Task-Based Learning in Task-Based Teaching: Training Teachers of Chinese As A Foreign Language

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38 (2018), pp. 162–186.
© Cambridge University Press, 2018

doi: 10.1017/S026719051800003X
Task-Based Learning in Task-Based Teaching:

Training Teachers of Chinese as a Foreign Language
Z H AO H O N G H A N
Teachers College, Columbia University
[email protected]
A B S T R AC T
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is increasingly becoming known for its dis-
tinct edge in developing learners’ functional competence. Although its potential in
promoting content learning has yet to be realized and explored, it should be high,
given TBLT’s primary attention to meaning. To what extent does the potential play
out in foreign language teacher education, a domain involving much content learning,
is both an intellectually stimulating and practically meaningful question. This arti-
cle reports on a semester-long study investigating task-based learning in a Chinese
language teacher-training program that promotes TBLT. The participants were three
Chinese-speaking trainees, who, while being exposed to TBLT, performed ongoing
tasks. Data from one task—writing weekly reading journals—were analyzed for both
content and language, quantitatively (using robust automated tools) and qualitatively.
The results show tangible gains on both counts—understanding TBLT (content) and
the ability to articulate it (language). The conceptual and methodological implications
of the findings are discussed for future research.
The last 10 years have seen research on task-based language teaching (TBLT)
continuing unabated. With its mounting popularity, TBLT promises to be an even
greater magnet for researchers and practitioners for years to come. However, there
is a glaring shortfall in the TBLT literature to date: Writings on teacher training
have remained scant (Brandl, 2016; Ellis, 2017; Long, 2016; Van den Branden,
2016). Addressing this deficit is important, not only because implementation is
part and parcel of what TBLT ultimately involves, but also (and more importantly)
because the quality of implementation determines the success or lack thereof. The
study reported in this article was meant to help fill the void.
T H E RO L E O F T H E T E AC H E R I N T B LT
Much as proponents have been touting the virtues of learner-centeredness in TBLT,

the teacher, if anything, plays a pivotal role, a role that many have argued has only
become more challenging than ever (Samuda, 2001; 2015; Van den Branden, 2006;
Willis & Willis, 2007). Willis and Willis (2007), for instance, discussed six roles
of a teacher in a TBLT classroom: A teacher should be a leader and an organizer of
discussion, a manager of group/pair work, a facilitator of task process, a motivator
of student participation, a language advisor, and a language teacher. Similarly,
162
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 08 Oct 2018 at 03:29:20, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051800003X
TA S K - BA S E D L E A R N I N G I N TA S K - BA S E D T E AC H I N G 163
Samuda (2001) commented on six roles of the teacher: an advisor, chairperson,

monitor, language guide, facilitator, bystander, and co-communicator (cf. Van den
Branden, 2009). What is most challenging about this array of roles is that they
evolve and are dynamic, even in a single TBLT session.
In a recent discussion on the role of the teacher, Van den Branden (2016)
highlighted three roles: a mediator of students’ language development, a change
agent, and a researcher contributing to the general understanding of TBLT as “a
researched pedagogy.” Apparently, as the general understanding of TBLT grows,
so do the expectations on the teacher.
Given the importance of teachers in TBLT, who, as Van den Branden (2016)
aptly put it, “bring TBLT to life” (p. 179), various principles have been proffered
to guide teachers’ practice. Ellis and Shintani (2014), for example, stipulated that
“a key principle of TBLT is that even though learners are primarily concerned
with constructing and comprehending messages, they also need to attend to form
for learning to take place” (p. 135). Doughty and Long (2003), on the other hand,
provided 10 “methodological principles” (MPs) for teachers:
MP1: Use tasks, not texts, as the unit of analysis.

MP2: Promote learning by doing.
MP3: Elaborate input.
MP4: Encourage inductive (“chunk”) learning.
MP5: Provide rich input.
MP6: Focus on form.
MP7: Provide negative feedback.
MP8: Respect learner syllabi and developmental processes.
MP9: Promote cooperative and collaborative learning.
MP10: Individualize instruction.
These MPs, which are motivated by second language acquisition (SLA) re-
search and corroborated by philosophical principles of education, are intended to
be of universal relevance—transcending instructional contexts (Long, 2009, 2015).
Yet, cognizant of how contextual dynamics and contingencies may mitigate the
rendering of the MPs in practice, Long (2009) made a point of leaving pedagogical
procedures to classroom teachers, a move backed up by a major research finding:
What has become clear over the past 20 years is that most teachers are inclined
to implement TBLT in ways they see fit. As such, they aim to give shape to an
approach to language learning that is not only consistent with a particular view of
language learning or with specific pedagogical guidelines, but that they themselves
also experience as practicable, feasible and appropriate for the particular context in
which they are functioning. (Van den Branden, 2016, p. 167)
R E S E A R C H O N T E AC H E R S
Research on teachers pales against the large amount on task characteristics and
their impact on second language (L2) learning, but is, nevertheless, on the rise.
The available research has centered on teachers in the classroom (e.g., Brandl,
164 Z H AO H O N G H A N
2016; Carless, 2004, 2012; East, 2012; Ellis, 2015; McDonough, 2015; Samuda,
2001; Shehadeh & Coombe, 2012; Van den Branden, 2006). Brandl gave a useful
summary of the questions that have been dominating the research on teachers:
r How do teachers conceptualize TBLT?
r How do teachers go about implementing tasks or a task-based syllabus?
r What challenges and struggles do they experience?
r What are teachers’ attitudes toward TBLT?
r How compatible do they perceive TBLT with their current instructional practices?
(Brandl, 2016, p. 429)
It is clear that to date, TBLT research on teachers has largely confined itself to
observing teachers’ behavior—or probing teachers’ perceptions—with or without
exploring their understanding of TBLT. TBLT teacher training, in particular, has
largely remained a research vacuum (cf. Van den Branden, 2009). Consequently,
little is known about the training teachers have received, much less about them
being in the training process—in particular, how their understanding of TBLT
evolves.
Without a doubt, teachers’ own understanding of TBLT is fundamental to the
success (or lack thereof) of TBLT. It is one thing to observe that “teachers do
not follow official TBLT-related pedagogic recommendations in a slavish way”
(Andon & Eckert, 2009, p. 305); it is quite another to assume that they all have
had a reasonable understanding of not only tasks but also TBLT as a whole. Such
an assumption is as yet unwarranted (Van den Branden, 2016), and the principles
proposed for teacher training, such as the following (Brandl, 2016), may therefore
be of limited guiding value:
1. Understand task concepts.

2. Understand task goals and pedagogical intentions.
3. Have a solid command of task routines.
4. Have training that is hands-on and experiential.
As meaningful as these principles are for teacher training, they are mostly
procedural, rather than conceptual and epistemological.
Van den Branden (2016), similarly, prescribed a hefty regiment of the teacher
should type of suggestions for managing pretask, during-task, and posttask phases
of teaching. For example, for the during-task stage, the teacher should:
r Engage in the negotiation of meaning while the students try to deal with the input
and output demands raised by the task.
r Produce a wide variety of questions, cues, and prompts to elicit learner output.
r Provide feedback on the students’ written and oral output. Feedback may come in dif-
ferent shapes, including explicit corrections, recasts, confirmation and clarification
requests, metalinguistic comments, extensions, and elaborations.
r Incorporate a focus on form in the meaning-oriented work the students are doing.
r Provide ample input and model or practice the performance of a task or the use of a
certain strategy. (Van den Branden, 2016, pp. 170–171)
Although all of these suggestions make sense, teachers who lack a systematic
understanding of TBLT may end up feeling overwhelmed or, worse, acting on
them haphazardly.
While teachers do need procedural guidance to address the reality of what they
have to deal with in the classroom, restricting guidance to procedural elements may
cultivate a superficial understanding of TBLT, run the risk of stunting teachers’
creativity or agency, and ultimately impede the advent of TBLT (Ellis, 2017; Van
den Branden, 2016). And if we embrace—and we should—the notion of teacher
as researcher (Van den Branden, 2016), it would be compelling to engage teachers
in TBLT training at both the abstract conceptual and practical procedural levels
(cf. Cameron, 1997).
This may, however, be too lofty a goal to reach. The biggest obstacle stems
from there being no uniform conception of TBLT in the literature. Consequently,
it means one thing to one teacher and something else to another. Much of the
teacher training has been reduced to helping teachers gain familiarity with or
deal with task routines (e.g., differentiating a task from an exercise), rather than
cultivating a coherent understanding of TBLT, including its epistemological basis
and broad methodological characteristics. But such a level of understanding is
essential: Without it, teachers would be left to operate on an elusive grasp of
TBLT—searching for guidelines or having only a narrow understanding of one
version, only to feel confused and frustrated when encountering another.
Another paramount obstacle has to do with the lack of qualified trainers and
programs able to provide comprehensive introduction to TBLT. Brandl observed:
Within second language teacher education (SLTE), the most common social con-
texts that provide opportunities for learning constitute pre- and in-service methods’
seminars and workshops, classroom observations or video critiques, and formal or
informal meetings between supervisors and instructors or among peers. (Brandl,
2016, p. 432)
Developing a functional competence in TBLT demands far more than on-and-

off participation in the above activities (cf. Van den Branden, 2006)—not just
because the subject is complex and unwieldy as a result of the lack of a uniform
(even if overarching) version of TBLT. There is also an art and craft dimension to
it, one that none of the teacher education models can afford to eschew. I will return
to this point, after discussing TBLT and its variants.
T B LT A N D VA R I A N T S
Willis and Willis were spot-on when noting in their introductory chapter that “TBT
[task-based teaching] is not the same the world over” (Willis & Willis, 2007, Kindle
version, loc. 273). Anyone who is training teachers in TBLT faces the immediate
need and challenge of determining what TBLT is and which version to focus on
(Brandl, 2016).
There are currently two main schools of thought on TBLT. One views it as a
strong form of communicative language teaching; the other sees it as a departure
from it. A strong proponent of the former, Ellis considered TBLT an approach
to “develop learners’ communicative competence by engaging them in meaning-
focused communication through the performance of tasks” (Ellis & Shintani, 2014,
p. 135). A chief architect of the latter, Long (1985, 2015) considered tasks a catalyst,
not just a booster, of L2 development. Each line of thinking has morphed into a
distinct version of the task-based approach, differentially labeled as task-supported
language teaching (TSLT) and task-based language teaching (TBLT) (Ellis, 2003).
While an attempt has been made over the last decade to unify the two (see, e.g.,
Ellis, 2017), conceptual fissures have persisted (see Long, 2016). At the core of
the epistemological differences is the role of structure-oriented teaching and, for
that matter, the status of explicit teaching of grammar. TSLT embraces it, whereas
TBLT rejects it. Fundamentally, TSLT has conviction in structural bootstrapping,
and TBLT in semantic bootstrapping. With TSLT, knowledge about language
(known otherwise as “explicit knowledge” or a conscious understanding of the
grammar of the target language) is a necessary step toward knowledge of language
(known otherwise as “implicit knowledge” or the ability to use the target language).
Conversely, with TBLT, the development of implicit knowledge is both a means
and an end.
While TSLT and TBLT both recognize that the ultimate goal of task-based
instruction is to develop implicit knowledge, they differ in their calibration of
(adult) learners’ capacity for implicit learning. Both consider it weak, and TSLT
projects a dire picture of it and sees the only way for adults to develop implicit
knowledge as through repeated practice of explicit knowledge (see, however, Ellis,
2017, for a softer stance on this, recognizing tasks involving learners in language
use can lead to development of implicit knowledge as well). TBLT, on the other
hand, takes language use as the only pathway to implicit knowledge, and the way
to shore up implicit learning or fill gaps in implicit learning is through reactive
focus on form (Long, 2000).
While both approaches have sought to use insights and findings from SLA
research to inform their formulation of task-based instruction, each has tapped
different entities: TSLT is largely informed by skill acquisition theory (see, e.g.,
DeKeyser, 2015), and TBLT by cognitive interactionist theory (see, e.g., Gass &
Mackey, 2015).
Partly, it is these conceptual differences that have underpinned radically dif-
ferent pedagogical practices. For example, at the syllabus level, TSLT adopts a
synthetic approach whereby the content of instruction revolves around discrete
formal elements of the target language, and the learner is expected to integrate
them into an ability to use the language. TBLT, on the other hand, follows an
analytic approach whereby the content of instruction comprises tasks, and the
complexity of tasks becomes a main leverage to the development of L2 functional
ability (Robinson, 2001, 2011).
Differences, accordingly, exist at the classroom procedure level, as well. Lan-
guage work, for example, can happen at any time—before, during, or after a
task—under TSLT, but it happens mostly during a task under TBLT. Taken to-
gether, TSLT is largely top-down, with decisions mostly made for the learner;
TBLT is typically bottom-up, guided and driven by what the learner needs to, or
can, do.
The differences notwithstanding, the two variants of TBLT (and others in be-
tween) are notably in unity on several other fronts, four in particular. First, the goal
of foreign language instruction is development of implicit knowledge or functional
competence. Second, tasks afford unique opportunities for language development.
Third, meaning is important to language instruction and learning. Fourth, input
matters as much as output. These commonalities should constitute the pillars of
any teacher-training program aimed at TBT.
But it is the divergences between TSLT and TBLT that should ultimately fire
up teachers about TBT and about its innovative potential of effectively stimulating
L2 development. Therefore, TBT should be systematically introduced in a well-
rounded training program. At the end of the day, teachers stand to benefit from
options.
The broadening of content learning about TBT is necessitated also by the dearth
of empirical studies comparing TSLT with TBLT. Until that changes, it would be
premature, if not harmful, to play up one version and play down another among
teachers.
TA S K A S A V E H I C L E O F T E AC H E R T R A I N I N G
Content learning, alone, would not lend teachers the ability to actually do TBT.
Knowledge of what and of how have to go hand-in-hand. However, given the
shortage of programs that fully implement TBT (Ellis, 2017; Van den Branden,
2009), it would seem to follow that a large amount of modeling should occur in a
training program (cf. Cameron, 1997), or in Brandl’s words, trainers need to “walk
the talk”:
A teacher trainer needs to walk the talk when training foreign language teachers.
Teachers need many hands-on opportunities where they can try out and experiment
with TBLT methodologies in a safe environment under the guidance of an expert
trainer. This practice will allow them to experience TBLT in action and will prepare
them for some of the challenges. Examples of such training elements constitute writ-
ing reflective journals, peer/expert observations, task/case study analyses, developing
tasks, developing lesson plans, and microteaching. One training element that is in
particular noteworthy is the need for trainees to be involved in the development of
the task materials. (Brandl, 2016, p. 435)
The present study was conducted in precisely such a training program where
the training was mediated by tasks. The study set out to explore a two-pronged
question: To what extent was task-based learning beneficial to improving trainees’
understanding of TBT (i.e., content learning) and their linguistic ability to express
their thoughts (i.e., language learning).
T H E S T U DY
Context
The present study took place in the Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Lan-
guages (TCSOL) Certificate Program at Teachers College, Columbia University.
The program spans one year (two academic semesters). A key component of the
curriculum is the practicum, which is offered at two levels. In Practicum I, trainees
learn about the basics of foreign language teaching, from planning to implemen-
tation to classroom management. In Practicum II, where the data for the present
study were collected, trainees are introduced to task-based teaching (see, e.g.,
Ellis, 2003; Long, 2015; Long & Crookes, 1992; Willis & Willis, 2007) uniquely
via a task-based approach, with English as the medium of instruction. Both peda-
gogic tasks (tasks that are performed only in the classroom) and target tasks (real-
world tasks) are used as engines of learning. Among the pedagogic tasks are the
following:
r Attending mini lectures on specific topics (e.g., Why is TBLT necessary? How is
task defined in TBLT? How should tasks be sequenced? What is focus on form?
How should task-based learning be assessed?)
r Participating in pair or group discussion on the input received from the lectures
r Designing, sequencing, and implementing tasks in pairs or groups
The target tasks include:
r Carrying out semester-long reading of book, Doing Task-Based Teaching (Willis &
Willis, 2007), one chapter per week, and writing reflections on each chapter
r Observing classes and writing observation reports
r Teaching group classes in the Chinese Language Program at Columbia University
and writing teaching reports
r Conducting one-on-one tutoring classes in the Chinese Tutoring Program at Teachers
College and writing reflection reports
The biggest target task of all is the course’s culminating project, which in-
volves trainees working in groups for about a month and a half—mostly outside
of class hours—developing TBLT-compatible units of instruction, including tasks
and materials, and providing a rationale for the design.
Participants
Participants in the present study were three female attendees of a recent itera-
tion of the TCSOL program, pseudo-named Xin, Chu, and Min. At the time of
enrollment, Xin was attending a Master of Science in Teaching English to Speak-
ers of Other Languages (TESOL) program at Fordham University in the United
States. Her prior teaching experience was limited to a brief stint as an intern at a
private school in China, where she taught English to primary school and middle
school students and assisted in curriculum design and development of teaching

materials.
Chu had a master’s degree in Chinese Linguistics and Language Acquisition
from The Chinese University of Hong Kong and had worked twice as a teaching
assistant in Columbia University’s summer Chinese program in Beijing, China.
Of her responsibilities in that role, she created materials for, and taught, intensive
drills classes, corrected students’ homework, and tutored individual students.
Min had a master’s degree in Dance and Dance Education and taught first-
year Chinese as an assistant lecturer in the Department of Chinese Language and
Literature of Hong Kong Shue Yan University for a year.
The sampling of the three participants (out of 24) for the study was purpose-
ful. They were the prototypes of their cohort: Xin typified those with training
in TESOL; Chu, those with prior training in TCSOL; and Min, those with no
training in either TESOL or TCSOL. Likewise, the three participants embod-
ied differential amounts of teaching experience, a ringing attribute as well of the
cohort.
Data and Analysis

The data comprised three sets of 10 (ungraded) writing samples, one set from each
participant performing the task of writing a weekly reading journal. Data analysis
sought quantitative and qualitative perspectives. The goal was to paint a collective
picture as well as an individual one, in relation to the two fundamental concerns
of the study: content and language learning.
For quantitative analysis, automated analyses were conducted, using two robust,
well-established computer programs for text analysis—LIWC (Linguistic Inquiry
and Word Count) and the Lexile® framework. LIWC measures style of writing
or the social, cognitive, and psychological dimensions of writing (Pennebaker,
Booth, & Francis, 2007), yielding indexes for a wide array of variables. The
Lexile® framework (MetaMetrics, 2015) assesses semantic and syntactic com-
plexity, with higher scores denoting higher syntactic and semantic complexity or
higher linguistic sophistication.
The automated analyses started off with a focus on content learning. The reading
journal data were analyzed on LIWC to obtain scores of cognitive processes,
analytical thinking, clout, authenticity, and emotional tone. “Cognitive processes”
indexes the extent to which writers try to work out a problem in their minds;
“analytical thinking,” logical or formal reasoning; “clout,” confidence or self-
certainty; “authenticity,” originality; and “emotional tone,” optimism/pessimism
or positive/negative emotions.
Subsequent to these measures of the content of writing, the reading journal data
were analyzed on the Lexile® framework for information on language learning,
yielding scores reflecting linguistic sophistication, a combination of syntactic and
semantic complexity (Douglas & Miller, 2016). Lexile scores can range from below
zero to above 2000L, the higher being more sophisticated.1 To illustrate, consider
two paragraphs of a sample journal entry, (a) and (b).
TABLE 1. Results of Automated Analyses of Sample Writing
Domains Tools Measures Paragraph (a) Paragraph (b)
Content LIWC Cognitive processes 18.1 18.4

Analytical thinking 95.9 83.4
Clout 88.1 63.5
Authenticity 31.5 47.9
Emotional tone 39.9 69.1
Language The Lexile® Lexile score 1390L 1220L
framework
Extract 1: Sample Paragraphs of a Journal Entry

(a) In the approach, the grammar is viewed as a vital point if we want to make
what you want to say easily understand by our listeners. it is possible that
we can understand most of the broken sentences that spoken by Chinese
language learners, but later, when the learners want to express more complex
meanings, they will feel helpless and confused if they don’t have a good
command of grammar! So, in the book, they give out two possible starting
points for teaching language, i incline towards the first one “to see meaning as
a starting point for language development, and to see form as developing from
meaning.” after all, the vocabulary is the key to the meaning, the meaning is
the key to the communication.
(b) as my english learning experience, grammar is always the core part of the
curriculum. Yes, grammar and form are important in language learning,
yet in the chapter, they illustrate “why not start with grammar” and give
out an example “Yes/No challenge.” the game looks easy but it is “ex-
tremely difficult” to focus on the accuracy of what you’re going to say. Be-
sides, once learners focus more on the form, they probably lose the fluency
and cannot convey their meaning confidently because forms restrict their
thoughts.
Table 1 summarizes the results from the automated analyses.

According to LIWC analyses, paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) have similar
scores on cognitive processes (18.1 vs. 18.4), suggesting a similar extent to which
the writer tried to work out an idea or a point in her mind, such as “the grammar is
viewed as a vital point if we want to make what you want to say easily understand
by our listeners” in (a). Yet the two paragraphs achieve very different scores on an-
alytical thinking (95.9 vs. 83.4), with (a) exhibiting greater formal, logical thinking
than (b), as evident in (a) deploying expressions like “if,” “it is possible,” “but,”
“so,” “after all,” and (b) fewer such expressions. Likewise, (a) exhibits higher
clout, suggesting that the writer had greater confidence in the content of writing,
than (b) (88.1 vs. 63.5). Expressions such as “want to,” “key to,” “will” in (a)
and lesser use thereof in (b) exude differential amounts of confidence. However,
in terms of authenticity, (a) shows less originality than (b) (31.5 vs. 47.9). This
is seen in (b) being about one’s own thoughts rather than about the nature of a
(external) pedagogical proposal discussed in a book chapter, as in (a). Similarly,
TABLE 2. Chapter Titles in Doing Task-Based Teaching (Willis & Willis, 2007)
Chapter 1 The Basis of Task-Based Approach

Chapter 2 Task-Based Sequences in the Classroom
Chapter 3 Tasks Based on Written and Spoken Tasks
Chapter 4 From Topic to Tasks: Listing, Sorting, and Classifying
Chapter 5 From Topic to Tasks: Matching, Comparing, Problem Solving, Projects, and
Storytelling
Chapter 6 Language Focus and Form Focus
Chapter 7 The Task-Based Classroom and the Real World
Chapter 8 Adapting and Refining Tasks: Seven Parameters
Chapter 9 Designing a Task-Based Syllabus
Chapter 10 How to Integrate TBT into Coursebooks and Other Frequently Asked Questions
(a) carries a lower emotional tone than (b) (39.9 vs. 69.1)—where emotions are
encoded by words such as “easy,” “extremely difficult,” “lose,” and “cannot.”
Turning to the measure of language using the Lexile® framework, the Lexile
scores (which serve as an indicator of linguistic sophistication) are different, as
shown in Table 1: Paragraph (a) is more sophisticated than (b), meaning that (a)
contains greater syntactic and lexical complexity than does (b).
Thus, it can be seen that while shedding light on content and language, the
automated analyses paint a picture that is both granular and dynamic. Even when
a given individual attempted two paragraphs of one piece of writing, the under-
lying cognitive and psychological processes fluctuated, as amply illustrated in
Table 1.
Taking advantage of their collective capacities, the present study deployed
automated tools to analyze its longitudinal reading journal corpus, tracing par-
ticipants’ learning of content and language. The resulting picture—probabilistic,
for sure, a genetic limitation of any such computer programs—was then aug-
mented by qualitative analysis of select writing samples whereby the texts
were carefully inspected for discourse evidence to substantiate the automated
results.
R E S U LT S
Content Learning
As noted, participants wrote reflections on all 10 chapters of Willis and Willis
(2007). Table 2 gives the titles of the chapters.
Figures 1–5 show the results yielded by LIWC on the following variables:
cognitive processes, analytical thinking, clout, authenticity, and emotional tone.
Cognitive Processes. Figure 1 displays the results on cognitive processes

for the three participants across 10 journal entries. The thicker lines plot the
distribution of the actual scores, and the thinner lines show the linear forecasts.
For all three participants, the extant of cognitive processes varied as they wrote
Task-based learning in task-based training of teachers of L2 Chinese
26.5
24.1
23.2
19.7
17.6
17.4
16.5 16.4 16.1 16.5
15.9 15.4 15.5
15.2 15.3 15.1
14.5 14.1
13.3 13.7 13.4 13.2 13.6
13.2
13.1 12.6
12.5 12.4
12.1
10.8
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
LIWC/Cognive Processes/ LIWC/Cognive Processes/ LIWC/Cognive Processes/
Linear (LIWC/Cognive Processes/) Linear (LIWC/Cognive Processes/) Linear (LIWC/Cognive Processes/)
FIGURE 1. (Color online) Cognitive processes scores for all participants across 10 entries
with linear forecasts.
on one chapter versus another. Comparing data point 1 (C1) with data point
10 (C10), they all seemed to start with greater use of cognitive processes and
end with lesser. The linear forecast trend lines for Xin (as indicated by the blue
lines) and Chu (the orange lines) converge on a steady decrease over time, but
show a more stable trajectory for Min (the gray lines) with slight increase in
the end.
The patterns of variation were idiosyncratic across the participants, as was the
magnitude of fluctuation. For Xin, whose scores exhibited greatest magnitude of
fluctuation (14.4)—her highest score came from her journal entry on Chapter 6
(C6, 26.5) and her lowest on Chapter 5 (C5, 12.1). Min’s journal entries, on the
other hand, exhibited the lowest magnitude of fluctuation (5.0), with her highest
score on Chapter 1 (C1, 17.4) and lowest on Chapter 5 (C5, 12.4). Like Xin, Chu
also showed a large magnitude of change (12.4)—the highest on Chapter 1 (C1,
23.2) and the lowest on Chapter 8 (C8, 10.8). These results indicate that the 10
chapters incurred different amounts of cognitive processes in the participants as
they wrote their reflections on the reading.
For the sake of argument, let’s zoom in on Xin’s entry on Chapter 6, which
achieved the highest score on cognitive processes, among all entries combined for
the three participants.
96.6
95.5 95.8
93.7 93.6 93.4 94.5
92.2
91.3 91.7 91.1
89.9 89.6 89.6 89.4
87.5
85.6 85.6
85 84.4
84 84.4
82.1 80.8 80.2
76.8
72.5
70.9
65.9
59
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
LIWC/Analyc/ LIWC/Analyc/ LIWC/Analyc/
Linear (LIWC/Analyc/) Linear (LIWC/Analyc/) Linear (LIWC/Analyc/)
FIGURE 2. (Color online) Analytic thinking scores for all participants across 10 entries
with linear forecasts.
87.7 88.5 87.5 85.7

83.2
76.7
72.4
64.2 62.6 62.4

59.8 58
57.3 57.6
55.1
52.5
49.9
46.5 47.5 46.6 46.8 47.8
46
45.1
42.5 40.6
38.4 39.3
36.9
27.8
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
LIWC/Clout/ LIWC/Clout/ LIWC/Clout/ Linear (LIWC/Clout/) Linear (LIWC/Clout/) Linear (LIWC/Clout/)
FIGURE 3. (Color online) Clout scores for all participants across 10 entries with linear
forecasts.
77.3
74.8
72 71.7
70.5
69.5
66.8
65.5
59
57.8
56.5
54.9
52.5 52.4
48.1
46.1 47
45
39.2
37.8
32.9
30.5 30.9
28.6
25.3 25.5
23.5
17.5
15.9
4.1
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
LIWC/Authencity/ LIWC/Authencity/ LIWC/Authencity/
Linear (LIWC/Authencity/) Linear (LIWC/Authencity/) Linear (LIWC/Authencity/)
FIGURE 4. (Color online) Authenticity scores for all participants across 10 entries with
linear forecasts.
Extract 2: Xin’s Entry on Chapter 6

Wed., Mar. 1, 2017, at 10:01 p.m.
Chapter six deeply illustrates two different focus in TBLT—language focus and form
focus. The form one takes place in preparation for a task and learners themselves
control what to know and why. The latter one usually comes after a task sequence.
Teachers draw learners’ attentions on the forms which are rooted in a meaningful
context. I used to feel uncertain about how TBLT works in a test-driven context, but
now I can see that TBLT does not change the things learners need to know about
language but changes the we how teachers teach and how learners learn. Teachers
can still have the students do activities mirror the exam after a task sequence or even
make it a task. Similar to May [pseudo-name of a fellow student], I am also inspired
by how concepts and languages in one task might be incorporated in another. I used
to pick up texts focusing on a specific topic and struggled finding the similarities in
forms. This changed my idea of choosing texts merely based on relevance. If I want
to make the language more memorable and not limited to certain context, I should
TA S K - BA S E D L E A R N I N G I N TA S K - BA S E D T E AC H I N G
98.3
95.5
89.2 87.8
86.5 84.9
83.7 82.6
78.9 77.2
72.7
67.5 67.4 67.3 68.8
61.1 61.6
58.2
56.2 55.6
53.4 52.7 51.6
48.5 49.1
43.3
41.3
36.2
25.8
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
LIWC/Emoonal Tone/ LIWC/Emoonal Tone/ LIWC/Emoonal Tone/
175
Linear (LIWC/Emoonal Tone/) Linear (LIWC/Emoonal Tone/) Linear (LIWC/Emoonal Tone/)
FIGURE 5. (Color online) Emotional tone scores for all participants across 10 entries with linear forecasts.
try different contexts that could generate the similar language but might not exactly
belong to the same topic.
In this entry, Xin started out with a description of a key distinction made in the
chapter between “language focus” and “form focus.” She then brought it home by
rethinking her own previous concern about a tension between TBLT (its meaning
orientation) and language testing (its form orientation) and articulating her new
understanding of TBLT—that TBLT was about how teachers teach and learners
learn, and that teachers could incorporate the content of language tests into their
TBLT. Further, Xin resonated with a point a fellow classmate made about recycling
content and language between tasks, recalling her own earlier practical struggle
to develop tasks around a specific topic—worried at the time that the language
elements would not recur across the tasks—and offering her newfound solution:
using texts on the same topic to naturally generate repetition of the targeted lan-
guage elements. She went on to rationalize her solution invoking her belief that
retention of learning required that learners experience the language in multiple
contexts—not necessarily on the same topic. Without a doubt, this is a highly
thoughtful entry: hitting a centerpiece of the chapter and buttressing it with three
personal spinoffs.
Analytical Thinking. Figure 2 shows results on analytical thinking for all three
participants. The thicker lines plot the scores and the thinner lines represent the
linear forecasts (blue for Xin, orange for Chu, and gray for Min).
What stands out on immediate inspection of the figure is again fluctuations both
for individual participants across time and among them. On closer inspection, the
linear forecasts reveal a common trend: All three participants started out high
on analytical thinking but loosened up over time, which corroborates the trend
on cognitive processes (see Figure 1). The overlap suggests that as participants’
reading of the book progressed, their understanding built up, and as a result, the
processing load eased up for the later chapters.
At the individual level, Min’s trajectory of analytical thinking appears to show
the biggest swing (achieving a score of 59 on Chapter 4 but 95.8 on Chapter 5).
A closer look at her actual entries on these two chapters is instructive. Extract 3
exhibits Min’s entry on Chapter 4.
Extract 3: Min’s Entry on Chapter 4

Wed., Feb. 15, 2017, at 5:29 p.m.
Listing, sorting and classifying are categorized as cognitive process tasks. They are
very functional and versatile in task-based teaching. They can be applied in different
types and different levels of tasks. Listing with charts and tables is a friendly tool
for beginners. It helps to organize information and thus puts less cognitive pressure
on them. Sequencing, ranking and classifying can involve a lot of discussions and
negotiations. They require more thought and cognitive effort which are suitable for
a higher level students.
Since I have had co-teach a high level student in CTP, learning to use this tool should
be vey helpful. Our student Jamila is fluent in Mandarine, she has a lot of vocabulary.
However, she used the same words repetitively in her writing. She claimed she could
not recall the words. I think listing and classifying may help her in writing. I will ask
her to brainstorm the words that she may use, or I can brainstorm with her. After she
has a word list from the brainstorm, we can have a discussion of those words. Then I
will ask her to classify those words according to their meaning and usage. Hopefully,
this task will be one of the solutions for her future writing.
Min’s entry on Chapter 4 was mostly descriptive. She described, first, her un-
derstanding of the tasks introduced in the chapter and, then, how she might apply
some of the tasks to her own tutee. But her entry on Chapter 5 reads very different,
which due to space limitation cannot be displayed here. Min was notably much
less descriptive but more conceptual. Starting with recalling something she had
learned in another class—the difference between foreign and second language
learning along with the conditions that typically accompanied these two contexts
of learning, she began to wonder whether the conditions for foreign language learn-
ing could actually be ameliorated. Min then related this thought to the content of
the chapter, picking up on the project idea, extending it, and, more important,
offering her reasons for why she thought the project idea could help improve the
learning conditions for foreign language learners and why it could be feasible for
her students.
Clout. Figure 3 shows that participants’ self-confidence varied across the en-
tries. Nevertheless, the linear forecasts (indicated by the thinner lines) show that
Xin’s and Chu’s confidence level grew over time, while Min’s decreased. Figure 3
also shows the magnitude of fluctuations. The most dramatic changes happened in
Min—the gap between her highest score and lowest was 41. Her clout trajectory
exhibited a surge on Chapter 2; took a nose-dive on Chapter 3; rose sharply again
on Chapter 4; remained high through Chapters 5, 6, and 7; went sharply down on
Chapter 8; and stabilized through Chapter 10. By comparison, Xin’s and Chu’s
trajectories were, overall, less dynamic—the difference between the highest and
the lowest score was 36.4 for Xin and 37.4 for Chu. Yet, interestingly, Xin’s and
Chu’s trajectories exhibited stark polarizations at two data points, Chapters 6 and
10. Extracts 4 and 5 present their respective entries on Chapter 10.
Extract 4: Xin’s Entry on Chapter 10

Thu., Mar. 30, 2017, at 10:17 p.m.
Chapter ten speaks to the most frequently asked questions toward TBT and many of
those were what I have been concerned. I felt much clear after reading this chapter
and I would definitely re-read the book for more than one time. For me, obtaining a
teaching method and being able to implement it into teaching is more than merely
understanding how it works.
I always got new ideas to revise what I have planned when I read this book. While I
was reading chapter ten, I went back to back to my final project tasks several times to
check if I could make them more productive by using the advice given for integrating
potential activities in the textbooks. For example, let the students make an agreement
while sharing ideas to prompt more discussion and make the goal clearer, ask for an
explanation when giving a statement or require for possible advice, etc.
Another thought provoking point for me is what teachers can do during a post-task
report stage. This is not a typical situation happens only in TBT. Even though the
class is taught by other teaching methods, students are still likely to get bored during
a report stage, or students might focus too much on prepare and present their own
reports while being less attentive while listening to the others. By giving them a
purpose for listening, the report stage could be more interesting and beneficial.
Extract 5: Chu’s Entry on Chapter 10

Thu., Mar, 30, 2017, at 12:04 p.m.
While implementing TBT in my Chinese classes, I’ve had students who wanted
to be taught grammar, who felt that they couldn’t sense their own progress while
doing tasks in class, who complained about there is a conflict between what they’ve
learned in class and what they would be tested at school. I am glad that Willis &
Willis presented us with all the concerns language teachers had during Task-based
teaching. I believe all of the 10 questions did speak well for any Chinese teachers
who would like to change a traditional class into a more communicative and engaging
class.
Among all the questions, I see there are conversational attitudes from both teachers’
side and students’ side. As teachers, as soon as we realize the real goal of language
teaching and learning is to be communicative, we become so excited to try to bring
TBT into traditional classes. But as for students, they are still stick to the thought
that they need to acquire languages by leaning the knowledge first, which may finally
lead them to a dead end. As for me, I think my task is to introduce TBT into class,
and to have my students gradually accepted the idea that language learning is not
only about learning the knowledge, to guide them to see the goal of communication.
At first blush, Xin’s entry was somewhat longer than Chu’s. But, on closer read-
ing, Xin’s entry centered on herself and what she could do, while Chu’s was both
about herself as a teacher and about other teachers, as evident in her repeated use of
“we.” In other words, while Xin was speaking for herself, Chu spoke for herself and
for others writ large, “any Chinese teachers who would like to change a traditional
class into a more communicative and engaging class,” thereby exhibiting greater
clout.
Authenticity. Figure 4 shows results on participants’ originality across the 10

entries. Again, the trajectories were dynamic, waxing and waning. The linear fore-
casts show little uniform pattern, other than that Min’s trajectory looks similar
to Xin’s, in that both show a downward slope over time, in contrast with Chu’s,
which shows an upward trend. On average, Xin had the highest authenticity (mean
= 55.43), Chu the second highest (mean = 51.43), and Min a distant third (mean
= 33.05). Interestingly, however, in spite of what appears mostly to be idiosyn-
cratic dynamicity, all three participants experienced a sharp drop in authenticity
on Chapter 2, following a much stronger showing on Chapter 1.
What the three entries on Chapter 2 had in common was that they, albeit to vary-
ing extent, relied heavily on what the chapter said rather than on the writers’ own
ideas. Xin had the highest score (46.1) because, in addition to referencing contents
of the chapter—sequencing tasks and use of first language (L1)—she brought her
own prior experience and conception to bear, elaborating on her new understand-
ing of using L1 in TBLT. Chu (30.5), on the other hand, though sprinkling her
own sentiments here and there, wrote mostly about what Willis and Willis (2007)
advised teachers to do. Min had the lowest score (15.9). She mostly regurgitated
the reading, a stark contrast with her entry on Chapter 1 (54.9) showing much more
authenticity, where she wrote considerably more about her own experience than
about the chapter. However, Min’s last entry—exhibited in Extract 6, displayed a
return to higher authenticity (48.1), but this time around, it demonstrated a giant
leap in her understanding of TBLT.
Extract 6: Min’s Entry on Chapter 10

Wed., Mar 29, 2017, at 2:32 p.m.
Chapter 10 is the final chapter, but it continues to inspire me to look at language
teaching in a different way. In addition to giving advice on how to adapt the textbook
in TBLT teaching, the chapter seeks to answer criticisms and perceived problems con-
cerning TBLT. I am further convinced that TBLT is a more reasonable and effective
way in teaching language than traditional approaches.
The major concern about TBLT is lack of time. By tweaking course books, teachers
can save planning time, and by assigning students with task preparation as home-
work, teachers can make classroom time more efficient. The later part is particularly
important because it also reflects the learner-centered approach, which is the core
of TBLT. This chapter provides many strategies of how to get learners involved in
preparing tasks and practicing language independently. I found it very helpful and it
embodies the theory that I have learned in APA.
Learner-centered is the principle I have embraced the most. From APA, I have learned
that the learner is the one who controls learning and processing. Providing conditions
to motivate the learner’s participation and completing the task is a necessity. Only
by doing so can the learners process and learn the language. The traditional teacher-
led one way teaching cannot attain this effect. In the last few months, I applied the
methodology of TBLT in CTP and student teaching. It was a valuable experience
even though there were many insufficiencies due to my novice. I was happy to see
the student engagement and language production. The textbook and the chances of
practice that the course has provided changed my view of teaching and gave me
a clear picture of TBLT: TBLT is all about learners and communication; teachers
are facilitators; traditional form-focused teaching cannot facilitate communication;
meaning is primary; TBLT does not ignore grammars, they arise in tasks and are
taught at the end of the tasks, so the learners acquire them naturally. Learners take
control and responsibility of their learning.
As a novice language teacher, learning from the textbook “Doing Task-based Teach-
ing” and the course of TCSOL is more than skill acquiring, it is mind-opening.
While much of this entry was about her own take-away, Min did reference
the content of the chapter, but the way she did it had changed: Now it was less
regurgitating but more summarizing. This entry showed a great deal of synthesis,
as well, of input coming from a variety of sources, not least her own ongoing
student-teaching experience, signaling internalization of learning.
Emotional Tone. Figure 5 shows the results on emotional tone. Common to all
participants, the emotional tone went up and down from one entry to the next. But
the linear forecasts illustrate similar, downward trajectories, though much more
striking for Chu (the orange lines) and Min (the gray lines) than for Xin (the blue
lines). The emotional tone peaked at different data points for the three individuals:
on Chapter 3 for Xin (89.2), Chapter 4 for Chu (95.5), and Chapter 1 for Min (98.3).
It fluctuated the most—based on the highest and lowest score discrepancy—in Min
(72.5), less in Xin (63.4), and least in Chu (59.3). Extract 7 presents Chu’s entry on
Chapter 4, which far outstripped the rest of her entries in terms of emotional tone.
Extract 7: Chu’s Entry on Chapter 4

Thu., Feb. 16, 2017, at 12:15 p.m.
I do benefit a lot from reading this chapter. I found that sometimes I am subconsciously
using some of these techniques such as listing, problem solving, sharing personal
experience, but I never think about the reason why I continue to find these procedures
being such helpful during Chinese teaching. By reading this chapter, I realize being a
great Chinese teacher doesn’t just mean to teach Chinese well at a time. It requires way
more than that, including asking questions by myself, making connections between
theoretical approaches and daily practice, and looking for more creative and advanced
way of teaching approach.
I also appreciate the effort of researches put to create the Figure 4.1 (Sample topics
from around the world). From this chart, what I’ve learned is that topics should be
related to real-life situations based on students’ needs and goals. It’s interesting to
classify these topics from the cognitive perspective. If I teach Chinese to people from
all over the world, I would create a syllabus which meets their communicative needs,
like people in the USA and Canada might care about how to prepare for winter, and
European students would like to talk about their daily eating preferences. Introduced
with this figure and analytical method, I believe that we should design more country-
specific or culture-specie textbooks and syllabus in which language serves as a tool
of communication instead of linguistic knowledge.
This entry exuded positive emotions about the chapter, as evident in expressions
such as “I do benefit a lot,” “find these procedures being such helpful,” “By reading
this chapter, I realize,” “I also appreciate,” to name but a few. Essentially, Chu
heaped praise on the usefulness of the content of the chapter.
Rounding up the LIWC analyses, Table 3 summarizes the means, deviations,
and ranges of scores for all participants. The information provided in Table 3
makes it possible to rank-order the participants’ overall performance on the content
dimension of their journal entries, across five different measures. The rankings are
given in Table 4.
As seen in Table 4, the rankings are not always consistent. The mean-based
ranking speaks to the participants’ aggregated performance on the reading journal
task; the ranking by standard deviation sheds light on the stability of performance;
and the ranking by range reflects magnitude of change.
TABLE 3. LIWC for All Participants: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range
Cognitive Analytical Emotional

processes thinking Clout Authenticity tone
Xin Mean 16.72 84.22 46.73 55.43 63.23

SD 4.9 9.3 12.4 19.8 18.7
Range 14.4 28.6 36.4 53.8 63.4
Chu Mean 15.77 86.07 55.04 51.43 70.58
SD 3.5 7.46 11.9 13.2 20.9
Range 12.4 24.6 37.3 41.2 59.4
Min Mean 14.4 86.97 69.52 33.05 59.06
SD 1.69 11.1 18.4 20.1 19.7
Range 5 37.6 41 50.8 72.5
Note. SD = standard deviation.
TABLE 4. Participant Rankings Based on LIWC Analyses
Rank-ordering
Mean SD Range
Cognitive processes Xin>Chu>Min Xin>Chu>Min Xin>Chu>Min

Analytical thinking Min>Chu>Xin Min>Xin>Chu Min>Xin>Chu
Clout Min>Chu>Xin Min>Xin>Chu Min>Chu>Xin
Authenticity Xin>Chu>Min Min>Xin>Chu Xin>Min>Chu
Emotional tone Chu>Xin>Min Chu>Min>Xin Min>Xin>Chu
Language Learning
Lexile analysis of linguistic sophistication—a combination of syntactic and lexical
complexity—yielded results displayed in Figure 6. Again, variation is seen both
across and within the three participants. On average, Chu performed at a higher
level (mean = 1280L) than Xin (mean = 1200L) and Min (mean = 1050L), sug-
gesting that Chu was linguistically the most advanced, followed by Xin and trailed
by Min. But most relevant, the upward ending of moving averages (represented
by the thinner lines) portended continued rise in linguistic sophistication for all of
them.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The present study set out to gauge content and language learning in trainee teachers
attending a certificate program in TCSOL, focusing on one of the ongoing tasks
participants undertook, writing a weekly reading journal. Results from both quanti-
tative and qualitative analyses demonstrated substantive content learning. All three
participants displayed a common set of signs of change in their understanding of
the subject. Their LIWC scores across the board (see Table 3) illustrate similar,
sustained levels of cognitive engagement with the material and the task. The scores
on both cognitive processes and analytical thinking point unambiguously to a
1450
1350 1350 1350 1350 1350
1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250
1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150
1050 1050 1050 1050 1050
950 950
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
Lexile/ Lexile/ Lexile/ 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Lexile/ ) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Lexile/ ) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Lexile/ )
FIGURE 6. (Color online) Lexile scores for all participants across 10 entries with moving
averages.
process of learning marked by a challenging start and a relatively easy end

(Figures 1 and 2).
On the psychological plane, the participants’ self-confidence grew over time,
as manifested in their increasing scores on clout for Xin and Chu. Even for Min,
whose scores fluctuated the greatest (see scores under Range in Table 3), her self-
confidence surged in her entries on Chapters 4 through 7 (see Figure 3).
Authenticity, operationalized as originality or the extent of speaking outside the
realm of a given chapter, provided another psychological window on participants’
content learning (see Figure 4). As with clout, the picture is nuanced: Both Xin’s
and Min’s entries exhibited a downward trend over time, an indication that they
increasingly converged on the book, or put differently, Xin and Min were increas-
ingly “sold” on the content of the chapters. Chu’s entries, in contrast, exhibited
an upward trend, exuding greater authenticity over time, an indication that she
increasingly extrapolated away from the chapters.
The emotional tone, yet another psychological window on participants’ con-
tent learning, varied across the journal entries for all three participants, illus-
trating changing emotional intensity toward the chapters. Interestingly, but not
surprisingly, the emotional intensity peaked and valleyed differently for different
individuals. For instance, it peaked at Chapter 4 for Chu, at Chapter 3 for Xin, and
Chapter 5 for Min.
Participants’ learning of content was, therefore, dynamic, granular, and nu-
anced, happening not only at cognitive levels but also at psychological levels.
Given the amount of content learning, it is only natural to expect language devel-
opment happening along the way. The Lexile analysis focusing on the linguistic
sophistication of the entries, indeed, bear out the expectation. The scores varied,
of course, but overall portended continued growth in linguistic sophistication for
all three participants (see Figure 6). This language gain may seem minimal to
some. While I am sympathetic with the appetite for more, I hasten to note that
the expectation of anything greater at this point should be tempered by several
considerations. First, the participants were L2 users of English—with a highly
functional linguistic competence—as opposed to earlier-stage learners. Dramatic
gains in L2 development are, therefore, not to be expected anyway, following the
power law of practice (DeKeyser, 2015). Second, the present study, longitudinal
as it was (spanning one semester), uncovered only one temporal segment of the
learning process. Third, learning in the present framework of analysis (i.e., mul-
tidimensional and dynamic) should not be judged in terms of black-and-white
changes but, rather, nuances or sophistication of expressions. The study, above all,
offered an organic rather than contrived view (as often happens with lab-based
studies) of part of the growth process.
Overall, the study provided tangible evidence in support of a fundamental tenet
of TBLT—though still understated in the current literature—that it can result in
both content and language learning, and demonstrated it for the first time in a
non-language-learning arena. This opens up not just one additional avenue, that of
foreign language teacher training, for investigating the potential of TBLT but also,
conceivably, multiple avenues, so long as the contexts are content-based and in-
volve L2 learners or users—content-based instruction in K–12 schools, vocational
training for immigrants, and the like.
Methodologically, the present study is unique in several ways. First, it invoked
multiple measures of content learning, engaging both cognitive and psychological
dimensions, thereby breaking with the traditional content measures of proposi-
tional units (see, e.g., Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). The inclusion of psychologi-
cal measures was particularly productive and illuminating, not to mention that it
brought a vital, humanistic dimension to content learning.
Second, the study employed robust automated tools for its data analysis but
cross-checked the results through qualitative analysis of the data. The use of
automated tools allowed both breadth and depth of analysis and, importantly,
objectivity. It eschewed the necessity of a second human coder to help achieve a
high level of reliability of data coding and served to fend off criticisms of lack of
reliability of data coding in the present study. However, recognizing the proba-
bilistic nature of automated analyses due to the deployment of algorithms, which
essentially treat variables as if they were categorical, the present study buttressed
the automated analyses with manual qualitative analysis. The importance of the
qualitative analysis lay squarely in giving contextual meaning to—and thereby

substantiating—the automated results.
Third, the present study employed longitudinal data in its quest to understand
learning from a teacher training program. Pursuing a purposeful sampling of three
individuals rather than the entire group, the study sought to achieve an understand-
ing of learning that was broad enough to extrapolate to the group of trainees in
question (see Larsen-Freeman, 2017, on the issue of generalizability in dynamic
systems research) but, simultaneously, sufficiently narrow to approximate the dy-
namic “inner workings” of growth.
The outcome of these endeavors is gratifying. But more so is the heuristic
value of the findings. Variability, for example, is a big finding from the present
study, but it is also very difficult to explain. Why did the participants respond
differently to the different chapters, cognitively and psychologically? What might
have underlain the dynamic interplay between the writer, writing, the text, and
reading, and how did the input the participants received elsewhere in the program,
like class discussions, partake in that interplay?
Another big finding from the present study stems from the task itself—the task
seemed conducive to learning about TBLT. But what was it about the task that
sparked changes in the cognition and the psychology of the writers? How big a
role did the content of reading play in generating changes? The reading in this case
was a book on TBLT, comprising multiple chapters each devoted to a subtopic.
Perhaps some subtopics bore closer connection and some less, from the writers’
perspectives. Perhaps some subtopics came across as more abstract than others.
Perhaps some subtopics were closer to the writers’ own experiences than others.
Or perhaps it was a writer’s repeated encounter with similar content across the
chapters that triggered changes in her cognition and psychology.
The reading the participants engaged in was quite like narrow reading (Krashen,
2004). Krashen has touted the value of narrow reading for L2 learners—it leads
to better comprehension of content and acquisition of language. If so, it must
have been the singular topical focus on TBLT elaborated from multiple angles
(via the chapters) by the same authors that led to changes in the participants’
comprehension of the chapters. The reading the participants engaged in also bore
resemblance to repeated reading (Samuels, 1979), in that, week after week, the
participants read from the same book. Repeated reading is a strategy that has been
amply investigated among L1 incipient readers, yielding strong findings on its
benefits for improving comprehension and vocabulary development. L2 research
on repeated reading is still in its infancy. A longitudinal case study of a heritage
speaker of Chinese by Han and Chen (2010) yielded impressive gains in vocabulary
acquisition.
In the present study, the task that the current participants engaged in was not
entirely a reading task nor a writing task, but a dual task. The writing part was not
quite like writing a summary—where some regurgitation was expected (see, e.g.,
Douglas & Miller, 2016). Instead, participants wrote about their thoughts on what
they had read. There was, therefore, a greater creative dimension to it than writing
a summary. In other words, there was much room for the writers to generate and
express their own meaning. Could this creative dimension have helped catalyze
learning?
All these questions warrant future investigation, to further elucidate the learning
documented in the present study. Seeking answers to these questions would prove a
worthwhile undertaking and may contribute to the theoretical and practical knowl-
edge of task-based learning—a type of learning, as the present study has attested,
that is extendable to other educational settings such as foreign language teacher
training.
Acknowledgments
The reviewers and the editor provided thoughtful comments on a previous version
of this article. Any inadequacies that remain are my own.
N OT E
1. Levels of text are benchmarked differently. For example, a K2–4 text has 740L, while a K2–13 text
has 1110L. For university students, a text of 620L is considered simple, and one of 1590L demanding.
REFERENCES
Andon, N., & Eckert, J. (2009). Chacun à son gout. Task-based L2 pedagogy from the teacher’s point
of view. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 286–310.
Brandl, K. (2016). Task-based instruction and teacher training. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl & S. May
(Eds.), Second and foreign language education. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed.,
pp. 1–14). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ re-interpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools.
TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 639–662.
Carless, D. (2012). TBLT in EFL settings. In A. Shehadeh & C. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language
teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 345–358). Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Cameron, L. (1997). The task as a unit for teacher development. ELT Journal, 51(4), 345–351.
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second
language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 94–112). New York, NY: Routledge.
Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environment for distance foreign language
learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7(3), 50–80.
Douglas, Y., & Miller, S. (2016). Syntactic and lexical complexity of reading correlates with complexity
of writing in adults. International Journal of Business Administration, 7(4), 1–10.
East, M. (2012). Task-based language teaching from the teachers’ perspective. Amsterdam, The Nether-
lands: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2015). Teacher evaluating tasks. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the develop-
ment of TBLT (pp. 248–270). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2017). Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching, 50(4), 507–526.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition
research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In
B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp.
3–28). New York, NY: Routledge.
Han, Z.-H., & Chen, C. L. (2010). Repeated-reading-based instructional strategy and vocabulary ac-
quisition: A case study of a heritage speaker of Chinese. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(2),
242–262.
Krashen, S. (2004). The case for narrow reading. Language Magazine, 3(5), 17–19.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2017). Complexity Theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega & Z.-H. Han
(Eds.), Complexity Theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman
(pp. 11–50). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (1985). A role of instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching.
In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language development
(pp. 77–99). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.),
Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179–192). Philadelphia,
PA: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (2009). Methodological principles for language teaching. In M. Long & C. Doughty
(Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 373–394). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Sussex, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 36, 5–33.
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based language teaching. TESOL Quar-
terly, 26(1), 27–56.
McDonough, K. (2015). Perceived benefits and challenges with the use of collaborative tasks in EFL
contexts. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 225–245).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
MetaMetrics. (2015). Lexile infographic. Retrieved from https://www.lexile.com/about-lexile/
lexile-overview/lexile-infographic/
Pennebaker, J., Booth, R., & Francis, M. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC [Computer
software]. Austin, TX: LIWC.Net.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a
componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning,
and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition
Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–37). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The
role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks,
second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 119–140). Harlow, UK: Longman.
Samuda, V. (2015). Tasks, design, and the architecture of pedagogical spaces. In M. Bygate (Ed.),
Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 271–301). Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
John Benjamins.
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403–408.
Shehadeh, A., & Coombe, C. (Eds.). (2012). Task-based language teaching in foreign language con-
texts. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Branden, K. (2009). Training teachers: Task-based as well? In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate,
& J. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 400–430). New York, NY: John
Benjamins.
Van den Branden, K. (2016). The role of teachers in task-based language education. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 36, 164–181.
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (2007). Doing task-based teaching: A practical guide to task-based teaching
for ELT training courses and practicing teachers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Task-Based Learning in Task-Based Teaching: Training Teachers of Chinese As A Foreign Language

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Task-Based Learning in Task-Based Teaching: Training Teachers of Chinese As A Foreign Language

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Task-Based Learning in Task-Based Teaching: Training Teachers of Chinese As A Foreign Language

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38 (2018), pp. 162–186.

© Cambridge University Press, 2018

Task-Based Learning in Task-Based Teaching:

Much as proponents have been touting the virtues of learner-centeredness in TBLT,

Samuda (2001) commented on six roles of the teacher: an advisor, chairperson,

MP1: Use tasks, not texts, as the unit of analysis.

1. Understand task concepts.

Developing a functional competence in TBLT demands far more than on-and-

The target tasks include:

school students and assisted in curriculum design and development of teaching

Data and Analysis

TABLE 1. Results of Automated Analyses of Sample Writing

Domains Tools Measures Paragraph (a) Paragraph (b)

Content LIWC Cognitive processes 18.1 18.4

Extract 1: Sample Paragraphs of a Journal Entry

Table 1 summarizes the results from the automated analyses.

Chapter 1 The Basis of Task-Based Approach

Cognitive Processes. Figure 1 displays the results on cognitive processes

Task-based learning in task-based training of teachers of L2 Chinese

LIWC/Cognive Processes/ LIWC/Cognive Processes/ LIWC/Cognive Processes/

Linear (LIWC/Cognive Processes/) Linear (LIWC/Cognive Processes/) Linear (LIWC/Cognive Processes/)

Linear (LIWC/Analyc/) Linear (LIWC/Analyc/) Linear (LIWC/Analyc/)

87.7 88.5 87.5 85.7

64.2 62.6 62.4

LIWC/Authencity/ LIWC/Authencity/ LIWC/Authencity/

Linear (LIWC/Authencity/) Linear (LIWC/Authencity/) Linear (LIWC/Authencity/)

Extract 2: Xin’s Entry on Chapter 6

Extract 3: Min’s Entry on Chapter 4

Extract 4: Xin’s Entry on Chapter 10

Extract 5: Chu’s Entry on Chapter 10

Authenticity. Figure 4 shows results on participants’ originality across the 10

Extract 6: Min’s Entry on Chapter 10

Extract 7: Chu’s Entry on Chapter 4

Cognitive Analytical Emotional

Xin Mean 16.72 84.22 46.73 55.43 63.23

Note. SD = standard deviation.

TABLE 4. Participant Rankings Based on LIWC Analyses

Cognitive processes Xin>Chu>Min Xin>Chu>Min Xin>Chu>Min

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

1350 1350 1350 1350 1350

1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250

1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150

1050 1050 1050 1050 1050

process of learning marked by a challenging start and a relatively easy end

qualitative analysis lay squarely in giving contextual meaning to—and thereby

You might also like