FFI’ as a cover term to refer to any planned or incidental
instructional activity that is intended to direct language learners to linguistic form.
It, thus, includes both traditional approaches to teaching forms based on structural
syllabi and more communicative approaches, where attention to form arises out of
activities that are primarily meaning-focused. In contrast, Long (1988) holds the
idea that there is nothing to be gained by attempting to systematically teach
isolated linguistic forms in accordance with a structure syllabus—an approach he
characterizes as ‘focus on forms’. However, he does not deny the necessity of
some attention to form and argues that attention to form needs to be incorporated
into meaning-focused activity, an approach that he mentions as ‘focus on form’.
He defines this term as follows: Focus on form...overtly draws students’ attention
to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus
is on meaning or communication. (Long, 1991:45-46)
Focus on form often consists of an occasional shift of attention to linguistic
code features-by the teacher and / or one or more students-triggered by perceived
problems with comprehension or production. (Long & Robinson, 1998:23)
Two essential characteristics of focus-on-form can be identified according to the
above definition: (1) the overriding focus in a form-focused classroom is meaning
or communication, and (2) attention to form arises incidentally in response to
communicative need (Ellis, 2001).
However, we should also be careful that focus on forms and focus on form are not
polar opposites in the way that form and meanings have often been considered to
be. Instead, we must kept it in mind that ‘the fundamental assumption of focus-on-
form instruction is that meaning and use must already be evident to the learner at
the time that attention is drawn to the linguistic apparatus needed to get the
meaning across’ (Doughty and Williams, 1998:4).

Comparing to Long’s categorization of FFI, Ellis (2001:16) conceptualises it in

terms of three types according to (1) where the primary focus of attention is to be
place and (2) how attention to form is distributed in the instruction. They are
‘focus-on-forms’, which is characterised by a primary focus on form and intensive
treatment of preselected forms; ‘planned focus-on-forms’ which also involves
intensive attention to preselected forms, but the primary focus of attention
lies on meaning rather than form; and ‘incidental focus-on-form’, which distributes
attention to a wide range of forms that have not been preselected, though its
primary attention is also to meaning. Clearly, these three types of FFI rest on the
distinction between focus on form and focus on meaning. Actually, it is mainly the
relationship between focus on form and focus on meaning that make us think how
task-based learning theory combine communicative and form-focused approach in
L2 research.

3.2 Form-focused instruction and task-based learning

Some researchers, for example Stern (1990), take the view that FFI contrasts with
MFI (meaning-focused instruction). In his opinion, the former describes instruction
where there is some attempt to draw learners’ attention to linguistic form, which he
calls ‘analytic strategy’.
The latter refers to instruction that requires learners to attend only to the content of
what they want to communicate, which he names ‘experiential strategies’.
However, Widdsowson (1998, in Ellis, 2001) has cristicised this distinction. In his
opinion, the so-called form-focused instruction has always required learners to
attend to meaning as well as form, whereas meaning-focused activities still require
learners to process forms in order to process messages.
For him, the key difference lies in the kind of meaning learners must attend to—
whether it is semantic meaning, as in the case of language exercises, or pragmatic
meaning, as in the case of communicative tasks. Similar opinions can be found
from Ellis (2001) who argues that the essential difference between form-focused
and meaning-focused instruction lies in how language is viewed (as an object or as
a tool) and the role of the learner is invited to play (student or user). In his opinion,
‘form’ involves some more than grammar, and those attentions to lexical forms and
the meanings they realize, where words are treated as objects to be learned,
can all constitute form-focused instruction. Various options at the pre-task, during-
task, and post-task phases of a lesson have been proposed for achieving a focus on
form in Ellis’s (2003) book. There he argues that attention to form is both possible
and beneficial in the during-task phase and need not conflict with one of the
principles of task-based teaching, that is ‘ensure that students are primarily focused
on meaning when they perform a task’ (2003:277).
4. WHY DO WE NEED TO COMBINE THE COMMUNICATIVE
APPROACH WITH THE FORM-FOCUSED APPROACH?
It is argued that current language teaching theory views a ‘dual’ focus on form and
accuracy as well as meaning and fluency. As Swan (2005:376) argues, ‘the
polarization of meaning-based and form-based instruction is unconstructive, and
reflects a recurrent pattern of damaging ideological swings in language teaching
theory and practice.’ Spada (1997a) also concludes that form-based and meaning-
based approaches need not be in opposition to each other but can operate
synergistically. According to Wesche and Skehan (2002), Spada’s conclusion
seems to be the most realistic current judgment. In short, the goal of foreign
language teaching is ‘to extend the range of communication situations in which the
learner can perform with focus on meaning, without being hindered by the
attention he must pay to linguistic form’, according to Littlewood (1981:89).

4.1 From the perspectives of communicative approach

In the past twenty-five years, communicative language teaching in the broad sense
has undoubtedly represented the most interesting development in language
teaching (Wesche and Skehan, 2002). One of the heated debates arises around the
issues of whether meaning-focused language pedagogy is sufficient to ensure
success in acquiring an L2. As a whole, though few educators or researchers would
deny the importance of meaning-focused instruction, such as Prabhu (1987:2) who
has argued that attempts to focus learners’ attention on grammatical form
is ‘unhelpful’ and that instruction should instead be concerned with creating
conditions for coping with meaning in the classroom by following a task-based
syllabus, many now recognize that it needs to be complemented with form-focused
instruction of some kind (Nassaji, 2000; Ellis, 2003; Sken, 2003b; William, 2004).
They argue that to develop an accurate knowledge of the language in question,
some kind of form-focused activity needs to be incorporated into
communicative contexts, for the reason that activities which focus merely on
message are inadequate.
The disadvantage of an extreme focus on meaning and fluency is clear. According
to Wesche and Skehan (2001:227), CLT by its nature can not solve the syllabus
problem. It can by no means lend itself to ‘organized, accountable, easy-to-teach
textbooks and evaluative tools in the way that other syllabi and methodologies
may’. Though it encompassed a wide range of formats, serving different clienteles
and purposes, none of which can claim to be a complete solution to how language
should be taught. Besides, as far as early strong versions of CLT are concerned,
in spite of their success in developing highly functional L2 skills in learners, they
have not led to matching accuracy in production. The assumption that ‘talking to
learn’ would be sufficient is no longer taken for granted. What’s more, Wesche and
Skenhan also point out that merely engaging in language use is not enough and
some degree of focus on form is needed. This is best done within communicative
activities, rather than independently.
Long (1996) took the view that instruction that includes focus on form has at least
two advantage over purely meaning-focused instruction:
(1) It can increase the salience of positive evidence; and (2) it can provide often
essential negative evidence, in the form of direct or indirect negative feedback.
There is converging support for this position from both laboratory research and
classroom-based studies. For example, descriptive research of immersion and core
French classrooms using the Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching
Observation Scheme (COLT) (Wesche and Skehan, 2002:211) suggested that,
in classrooms that included language analysis as an integral part of communicative
activities, learners achieved higher accuracy in speaking and writing.
4.2 From the perspectives of form-focused approach
As implied in the previous section, in the last 10 years, new perspectives advocate
a more form-focused approach to language teaching, arguing that a totally
message-based approach is inadequate for efficient second language acquisition,
some kind of form-focused activity needs to be incorporated into communicative
classroom contexts as a compensation for this inadequacy. Barnes (1988) remarks
that although schooling should be brought closer to the real world experience,
theoretical and formal knowledge should not necessarily be abandoned as a result.
However, the disadvantages of extreme form-focused classroom activities are also
apparent. In such kind of a classroom, the learner highlight s the lack of
correspondence between the forms practiced and any kind of real-world meaning;
there is no scope for fluency development in such a rigid lockstep approach; and
the discourse is ‘unnatural’ in that such transformation sequences do not occur
outside the classroom etc (Seedhouse, 1997:337). It is also suggests that
focus on form is more effective when it is directly related to meaningful
communication, whether it be through manipulation of materials and tasks to
highlight given language features, communicative feedback to the learner, or
explanation when communicative problems arise (Spada, 1997b).
As far as task-based approach is concerned, Swan (2005) points out that, the best
strategy for most teaching situations is not to limit oneself to one type of activity,
but to draw on all the resources and techniques available. In such an approach,
tasks of various kinds will take their place as components of what Ellis (2003) calls
‘task-supported’ instructional programmes, alongside a variety of other procedures
which will range from the most ‘natural’ to the most ‘unreal’, traditional and
allegedly ‘discredited’,from the most learner-centred to the most
teacher-centred, as complementary components of a multi-faceted syllabus (Cook
2000:172).
Bygate also states that (2001:3) ‘only by integrating form- and meaning-centred
approaches, can teachers maximize their chances of successfully teaching all those
aspects of language that learners most need to master, and thus meeting the central
challenge for language teaching...to develop learners’ communicative language
ability through pedagogic intervention.’

5.
HOW DO TASK-BASED LEARNING AND TEACHING COMBINE
COMMUNICATIVE AND FORM-FOCUSED APPROACHES?
5.1 Theoretical justification for combination Before starting to discuss how task-
based learning combines communicative and form-focused approaches, I would
like to provide a theoretical justification for it by drawing on two influential
theoretical perspectives briefly: interactive and cognitive theories of L2 learning.
According to the interactive perspective, language learning is enhanced
‘particularly when they (the learners) negotiate toward mutual comprehension of
each other’s message meaning’ (Pica, Kanagy and Falodun, 1993:11). While from
the cognitive perspective, second language learning is a complex cognitive skill,
the acquisition of which involves several cognitive stages.

Anderson (1995) for example, offers a three-stage model of the skill-learning

process: declarative stage when learners acquire knowledge that can be described
or declared; procedural stage when learners acquire knowledge that makes them
capable of doing something under circumstance; and automatised stage. Dekeyser
(1998) later argues that learners develop declarative knowledge first through some
language-based activities. They must then assimilate and internalise this
knowledge through ample practice before they can use it automatically in real
communication. Combining these two theoretical perspectives, we may find the
reason why the idea of focus on form in communicative contexts is currently
supported by both theory and research. However, many educators believe that
focus on form and focus on communication should be treated as separate learning
activities, as attempts to emphasise form may cause negative reactions on the part
of the learners who are engaged in expressing their meaning. While Nassaji
(2000:244) believes that ‘the most effective way of addressing this problem is to
consider activities that result in attention to form while maintaining meaningful
communication and using form for communication.’ Focus on language forms in
the context of communication may encourage learning, and the forms may be
much easier to remember when students need them in future similar contexts
(Lightbown, 1998). Then in the classroom context of task-based learning, how can
we integrate a focus on form into communication activities?

5.2 Strategies for incorporating a focus on form into communicative classroom

contexts There are two principal ways of attempting to include a specific focus on
form into task-based teaching according to Ellis (2003): by means of tasks that
have been designed to focus attention on specific properties of the code, which has
been referred as ‘focused tasks’ and secondly by incorporating a focus on form
methodologically into the performance of linguistically unfocused tasks, which
entails incidental attention to form and can be accomplished pre-emptively.
No matter which one is concerned, for a task-based syllabus that incorporates a
specific focus on form to be successful it must be compatible with interlanguage
development. Besides, Ellis also points out two possible goals for incorporating a
focus on form into a task-based syllabus—the development of implicit and explicit
knowledge. Here, implicit knowledge refers to ‘that knowledge of language that a
speaker manifests in performance but has no awareness of’. Explicit knowledge
refers to ‘knowledge about language that speakers are aware of and, if asked, can
verbalise’ (Ellis, 2003:105).
Different types of tasks work differently during such an integration process.
According to Ellis (2003), the kind of tasks needed to develop implicit knowledge
will be either structure-based production tasks (tasks which can be designed to
incorporate a specific target language feature), or interpretation tasks (tasks which
are based on the assumption that acquisition occurs as a result of input-processing).
In the case of explicit knowledge, consciousness-raising tasks (tasks which are
designed to cater primarily to explicit learning and make language itself the ontent)
are needed. He concludes that where implicit knowledge is concerned, course
designers cannot determine in advance exactly which forms, or range of forms,
should be addressed nor can they stipulate when they should be addressed. All that
is possible is a checklist of items and procedures for deciding when a particular
item can usefully be addressed. Such kind of a checklist can be used by classroom
teachers to help them establish which forms their students have and have not
mastered and, most importantly, which forms they are in the process of currently
mastering. This is precisely the approach that focus-on-form researchers have
adopted. In contrast, if the goal is explicit knowledge, a syllabus of linguistic
properties can be more easily constructed. Such a syllabus ‘delineates the content
of consciousness-raising tasks, which serve the dual purpose of focusing attention
on specific forms and providing opportunities to communicate’ (Ellis, 2003: 237).
There are probably two ways of incorporating a focus on form into communicative
activities in classroom contexts, mentioned by Ellis (2003). They are the
‘integrated approach’ and the ‘modular approach’. The integrated approach for
incorporating a focus on form originates in work on content-based instruction
school contexts with ESL learners. In the integrated syllabus recommended by
Snow, Met and Genesee (1989), content and form are closely interwoven by
identifying the content-obligatory and content-compatible language of each topic
area in the curriculum. Such an approach reflects mainstream thinking about the
importance of teaching form and meaning conjointly (Doughty, 2001).
In contrast, in the kind of modular approach, no attempt is made to integrate
content and form.
The syllabus is conceived of as two entirely separate modules—a communicative
module and a code-based module. Of which, the communicative module
constitutes the main component of such a syllabus. In such a module, no attempt is
made to predetermine through the design of a task which forms learners will attend
to. Learners quite naturally focus on form while they are performing unfocused
tasks. The code-based module consists of a checklist of linguistic features that
are potentially difficult for learners to learn and serves a ‘remedial’ purpose by
helping learners to acquire features that prove resistant to learning ‘naturally’
(Ellis, 2003:236). Such kind of modular syllabus is broadly applicable to all
teaching situations since it, in some ways, is more practicable than the integrated
approach as it avoids the learnability problem.
Other than Ellis, Nassji (2000) in his work also mentions two similar ways. One
way is by design: that is, communicative activities can be designed with an
advanced, deliberate focus on form. The other is by process: that is, by
incorporating focus on form naturally in the process of classroom
communications. As Doughty and Varela (1998:114) say that‘a quintessential
element of the theoretical construct of focus on form is its dual requirement that
the focus must occur in conjunction with—but must not interrupt—communicative
interaction.’

CONCLUSIONS
From the above discussion, we may find that SLA researchers into task-based
instruction are looking for ways to ensure that there is, within a task-based
approach, sufficient focus on form (Skehan, 2003a). As Seedhouse (1997) claims,
many interactions that occur inside the classroom will be neither entirely form-
focused nor meaning-focused but a combination of both, although achieving a
dual focus is not easy. Task-based learning and teaching is frequently
promoted as an effective approach, superior to ‘traditional’ methods, in that it pays
great attention to combining form-focused approach with communicative
approach. It is difficult to predict how task-based learning, communicative
language teaching, and form-focused instruction will develop in the future. The
manner in which each links with research perspectives means that they will not be
easy to ignore; they already influence the ways in which methodologies and
syllabuses should be evaluated. Each has limits to its application, but
all have been shown to be effective under suitable circumstances (Wesche and
Skehan, 2002). It is likely that each will continue to develop once the underlying
principles of SLA become better understood and are incorporated into teaching.
Finally, let’s look at some issues that warrant attention and potentially further
research on this topic:
(1)
The growing concern that a focus on form needed to be incorporated into
communicative language teaching does not mean a revival of ‘old ways’ of
language teaching-tradition grammar-based syllabuses, pattern drills and the like
(Swan, 2005).
(2) The oversimplified version of the communicative approach has, in general,
tended to imply that learners will find meaning-focused activities meaningful and
form-focused activities meaningless (Seedhouse, 1997). It is vital for us not to
simply claim that the communicative approach or the form-focused approach is
superior to the other, but what we need to do is to combine them as effectively as
possible. From this point of view, task-based approach has much to offer.
(3) There is a general perception among language teachers and educators that task-
based instruction is mainly directed at improving students’ abilities to use the
target language rather than at enabling them to acquire new linguistic skills
(Samuda, 2000). However, we should remember that we are dealing not with clear-
cut distinctions when we talk about a focus on meaning and a focus on form, but
with proper shifts of emphasis. Within task-based learning and teaching, there is a
calling for complementarity between a focus on form and a focus on meaning.
(4) As referred to above, form- and meaning-based approaches should be
integrated within task-based learning and teaching. However, empirical support for
this claim is sparse Swan, 2005), which requires more empirical research on this
topic, and pedagogically involving not only researchers but also teachers whose
teaching goals may go well beyond simply demonstrating some kind of
experimental effect and are likely to be integrated with some extended pedagogic
sequence (Skenhan, 2003).

REFERENCES
[1]Anderson, J., 1995,Rule of the Mind, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[2]Barnes, D., 1988, Knowledge as action, In The Word for Teaching is Learning:
Essays for James Britton, eds., Lightfoot, M. and Martin, N., London: Heinemann
Educational Books.
[3]Breen, M. P., 1987, Learner contributions to task design, In Language Learning
Tasks, Englewood Cliffs, eds.,Candlin and Murphy D.F.,NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[4]Breen, M., and Candlin, C., 1980, The essentials of a communicative
curriculum for language teaching, Applied Linguistics, 1, 89-112.
[5]Bygate, M., 2001, Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral
language, In Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching
and Testing, eds.,Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., Harlow: Longman.
[6]Cook, G., 2000, Language Play, Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
[7]DeKeyser, R. M., 1998, Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on
learning and practicing second language grammar, In Focus on Form in Classroom
Second Language Acquisition, eds.,Doughty, C. & Williams, J., Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
[8]Dought, C., 2001, Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form, In Cognition and
Second Language Instruction, ed.,Robinson, P,.Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
[9]Doughty, C., and Varela, E., 1998,Communicative focus on form, In Focus on
Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, eds.,Doughty, C. & Williams,
J.,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[10]Doughty, C., and Williams, J., 1998, Issues and terminology, In Focus on
Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition , eds.,Doughty, C.,and Williams,
J., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[11]Estaire, S. and Zanon, J., 1994, Planning Classwork: A Task-Based Approach,
Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
[12]Ellis, R., 2000, Task-based research and language pedagogy, Language
Teaching Research, 4(3), 139-220.
[13]Ellis, R. (2001) ‘Introduction:Investigating Form-Focused Instruction’,
Language Learning, 51(1), 1-46.
[14]Ellis, R., 2003, Task-based Language Learning and Teaching, Oxford: Oxford
University
Brent’s presentstion
Task-based Learning
A sequence of meaning-based language tasks ending with form-based tasks

What is a task?
● 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?

Engaging tasks
Engagement: ... without engagement,without genuine interest, there can be no
focus on meaning or outcome. Learners have to want to achieve an outcome,
they have to want to engage in meaning.
(Willis & Willis, 2007).

A Typical Task Sequence

Introduction to topic [teacher] PRIMING
Survey [individual] PREPARATORY
Group discussion [group] TARGET
Class discussion [teacher-class]
Reading activity [individual]
Discussion of reading [group]
Form-based task(s) [?] FORM

Group Tasks
A learning task that requires two or more students to complete interdependently
● Optimal number is four
● Grouped for mixed ability
● Cooperative or collaborative
● Group and individual assessment

Why task-based learning?

The research … has shown that second language learners benefit from form-
focused instruction which is provided within communicative contexts. The
challenge is to find the right balance between meaning based and form-focused
activities.
(Lightbown & Spada, 2006 cited in Willis & Willis, 2007)

Why groups?
● zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 103)
● use of cooperative group-learning correlates with higher achievement scores
(Frey, Fisher & Everlove, 3)
● enhanced social skills (ibid.)

Effective Group Tasks in TBL

● Contribute to overall sequence of tasks
● Begin small
● Require positive interdependence
● Group and individual assessment

Positive Interdependence
Reduce threat
Increase reward (Frey et al. 25)
Positive answers for process and content learning questions:
I am a contributor.
We are a team.
We are making progress toward the goal!

Questions and Discussion

Break into groups and discuss how to implement group tasks in your classroom.
Remember:
You are a contributor!
We are a team!
We are making progress towards raising the level of English in Kazakhstan

Bibliography
Frey, Nancy, Douglas Fisher, and Sandi Everlove. Productive
Group Work: How to Engage Students, Build Teamwork, and
Promote Understanding. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2009.
Print.
Lightbown, P., and N. Spada. How Languages Are Learned. 3rd
ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. Print.
Vygotskiı ̆, Lev S. Thought and Language. Cambridge: M.I.T.,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1962. Print.
Willis, Dave, and Jane Lockyer Willis. Doing Task-based
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. Oxford Handbooks for
Language Teachers. Kindle.

Task-Based Learning (TBL)

2.1 Introduction and clarification of terms

This section provides the theoretical background to Task-Based Language Learning(TBLL);
a framework for TBLL with explanations; factors to consider when implementing task-based
language learning; and finally a concrete example of a task.

It shows how adapted versions of task-based approaches to language learning are well suited to the
non-formal context of learning in the framework of European language programmes. This method
relies heavily on learners’ involvement and their world knowledge. It places emphasis on the value of
the information and experiences which participants bring to the language learning sessions.
As participants share their knowledge, experience and opinions, they will also be using their existing
language, be exposed to new language and develop a variety of strategies for improving their
language skills. TBLL also allows the facilitator to use authentic topic material, which is relevant to
the participants’ needs and encourages the development of skills necessary for the successful
completion of real-life tasks

Clarification of terms
Linguistic jargon is notorious for its ambiguity. Different terms mean different things to different
people. So for clarification, some of the key terms used in this publication are listed below, together
with an explanation.
• Activity Doing something which can be seen as a step towards achieving the task;
one part of the process; work in progress.
• Collaborative learning Working together and supporting each other to maximise learning and task
outcomes. It is the opposite of competitive learning where each learner is trying to be better than his
companions.
• Language facilitator The person who has a native speaker competence in the language being learnt
and can provide all the necessary linguistic input to facilitate the activities and task achievement.
• Learner–centred Describes an approach to classroom methodology which puts learners needs and
interests at the centre of the learning programme.
Learning styles/strategies A range of ways of studying and learning, along the spectrum from
experiential to studial. (See Section 1.2 Roles of learners and facilitators).
• Materials Anything which is used to form the basis of a language learning activity or task.
• Task The end product to a planned process a completed piece of work
• Topic Any subject which provides contextualised language learning

2.2 Task-Based Language Learning (TBLL)

2.2.1 Background to Task-Based Language Learning

Language acquisition and learning: How is it done? There is no definitive model for learning a
language or indeed for the acquisition of language by children. Research has suggested that
human beings are born with a device which enables them to organise the language they are exposed
to (their mother tongue) and form rules which can be used to generate more language and be applied
in different situations (LAD: language acquisition device and Universal Grammar , Chomsky 1965).
Yet there is also research to show that even without the stimuli of exposure to a language, deaf
children develop language which displays similar features of a formal language structure (Goldin-
Meadow 1990). This has also been shown through the study of Pidgin languages – languages that are
formed by people who have no common mother tongue but who need to communicate among
themselves and so form another language. The first intrepid explorers and international traders relied
on pidgin communication. When pidgins are used as a native language by the next generation,
they develop into a Creole language (Bickerton1984) and a new language is formed by people who
were exposed to a language which did not display a full range of structures. This is known as poverty
of stimulus (Gleason and Ratner 1998). Some theories also relate the cognitive development of
children to their language acquisition. This is another major difference between mother-tongue
acquisition and learning a second language which is usually undertaken after childhood cognitive
development is complete. (Bates 1979, Piaget 1926).

This is a very cursory dip into this area to demonstrate that nothing is finite in language learning or
acquisition theory. Also, it must be remembered that we are attempting to develop ideas for
language learning not language acquisition. It is therefore important to bear in mind the difference
between language acquisition of mother tongue and second language learning later in life. As
mentioned in Section 1.1 Language learning and language teaching, there have also been many
theories of language learning, which have been reflected in approaches and methodologies in
language teaching.

Learner-centred approaches
Learner-centred approaches draw knowledge from the learner, working through their needs
and interests and selecting materials, activities and tasks accordingly. At all stages, negotiation
between facilitators and learners is encouraged. Learning is seen as a collaborative enterprise.
Any approach must consider the context in which it is to be used and consequently the possible
reaction of learners to the methodology. Are learners going to accept the choice of methodology with
open arms? If the proposed methodology is unfamiliar or greeted with foreboding, facilitators will
need to negotiate with learners to ensure that they are motivated and happy to learn in that way.
The learners will then be stakeholders in the approach. Of primary concern therefore is that
facilitators take into account the learning environment they are working in and manage new
approaches sensitively . (See Section 1.2 Roles of learners and facilitators.)

2.2.2 Task-Based Language Learning

In Task-Based Language Learning (TBLL), learning is fostered through performing a series of
activities as steps to wards successful task realisation. The focus is away from learning language
items in a non-contextualised vacuum to using language as a vehicle for authentic, real-world needs.
By working to wards task realisation, the language is used immediately in the real-world context of
the learner, making learning authentic. In a TBLL framework the language needed is not preselected
and given to the learners who then practise it but rather it is drawn from the learners with help
from the facilitator, to meet the demands of the activities and task.

TBLL relies heavily on learners actively experimenting with their store of knowledge and using
skills of deduction and independent language analysis to exploit the situation fully. (See Section 2.4
Concrete example of task –Preparing a meal.) In this example, the aim of the session is to work
together to prepare a meal where everyone can contribute. By doing this, a great deal of language
will be activated under the theme of food. As can be seen by the example, menus have to be
discussed, food has to be bought and jobs allocated. The participants are prepared for the task, so that
they will be aware of the language they need in order to carry it out successfully.

In this approach, motivation for communication becomes the primary driving force. It places the
emphasis on communicative fluency rather than the hesitancy borne of the pressure in more didactic
approaches to produce unflawed utterances. Exposure to the target language should be in a naturally
occurring context. This means that, if materials are used, they are not prepared especially for the
language classroom, but are selected and adapted from authentic sources. (See Section 4 Selecting
and using materials.)

The Task-Based Learning Framework shown below has been adapted from the Willis frame-
work (1996). In the adapted framework, the focus of attention is upon a final task. This task
is defined as an undertaking that is authentic to the needs of the learners.

In the case of European youth work programmes, these tasks will relate to the work of participants
and will reflect the tasks and situations they find themselves involved in. An explanation of this
framework follows the diagram.

2.2.3 Task-Based Methodology

Task-Based Methodology Framework (Adapted from Willis, Jane 1996

A Framework for Task-Based Learning, Oxford : Longman)

DEFINITION OF THE TASK