See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330761038

Willis's and Skehan's versions of task-based learning: A critical examination

Article · January 2001

CITATIONS READS
0 2,692

1 author:

Jamel Alimi
Middle East College
18 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Advanced Academic Practice in HE: Individual Impact Statement (With Supporting Evidences in an Online Portfolio) View project

EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL TEACHING / LEARNING PRACTICES: A PERSONAL STATEMENT View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jamel Alimi on 31 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Willis's and Skehan’s versions of task-based learning:
A critical examination

Jamel Abdenacer ALIMI

e-mail: [email protected]
15 June, 2006.

A Framework for Task-Based Learning is a complete guide to

the methodology and practice of task-based language teaching.
For those who wish to adopt a genuinely learner-centred
approach to their teaching, it offers an alternative framework to
the "presentation, practice, production" model. This book is
based on sound principles of language learning and combines the
best insights from communicative language teaching with a
systematic focus on language form.
Willis (1996: blurb; emphasis mine)

Over the past two decades or so, the field of English Language Teaching (ELT) has seen
a marked shift towards task-based learning and teaching (Richards and Rodgers 2001:51;
Prabhu 1987; Nunan 1988, 2004; Skehan 1996a, 1996b; Long and Crookes 1992). This
has resulted in various conceptions and frameworks, the major trends of which could
perhaps be best captured in J. Willis (1996)'s and Skehan (1998)'s model. Given their
wide-ranging disparity in both emphasis and focus, these approaches, including— much
more relevantly— the two ones just referred to, have, unfortunately, posed genuine
challenges for a firm and exhaustive grasp of their respective areas of focus and
emphasis— thus requiring yet further efforts for a critical scrutiny of them all.

The present paper is in line with such ongoing endeavour. It will specifically concern
itself with investigating Willis's 1996 task-based approach and, then, with comparing it
with Skehan's 1998 own version as, respectively, elaborated in A Framework for Task-
Based Learning and A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning.

To this end, we propose to divide the remainder sections as follows: Section One
provides a broad introduction to the main features and tenets of TBLT. Section Two
outlines and, then, critically examines Willis's 1996 model. Section Three compares the
approach just referred to with Skehan (1998)'s. Section Four will discuss both versions
with exclusive consideration to their immediate congruence with, and applicability to,
Sultanate of Oman's EFL context.

1- TBLT: A BRIEF BACKGROUND

TBLT is generally regarded as one of the logical developments of the Communicative

Language Teaching (CLT) approach. The common philosophy between such TBLT-
oriented proposals as Prabhu (1987)'s, Long and Crookes (1992)'s, and Nunan (2004)'s or
— as will be detailed later— Willis (1996)'s and Skehan (1998)'s is their yet more
pressing concern for achieving true message-focus in the classroom in comparison with
the latter approach (Johnson 1998:314; Willis 1996; Richards and Rodgers 2001:223-43;
Willis and Willis 2001:174). This directly implies, inter alia, a solid option for totally
eschewing a form-focused type of instruction as traditionally brought about through a
teacher-led, "Presentation-Practice-Production" sequence1 (Harmer 2001; Johnson 1998:
251-3). Alternatively, an optimum student-centred learning environment, which revolves
around a series of pedagogic tasks2 and is basically created, in Willis (op.cit: 10-17)'s
own terms, owing to exposure, use of language, motivation and instruction (see Figure 2
below), is offered as the antithesis to any structurally- or situationally-inspired, Type A
model3 of classroom instruction (White 1988: 44-5; Wilkins 1976).

As could be inferred from the four conditions italicised above, TBLT relates the rationale
and aims of the real-world tasks it professes right to recent second language acquisition
(SLA) findings, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and classroom-based insights. This
multi-discipline background offers it, as Doughty and Long (2003) assert, ample potential

for making course design responsive to learners’ precisely specified

communicative needs, for developing functional foreign language
proficiency without sacrificing grammatical accuracy, and for harmonizing
the way a language is taught with what SLA research has revealed about
how languages are learned (50).

These sources of interest apart, it is worthy of notice, from the outset, that there is
currently no consensus over the notion of task (Nunan 1989:5; Foster 1999). Nor is there
a similar agreement about what each of the definitions provided now and then practically
amounts to "in our search for relationships between task types, cognitive complexity and
second language acquisition" (Nunan 2004: 91). Due to either case, TBLT still continues
to generate yet more frameworks and angles of perspectives. The significance and impact
of the latter assertion are highlighted in further details in the following two sections and
elsewhere in the essay, with chief regard to Willis's (1996) and Skehan's (1998) model.

2- WILLIS'S (1996) TBLT VERSION:

The present Section is divided into two separate parts. The first will provide a brief
descriptive outline of the major assumptions which underpin A Framework for Task-
Based Learning. The second will attempt to examine the perspectives advanced in the
said framework from a critical angle.

2.1 A Brief Account of the Model:

Willis (1996:1) sees task-based learning as developing out of the CLT approach. She
advances the following as key points of departure:

a- Practice of language forms does not necessarily make perfect.

b- People cannot learn a language without plenty of opportunities for real
language use.
c- The language that learners are exposed to and that they use has to
reflect the kind of language that they want to learn.
d- Too much emphasis on small group communication without any call for
2
 accuracy may result in some learners' grammar fossilizing combined
with the risk of developing fluency at the expense of accuracy.
e- Language acquisition is best achieved when combining the above
insights with a focus on form (ibid).

Within this general type of givens, she defines a task as

a goal-oriented communicative activity with a specific outcome, where the

emphasis is on exchanging meaning not producing specific language forms
(36).

She considers its use as the central focus in a supportive methodological framework, with
the twofold aim of creating a real purpose for language use and of providing an optimum
learning environment for language study. Accordingly, as illustrated in Figure 1 below,

The TBL Framework

Pre-task: Introduction to topic and task

Task cycle: Task

Planning
Report
Students hear task recording or read text

Language focus: Analysis and practice

Review and repeat task

Figure 1: The TBL Framework (Willis 1996:132)

Students prepare for the task, report back after the task and then study
the language that arises naturally out of the task cycle and its
accompanying materials (ibid:1).

The cycle in question (see Figure 2) proposes six different categories of tasks: Listing,
ordering and Sorting, Comparing, Problem solving, Sharing personal experiences, and
Creative tasks (ibid: 26-27). The success of its implementation, as is maintained
throughout, depends on parameters of exposure, use of language, motivation and
instruction (focused on language form), as explained in Figure 2 below:

Conditions for Language Learning

Essential Desirable

3
 Exposure Use Motivation Instruction

to a rich but of the to listen in

comprehensible language and read language

input of real to do the (i.e.

spoken and things language chances to

written (i.e. and to focus on

language in use exchange speak and form)

meanings) write it

(i.e. to

process

and use

the

exposure)

Figure 2: Conditions for Language Learning (Willis 1996: 11)

These four requisites have, necessarily, to be jointly fulfilled by the teacher and learners,
as shown in the Summary Chart in the Appendix Section. As hoped, this will ultimately
yield the following results:
 real communication in the target language
 learners' exposure to a rich but comprehensible language in use through listening
and reading
 provision of opportunities for both spontaneous and planned speaking and
writing.

The above Section was by no means intended to be exhaustive or complete in scope. It

was rather meant to capture the most pertinent assets and perspectives in Willis's 1996
version of TBLT4. The Section to follow will attempt to critically examine the proposal at
hand from three distinct, yet intertwined angles.

2.2 Critical Examination:

The present sub-section aims to provide a critical examination of J. Willis's 1996 task-
based framework. It will specifically look into the said model at the level of (a) its
ideological bases and aims, (b) its characterisation of task, and (c) its purported
immediacy to its target student audience. (The fourth issue surrounding its applicability
and relevance to instructional contexts across the world will be dealt with separately in
Section Four with exclusive reference to the Sultanate of Oman).

2.2.1 Ideological bases and objectives

4
The model at hand betrays strong affinities with the overarching principles of the
process-oriented mode of teaching (White, Op.Cit.: 4). It thus adheres to a recently
developing school of thought in ELT which advocates a shift away from a top-down,
"teacher-knows-best" type of instruction and towards greater recognition of the students'
non-passive role in the learning equation (Nunan 1989). This view of pedagogy is deeply
ingrained in the yet broader Progressivist perspectives on the nature and purpose of
education, which are concerned with "doing things for" or "doing things with" the learner
(Davies 1976: 32, cited in White 1988:25)5.

This is said, it is worthy of notice that the framework as thus put forward neither posits
nor even stands on a well-defined theory of language, as certainly do, for instance, its
Audiolingual-inspired counterparts (Richards and Rodgers 2001: 226). It rather draws on,
and identifies itself with, a weak version of the CLT approach6 in addition to an
unequivocal pronouncement in favour of the principle of focus on form— "a term
referring to the incorporation of implicit grammar instruction within communicative ESL
lessons" (Fotos 1998:301). In so doing, it simultaneously departs from the linguistic and
psycholinguistic precepts associated with the Structural view of language, endorses a
variation of the Functional view, and, ultimately, proposes task as a viable vehicle for
effective teaching and learning. The characterization of this very construct is looked into
in some details in the subsequent part.

2.2.2 Characterization of Task

At its basis, the framework here examined views task, within the three-stage cycle
described in Figure 1 above, as a stimulating unit of instruction in general and, in our
case, as an effective catalysis of English language acquisition. As Willis (1996:23)
stresses, the concept in question should always be taken to be an activity "where the
target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to
achieve an outcome". This characterization, when examined, promptly yields several
crucial remarks which chiefly concern

 the considerably close affinity the framework demonstrates with earlier and then
ongoing views of task, comprised consecutively of (a) preparation, (b) core, and
(c) follow-up activities, with (a) and (c) as internal stages of a task and (b) as
central to the whole process of language learning and teaching (Cameron
1997:347).
 The demarcation from formally-oriented English lessons where "exercises" move
along a rigid "Presentation-Practice-Production" continuum, more often than not
with little sensitivity to learners' cognitive, metacognitive and linguistic levels and
needs (Nunan 1989; Harmer 2001; Moon 2002:5).
 The belief that ESL/EFL acquisition is best achieved through a type of input not
necessarily highly dependent on the teacher. Instead, this very input is, as it were,
generated "live" by the learners and his/her interacting peers over an extended
period of time depending, of course, on the task assigned.
 The care it shows for attending to learners' interlanguage deficiencies as they
actually arise, and not as discrete, decontextualized components of a pre-ordained
language lesson. This position, it should be stressed, echoes the conclusions
reached by extensive research on this area, which recommend the development of

5
 learners' accuracy via consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form
(Fotos Op.Cit.:302).

In the face of the four observations above, the framework's characterization of the
construct of task very much echoes the insights deriving from CLT in its revised, post-
1980s version (See points a—e in Subsection 2.1 above). The stance it itself tends to take
up, it should be reiterated, is in favour of a weak interpretation of CLT which
acknowledges the need for a focus on form (Nunan 2004: 9). This perspective, as Willis
and Willis (2001) report, concurs with recent research which

suggests that while communicative language use is the driving force for
language acquisition we also need to focus at some point on language
form if acquisition is to be maximally efficient (174).

The translation of both parts of this quotation into practical classroom tasks is at the heart
of Willis (1996)'s version of TBLT. Its acceptance of the second section is very much in
line with pleas for a prominent place for formal noticing, detection, and awareness-
raising so as to " prompt L2 learners to recognize their linguistic problems and bring
relevant aspects of the L2 to their attention" (Izumi and Bigelow 2000: 239). It, as yet,
happens to clash with some other data-driven conclusions which, in part, question the
much-acclaimed function of noticing (See, for example, Thornbury 1997; Harmer 2003
and Izumi and Bigelow (Op.Cit) for recent discussions). It equally happens, as will be
explained later on, to show a quite number of differences in many an area when
compared with Skehan's 1998 model.

All in all, the Willis approach, as so far examined at the level of its ideological
underpinnings and its characterization of the concept of task, tends to show a deal of
assumptions about the expected learner role therein. The latter issue will be turned to here
below.

2.2.3 Relevance to TBLT-taught Learners

The framework's attempts at laying a sound basis for relevance to L2 learners are just
more than obvious. This may be easily evidenced, in part, by the broad, foundational
principles which, in short, view the learner as a creative and intelligent partner in the L2
learning/teaching process (see Subsection 2.2.1). The same assertion may equally be
confirmed by the very characterization of task, whereby there is no room allowed for
regurgitating transmitted knowledge, mim-mem or rote-learning that are notoriously
reminiscent of the pre-CLT era. (See Richards and Rodgers 2001 for an excellent review
of the Grammar-Translation Method and the Audio-Lingual Method alluded to here).

This relevance, while undeniably secured against the two criteria above, is, nonetheless,
open to question. To start with, there seems to be too much idealization of the nature and
competence of the learners— not only as individuals but also as co-partners in talk-in-
interaction settings. In either case, there is an overly tendency to visualize each of them
as capable of demonstrating high levels of psycholinguistic performance and
6
predisposition to lead each and every single task assigned to its successful happy ending,
that of outcome. It is just extremely unlikely that students will invariably show the same
motivation and competence as they move higher up the "graded" six-task pyramid
(mentioned in Subsection 2.1).

Closely related to the above point is the strong impression that the said framework
pledges too much on the homogeneity factor in students' grouping while engaging in the
core task and/or when reacting to the teacher's intentions. That might simply prove a
matter of wishful thinking. For personal experience as well as empirical insights derived
from many classroom-driven data worldwide do belie that assumption (e.g., Carless
2004; Cameron 2001; Moon 2002:5; Kumaravadivelu 1991)

Last but not least, the Framework seems to foremost address students at secondary
schools and, therefore, of a relatively advanced age. In so doing, it largely overlooks a
not less important segment of the student community, that of young learners. It is
perfectly true that Chapter 8 is entirely allocated to beginners and young learners,
including even those from a non-Roman background. But, curiously enough, the well-
argued advocacy for TBLT in the previous chapters just happens to lose its initial
grounding and consistency. For Willis (Op.Cit: 117) briskly shifts the discussion towards
an adapted version of TBLT, arguing that that best suits this very category of students.
The end result, in my view, is not an "adapted" version of TBLT, as obviously intended,
but, rather, a model of the Lexical approach to ELT (Lewis 1993, 1997; Willis 1990). The
shift in opinion from a primarily Type B framework to a Type A-verging one, its motives
notwithstanding, dangerously undermines the claims in the Introductory quotation above,
to say the least. The above critique will be extended with a brief comparison with a not
less influential model advanced by Skehan (1998).

2.2.4 Comparison with Skehan (1998)'s Model of TBLT

A perusal of both A Framework to Task-Based Learning and A Cognitive Approach to

Language Learning yields a great deal of intersections and divergences in both
perspectives and priorities. What follows are a few points which illustrate some of the
key areas of overlapping or lack of it in relation to views of TBLT, in general, and of the
construct of task, in particular.

2.2.4.1 Views of TBLT

One of the first aspects to notice here is the belief which the two versions here concerned
strongly share about the promising role of TBLT in L2 instruction. The reasons they each
advance in this regard are claimed to be justifiable on grounds of empirical research
results and data relating to Language Theory, SLA and Cognitive Psychology. Based on
incoming insights from such various bodies of theory, they jointly argue for the need to
base in-class teaching and learning around a series of pedagogic, communication tasks
which have to be in close connection with beyond-the-class activities.

2.2.4.2 Views of Task

7
The convergences in views just pointed out also concern— though only to a certain
degree— the perspectives on the notion of task. Indications of similarity are evident, inter
alia, in the prerequisite aspects of the said construct whereby, as Skehan (Op.Cit.) argues,

meaning is primary; there is some communication problem to solve; there is

some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities; task
completion has some priority; (and) the assessment of the task is in terms of
outcomes (95).

The five criteria set above are of primordial importance in Willis (Op.Cit.)’s own
definition of task, too (See relevant quotations in Sections above). This, however, should
by no means suggest the existence of a total fusion of opinions across the two
frameworks. For cases of discrepancy soon become more and more evident once the
common points of departure are taken over. For one thing, Skehan appears more
concerned with proposing a TBLT approach that is based on information processing. In
contrast, Willis tends to lay stress more on the practically outer learning/teaching roles of
task than on the latter’s inner or psycholinguistic underpinnings and development with
regard to students’ interlanguage— hence, her interest in providing practical suggestions
for dealing with the usual four language skills.

3- DISCUSSION

Following the details in the preceding Section, one could hardly stifle the impression that
Willis (1996)’s and Skehan (1998)’s approach to TBLT would most appropriately
concern post-intermediate or adult contexts (Carless 2004:641; Cameron 2001:21).The
fact that the former framework includes a whole section for the sake of L2 beginners/
young learners is worth of eulogy in its own right. But that would really do little to
dispell the overwhelming sentiment that it, too, has been developed with the generic
‘standard’ learner in the preconceived ‘standard’ classroom in mind. More centrally, it
explicitly concedes the existence of a mini-framework embedded within it, the rationale
and objectives of which could but strongly recall those associated with product-oriented,
non-TBLT proposals (Long and Crookes 1992; White 1988 :45-6; Nunan 1988). It is this
very deviation in concern which, in my view, destabilizes the coherence in Willis’ 1996
framework and makes her TBLT version regarding young learners just a misnomer.

Insofar as the second proposal is concerned, it is imperative to acknowledge the pain it

takes to explain students’ various cognitive processes involved when engaged in the pre-,
during-, and post-stages of the task. The three evolutionary phases in the development of
language processing (i.e., lexicalization, syntacticalization, and re-lexicalization) are of
tremendous pedagogic significance, too. For they, among other things, help TBLT-
practising teachers not only to cope with but also improve their students’ current state of
English or interlanguage. And so do, it is believed, the three task-related goals of fluency,
accuracy, and complexity 7.

This version of TBLT is not totally unproblematic, though. For instance, Cook (year not
supplied) finds it self-reductionist in the sense that it ties itself to a single teaching
method and that it fails to “encompass a wide range of students, situations and
languages”. Spolsky (1989; quoted in Cook (Op.Cit.)) would also find fault with it given
8
his axiom whereby “any theory of second language learning that leads to a single method
must be wrong”. My own contention, in short, is that it tends to be too well-formulated to
be fully true, relevant or applicable in such EFL settings as Oman, where Basic Education
students’ overall level at English is ostensibly mediocre.

As hinted at just now, the impact of either version at hand cannot be discussed for long
without touching upon their expected relevance to, and compatibility with, their target
end-users around the world. Insofar as the Sultanate of Oman is concerned, the teaching
packages currently in use explicitly reveal their designers’ awareness of the pedagogic
implications, including, most likely, those of the two models at issue here. That
awareness by no means equals endorsement, though. For the methodology, as officially
stated English Language Curriculum Department (2001-2002),

is based on an integrated, multi-layered approach to language learning, with

functional and grammatical aspects of the language, skills, vocabulary,
pronunciation and learning strategies developed through key topics (vi).

The message hidden behind this excerpt is simply this: TBLT versions, whatever their
merits, must constitute only one fraction of the total approach in effect. This pro-Type A
stance, based on the instructional particularities here prevailing, shows more
commonsense when downplaying Willis (1996)'s and Skehan (1998)'s advocacy for tasks
as the sole means for L2 learning. Equally, the decision made for adopting an all-
inclusive, eclectic view of language learning and teaching is clearly in line with similar
views in the ELT field in connection with TBLT. These, in addition to the concerns
raised in Subsection 2.2 and Section 3 above, draw due attention to the following main
points:

 The most likely imminent lack of suitability of TBLT for all cultural contexts
given the fact that the choice and definition of any framework for L2 instruction
will critically depend on

influences [that] are less to do with what has been demonstrated by theory
and associated research than with what is based on custom, belief and
convenience (White Op.Cit.: 109)

 The multi-faceted problems associated with task type, task complexity, task
difficulty, task planning and task production (Foster and Skehan 1996; Robinson
2001; Mori 2002; Luo and Skehan 2005).
 The call for reconceptualizing the construct of task, based, as Littlewood (2004:
319), for instance, argues, on the suggestion that

rather than accept the common "communicative" definition, we should

return to a broader definition and then focus on key dimensions that
distinguish (from the learner's perspective) different types of task, notably
degrees of task-involvement and degrees of focus on form or meaning
(319).

9
4- CONCLUSION

The present paper has attempted to provide a critical examination of J. Willis's 1996
approach to TBLT as voiced out in A Framework foe Task-Based Learning and in
comparison with the model proposed by Skehan (1998). The scrutiny, most importantly,
yielded the following points of interest:
 The positive, healthy impact which the Willis version of TBLT exerts on our
frames of reference through its adherence to Progressivism, its characterization of
task, and its representation of the L2 learner.
 The pitfalls that the said framework may very well suffer, especially, as a result of
(a) its idealization of the psycholinguistic capabilities of young learners in EFL
settings, (b) its over-capitalization on task as the unique medium of L2
instruction, and (c) its potential mismatch, and thus clash, with the educational
policies en vigueur in many parts of the world.

The overall impression was that the model at issue, in contrast to Skehan's 1998
information processing model, is a major step forward in approaching TBLT in less
abstract, vague terms. Other concrete moves in the same direction are to follow suit,
though. The most pressing one of these would be to confirm the benefits it claims for the
three-task cycle with tangible evidence in the form of “holistic” lesson transcripts
(Seedhouse 1999). In so doing, it is hoped, all future discussions on the merits or
demerits of TBLT will be less dubious.

5- END NOTES

1-According to Skehan (1996a),

A PPP [Presentation-Practice-Production] approach looks on the learning

process as learning a series of discrete items and then bringing these items
together in communication to provide further practice and consolidation.
A task-based approach sees the learning process as one of learning
through doing— it is by primarily engaging in meaning that the learner's
system is encouraged to develop (20.)

2- Nunan (2004:1) draws a clear distinction between real-world (or target) tasks and
pedagogic tasks. The former refer to "uses of language in the world beyond the
classroom; (the latter) are those that occur in the classroom".

3- Type A /Type B models:

Type A Type B

a- Syllabus orientation to Interventionist; giving priority to Non-interventionist; experiential;

learning process the pre-selection of linguistic or "natural growth" approach to the

10
 other content or skill objectives learning process

b- Attitude towards the learner . external to the learner . internal to the learner

. other-directed . inner directed or self- fulfilling

. determined by authority . negotiated between teachers and

learners

c- Teacher/student roles . teacher as a decision-maker . learner and teacher as joint

decision-makers

. teacher doing things to the learner . teacher doing things for or with the

learner

d- Language content . content = what the subject is to . content = what the subject is to the

the expert learner

. content = a gift from the teacher or . content = what the learner brings

knower and wants

. content is subordinate to learning

processes and pedagogical

procedures

e- syllabus objectives defined in advance described afterwards

(Adapted from White 1988:44-5)

4- See Chapters 5 through 7 and Appendix C on pages 156-68 in the Willis framework
for five sample task-based lesson outlines.

5- See White (1988: 132) for a Table showing the relationship between ideology,
curriculum and innovation.

6- According to Krashen and Terrell (1983:55; quoted in Nunan 2004:21) "language is

best taught when it is being to transmit messages, not when it is explicitly taught for
conscious learning".

6- According to Skehan (1996b),

accuracy is concerned with a learner's capacity to handle whatever level of

interlanguage complexity s/he has currently attained. Complexity, and its
attendant process, restructuring, relates to the stage and elaboration of the
underlying interlanguage system. Fluency, finally, concerns the learner's

11
 capacity to mobilize an interlanguage system to communicate meaning in
real time (46).

7- REFERENCES

English Language Curriculum Department (2001-2002), Basic Education 5A English for

Me (Teacher’s Guide), Muscat, Oman: Ministry of Education.

Cameron, L. (1997), "The task as a unit for teacher development", ELT Journal 51,
4:345-51.

Cameron, L. (2001), Teaching Languages to Young Learners, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Carless, D. (2004), “Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in

primary schools”, TESOL Quarterly 38, 4: 639-62.

Carter, R. and D. Nunan (Eds) (2001), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cook, V., “Review of Peter Skehan, A Cognitive Learning Language, OUP, 1998, 324”.
[12 June, 2006]
<phttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/Vivian.c/Writings/Reviews/SkehanRev.ht.>.

Davies, I.K. (1976), Objectives in Curriculum Design, London: McGraw Hill.

Doughty, C. and H.M Long (2003), "Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance
foreign language learning", Learning and Technology Language 7, 3: 50-80.

Foster, P. (1999), "Key concepts in ELT", ELT Journal 51, 3: 69.

Foster, P. and P.Skehan (1996), "The influence of planning on performance in task-based

learning", Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 3: 299-324.

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

Harmer, J. ( 2001), The Practice of English Language Teaching, 3rd edition, Harlow,
England: Pearson Education Limited.

________ ( 2003), “Do your students notice anything?”, Modern English Teacher
12, 4: 5-14.

12
Izumi, S. and M. Bigelow (2000), “Does output promote noticing in second language
acquisition?”, TESOL Quarterly 34, 2: 239-76.

Johnson, K. (1998),"Presentation-practice-practice". In K. Johnson and H. Johnson

(Eds), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Blackwell, 251-3.

__________ (1998),"Task-based teaching". In K. Johnson and H. Johnson (Eds),

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Blackwell,

Johnson, K. and H. Johnson (Eds), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics,

Oxford: Blackwell,

Krashen, S. and T. Terrell (1983), The Natural Approach, Oxford: Pergamon.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991), “Language learning tasks: teacher intention and learner

interpretation. English Language Teaching”, ELT Journal 45, 2:98-107.

Lewis, M. (1993), The Lexical Approach, Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

________ (1997), Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice,
Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

Littlewood, W. (2004), “The task-based Approach: some questions and suggestions”,

ELT Journal 58, 4: 319-26.

Long, H.L. and G. Crookes (1992), "Three approaches to task-based syllabus design",

TESOL Quarterly 26, 1: 27-55 [20 September, 2005]

<http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/tesolonline/texts/longcrookes/>.

Luo, S. and P. Skehan (2005), “Re-examining Factors that Affect Task Difficulty in
TBLA”. [13 June, 2006] < http://www.tblt.org/download/luo_skehan.doc>.

Moon, J. (2002), “The use of communication tasks in the young learner classroom”.
CATS: The IATEFL Young Learners SIG Newsletter, 5-8.

Mori, J. (2002), "Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-interaction: an analysis of

a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom", Applied Linguistics 23, 3: 323-

47.

.
Nunan, D. (1988a), The Learner-Centered Curriculum, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

13
_________ (1988b), Syllabus Design, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

_________ (1989), Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom, Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversity Press.

_________ (2004), Task-Based Language Teaching: A Comprehensive Rvised Edition of

Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Prabhu, N. (1987), Second Language Pedagogy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T. S. (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language

Teaching, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2001), "Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring
interactions in a componential framework", Applied Linguistics 22, 1:27-57.

Seedhouse, P. (1999), ‘Task-based interaction’, ELT Journal 53, 3, 149-56

Skehan, P. (1996a), "Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction". In

J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching, Oxford:
Macmillan Heinemann.

________ (1996b), ‘A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction’,

Applied Linguistics 17, 1, 38-62

_________ (1998), A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford

University Press

Splosky , B. (1989), Conditions for Second Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Thornbury, S. (1997), “Reformulation and reconstruction: tasks that promote 'noticing”,

EL T Journal 51, 4: 326-35.

White, R.V. (1988). The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation and Management. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.

Wilkins, D.A. (1976), Notional Syllabuses, Chapter One: "Approaches to syllabus

design", Oxford: Oxford University Press [20 September, 2005]

< http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/tesolonline/texts/Wilkins/>.

Willis, D. (1990), The lexical syllabus: A new approach to language teaching, London:
Collins COBUILD.

14
Willis, D. (1990), The lexical syllabus: A new approach to language teaching, London:
Collins COBUILD.

Willis, J. (1996), A Framework for Task-based Learning, London: Longman

Willis, J. and D. Willis (Eds) (1996), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching,
Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.

Willis, J. and D. Willis (2001), “Task-based language learning”. In R. Carter and D.

Nunan (Eds), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 173-9.

8- APPENDICES

Appendix One: Summary Chart of J. Willis's 1996 TBLT Framework

PRE-TASK (INCLUDING TOPIC AND TASK)

The Teacher The Student

 introduces and defines the topic  note down useful words and
 uses activities to help students recall / learn phrases from the pre-task
useful words and phrases activities and /or the recording
 ensures students understand task instructions  may spend a few minutes
 may play a recording of others doing the same preparing for the task individually
or a similar task

TASK CYCLE
TASK PLANNING REPORT

The Students The Students The Students

 do the task in  prepare to report to the  present their spoken
pairs/small groups. It class how they did the reports to the class, or
maybe based on a task and what they circulates/
reading/listening text discovered/ display their written
decided reports
 rehearse what they
will say or draft a
written version for the
class to read

The Teacher The Teacher

 acts as monitor and  ensures the purpose of The Teacher
encourages students the report is clear  acts as chairperson,

15
  acts as language selecting who will
adviser speak next, or
 helps students rehearse ensuring all students
oral reports or read most of the
organize written ones written reports
 may give brief
feedback on content or
form
 may play a recording
of others doing the
same or similar task

LANGUAGE FOCUS
ANALYSIS PRACTICE
The Students The Teacher

 do consciousness-raising activities to  conducts practice activities after

identify and process specific language analysis activities where necessary,
features from the task text and/or to build confidence
transcript
 may ask about other features they have
noticed

The Teacher The Students

 reviews each analysis activity with the  practise words, phrases and patterns
class from the analysis activities
 brings other useful words, phrases and  practise other features occurring in
patterns to students' attention the task text or report stage
 may pick up on language items from the  enter useful language items in their
report stage language notebooks

(Source: Willis 1996: 155)

16

View publication stats