Jackson

This Element is a guide to task-based language teaching

(TBLT), for language instructors, teacher educators, and other
interested parties. The Element first provides clear definitions
and principles related to communication task design. It
then explains how tasks can inform all stages of curriculum
development. Diverse, localized cases demonstrate the Language Teaching
scope of task-based approaches. Recent research illustrates
the impact of task design (complexity and mode) and task
implementation (preparation, interaction, and repetition)
on various second-language outcomes. The Element also
describes particular challenges and opportunities for teachers
using tasks. The epilogue considers the potential of TBLT to

Task-Based

Task-Based Language Teaching

transform classrooms, institutions, and society.

Language
About the Series Series Editors
Teaching
This Elements series aims to close the gap Heath Rose
between researchers and practitioners by Linacre College,

Daniel O. Jackson
allying research with language teaching University of
practices, in its exploration of research- Oxford
informed teaching, and teaching- Jim McKinley

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

informed research. The series builds upon University College
a rich history of pedagogical research in London
its exploration of new insights within the
field of language teaching.

Cover image: EduLeite/E+/Getty Images ISSN 2632-4415 (online)

ISSN 2632-4407 (print)
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Elements in Language Teaching
edited by
Heath Rose
Linacre College, University of Oxford
Jim McKinley
University College London

TASK-BASED LANGUAGE
TEACHING

Daniel O. Jackson
Kanda University of International Studies
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, United Kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre,
New Delhi – 110025, India
103 Penang Road, #05–06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467

Cambridge University Press is part of Cambridge University Press & Assessment,

a department of the University of Cambridge.
We share the University’s mission to contribute to society through the pursuit of
education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781009068413
DOI: 10.1017/9781009067973
© Daniel O. Jackson 2022
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions
of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take
place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
First published 2022
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
ISBN 978-1-009-06841-3 Paperback
ISSN 2632-4415 (online)
ISSN 2632-4407 (print)
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Cambridge University Press & Assessment has no responsibility for the persistence
or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this
publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will
remain, accurate or appropriate.
 Task-Based Language Teaching

Elements in Language Teaching

DOI: 10.1017/9781009067973
First published online: September 2022

Daniel O. Jackson
Kanda University of International Studies
Author for correspondence: Daniel O. Jackson, [email protected]

Abstract: This Element is a guide to task-based language teaching

(TBLT), for language instructors, teacher educators, and other
interested parties. The Element first provides clear definitions and
principles related to communication task design. It then explains how
tasks can inform all stages of curriculum development. Diverse,
localized cases demonstrate the scope of task-based approaches.
Recent research illustrates the impact of task design (complexity and
mode) and task implementation (preparation, interaction, and
repetition) on various second-language outcomes. The Element also
describes particular challenges and opportunities for teachers using
tasks. The epilogue considers the potential of TBLT to transform
classrooms, institutions, and society.

This Element also has a video abstract: www.cambridge.org/dojackson

Keywords: pedagogic task design, curriculum development, language

education, classroom research, teacher education
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

© Daniel O. Jackson 2022

ISBNs: 9781009068413 (PB), 9781009067973 (OC)
ISSNs: 2632-4415 (online), 2632-4407 (print)
 Contents

1 What Is TBLT? 1

2 The Task-Based Curriculum 12

3 Task-Based Approaches in Context 22

4 Research into TBLT 30

5 Teachers and Tasks 50

6 Epilogue: The Potential of TBLT 53

Appendix: Discussion Questions 57

References 58
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Task-Based Language Teaching 1

1 What Is TBLT?
1.1 A Framework for Language Teaching
As an approach to communicative language teaching, task-based language
teaching (TBLT) originated in the mid-1980s. It has grown to become one
of the most widely recognized options for designing and implementing
language instruction today. As a field of academic inquiry, TBLT has
achieved a number of milestones, including the inauguration of the
International Conference on TBLT in 2005, since organized every two
years under the auspices of the International Association for Task-Based
Language Teaching (IATBLT), a book series published by John Benjamins
since 2009, and the launch of TASK: Journal on Task-Based Language
Teaching and Learning in 2021. In terms of its implementation, TBLT has
matured from an alternative approach to a mainstream educational policy
initiative encouraged or adopted in schools in Belgium, Hong Kong, and
New Zealand, among other regions. Increasingly, it is offered as a subject
in language teacher education programs, featured at teaching conferences
and in professional workshops, and is carried out by teachers with stu-
dents, during face-to-face or online lessons.
Thus, TBLT is a way of teaching languages and a robust area of inquiry.
In practice, language educators around the world use tasks to coherently
frame their teaching. This coherence can be seen from various perspec-
tives. First, ‘task’ provides a useful concept for framing the reasons why
languages are taught, what to teach (the particular content), and how to
teach (the classroom procedures). Second, in a practical sense, the litera-
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

ture on TBLT offers guidance on using the concept of task to link elements
of curriculum design such as materials, teaching, and testing. Lastly, and
most importantly, TBLT epitomizes the notion that classroom instruction
should be responsive to learners’ needs for using language in the real
world.
Tasks enable learners to acquire communicative abilities and to partici-
pate in social activities relevant to their present or future goals. There has
been much discussion and debate regarding the proposal that real-world
tasks should form the basis of language teaching, beginning with Long
(1985). The appeal of TBLT is that it seeks to identify and utilize activities
valued by learners as the impetus for curriculum development. How
the use of tasks facilitates acquisition of language and fosters participation
in society is a matter of considerable theoretical and practical interest. It
furthermore involves reconsideration of the teacher’s role, which in TBLT
 2 Language Teaching

contrasts with traditional educational practices. According to Long and

Ahmadian (2022, pp. xxvi–xxvii), TBLT is growing in popularity because it is:

1. perceived by adult learners as clearly designed with their specific needs in

mind;
2. preferred by students and teachers to traditional approaches to language
teaching;
3. supported by evidence from comparison studies, which demonstrate its
benefits over traditional approaches to language teaching;
4. compatible with other contemporary approaches, such as bilingual education,
content-and-language-integrated learning, and English medium instruction;
5. consistent with findings from second language acquisition research on
linguistic development and learner factors.

1.2 The Aim and Organization of This Element

It is relevant here to briefly note my background within the TBLT community, as
well as my approach and aim. I earned my MS in Education at the University of
Pennsylvania, where I first encountered the notion of tasks in language teaching
in the late Teresa Pica’s stimulating classes and seminal publications. Upon
graduating, I served in the English Language Program at J. F. Oberlin
University, where I often employed tasks in teaching and assessment. Later,
as I completed my PhD in Second Language Studies at the University of
Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, I had the honor of studying with John Norris, Lourdes
Ortega, and Peter Robinson, whose important contributions to TBLT are
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

described in this Element. In my research, I adopt a cognitive-interactionist

stance on language learning that emphasizes tasks as a valuable means of
providing learners with opportunities for input, output, and feedback. I have
also advocated a range of theoretical views on tasks in classroom research
(Jackson & Burch, 2017) and conducted studies on preservice teacher psych-
ology within tasks (Jackson, 2021; Jackson & Shirakawa, 2020). In my current
role as a professor in the English Department and the MA TESOL Program at
Kanda University of International Studies, I have found that, although excellent,
authoritative accounts of TBLT have been published (e.g., Ellis et al., 2019;
Long & Ahmadian, 2022; Van den Branden, 2022), the need exists for a short,
practical guide to the main concepts and issues in task-based language educa-
tion. My aim is to make this field accessible to a wider audience of teachers.
As just noted, this Element offers a concise guide to the main concepts and
issues in TBLT. It can be used by teachers individually or in groups, perhaps as
a resource in preservice or in-service teacher education courses and workshops.
 Task-Based Language Teaching 3

The present introductory section orients readers to TBLT and provides key
definitions and examples, as well as offering commentary on communication
task design. Section 2 guides readers through the familiar elements of
a language curriculum (needs analysis, sequencing of content, materials devel-
opment, teaching, testing, and evaluation) to illustrate how each can be
informed by tasks. Section 3 then adopts a case study approach to demonstrate
how teachers of diverse languages have found TBLT useful in their particular
contexts. The longest section of the Element is Section 4, which presents
a review of recent empirical studies divided into two distinct aspects that
concern practitioners: task design (i.e., complexity and modality) and task
implementation (i.e., preparation, interaction, and repetition). Section 5 then
provides an overview of some of the central issues faced by teachers in
understanding and using tasks. In the epilogue in Section 6, I offer a brief
critique of the potential of TBLT to bring about positive change in classrooms,
institutions, and societies. The Element concludes with an appendix of ques-
tions designed to facilitate discussion after each of the aforementioned sections
has been read.
Why use tasks in the first place? There are many answers, which will become
apparent throughout this text. In this opening section, the following rationales
will be presented. In short, among the clearest benefits of using tasks are that
they can be designed to offer students:

• opportunities for meaningful communication in their second language (L2),

which can lead to the acquisition of new language through comprehensible
input, feedback, and modified output;
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

• practice to attain fluency and utilize specific features of language that may be
challenging to learn;
• choices regarding lesson content and procedures and thus more meaningful
and engaging learning experiences.

As described in this section, tasks are compatible with a wide range of teaching
approaches. Subsequently, from Section 2 onwards, further advantages gained
from entirely task-based approaches will be considered.

1.3 Definitions
There is a difference between target tasks, or real-world activities learners
ultimately aim to accomplish in their target language, and pedagogic tasks,
which are instructional activities derived from target tasks. During engagement
in pedagogic tasks, learners “use language, with an emphasis on meaning, to
attain an objective” (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001, p. 11). This basic
 4 Language Teaching

definition incorporates many others that have been offered over the years.
According to it, the following practices would not fittingly be described as
tasks: (1) learning about the target language without actually using it, such as
when listening to an explanation of it in one’s first language; (2) using the
language mechanically rather than meaningfully, as in the memorized dialogues
or choral repetition associated with the audio-lingual method; and (3) using
language meaningfully but without any overt goal, as in free conversation. Of
course, one might benefit minimally from such activities, but they also illustrate
an essential categorical distinction.
Besides the disregard for learners’ needs in these examples of what is not
a task, it is worth briefly considering how each of Bygate and colleagues’
criteria is compatible with recent assumptions regarding learning and language.
Namely, the specification that tasks must involve language use acknowledges
that learning accrues gradually through practice in comprehending and produ-
cing oral and written discourse. The prioritization of meaning is supported by
various functional theories of language, which view it as a tool for communica-
tion. Lastly, establishing objectives helps fuel learner engagement and clarify
expected outcomes. A wide range of theoretical support for TBLT, often sharing
an emphasis on learning by doing, has been described elsewhere (see Ahmadian
& García Mayo, 2018; East, 2021; Ellis et al., 2019; Jackson & Burch, 2017;
Long, 2015; Norris, 2009; Samuda & Bygate, 2008).
Moving from theory to practice, a crucial aspect of using tasks involves the
difference between the task-as-workplan and the task-in-process (Breen, 1987).
Importantly, the design of a task can predict neither entirely how it should be
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

implemented for a given group of learners nor its outcomes. The original plan
for the task, including its stated objective and procedures, unfolds according to
the teacher’s implementation and learner responses. The potential of the task to
shape learning emerges from psycholinguistic and social activity during this
task-in-process. The terms retask and detask (Samuda, 2015) have been used to
refer to how teachers, as well as students, may alter plans during instruction.
Further useful distinctions include those between written versus oral tasks, as
well as monologic (narrative) versus dialogic (interactive) tasks. The examples
in Section 1.4 are oral, dialogic tasks.

1.4 Task Types

How can education be linked to relevant, real-world activities while also
promoting meaningful language use with a clear objective in sight? For
instance, having determined through personal observation and consultation
with colleagues that a group of young learners would value the ability to sing
 Task-Based Language Teaching 5

popular songs in their L2, a teacher might consider how this target task could be
modified for them in a way that fosters learning through interaction. One
possibility is to distribute two sets of lyrics for a given song wherein missing
words in each set are present in the other, have the students exchange informa-
tion verbally to complete the lyrics, and then practice singing the song together.
In this example, the underlying task type is called a jigsaw task. Pedagogic task
types are accounts of classroom tasks in terms of abstract categories (e.g., Pica,
Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993; Prabhu, 1987; Robinson, 2001; Skehan, 1996;
Willis, 1996). Typological descriptions are helpful to researchers, designers,
and teachers because they may be used to classify tasks, discern their similar-
ities and differences, and rank them according to their learning potential, among
other uses.
This section offers examples of each type of task in the typology put forth by
Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993). Being one of several possible choices, this
typology was selected for the following reasons. First, Pica and colleagues
covered five pedagogic task types, thereby incorporating earlier discussions
that are helpful but made fewer distinctions (e.g., Prabhu, 1987). Second, rather
than mainly describing the activity associated with tasks (e.g., Willis, 1996),
their stated purpose was to present a “typology which can be used to differenti-
ate tasks according to their contributions to language learning” (Pica, Kanagy,
& Falodun, 1993, p. 10), for both teachers and researchers. Third, related to this
goal, even though recent frameworks offer more fine-grained detail regarding
the psycholinguistic demands of tasks and are augmented by task sequencing
principles (e.g., Robinson, 2015), Pica and colleagues’ application of their
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

typology to previously published teaching and research materials demonstrates

its feasibility for designing, modifying, or understanding a wide range of
materials. It is therefore a good starting point for understanding how task design
may contribute to providing comprehensible input, negative feedback, and
opportunities for modified output during learner–learner interaction.
Table 1 summarizes the descriptions in Sections 1.4.1–1.4.5 and illustrates
how the five task types differ by interactional activity (i.e., information flow and
interaction requirement) and communication goal (i.e., goal orientation and
outcome options). To briefly gloss the table headers, information flow concerns
whether there is only one speaker or more than one speaker (1 vs. 2 way).
Interaction requirement refers to whether it is necessary or optional
(+/- Required) for learners to interact. Goal orientation describes whether the
task orients learners to the same goal or not (+/- Convergent). Lastly, outcome
options include a single, fixed outcome (e.g., a math problem), a single, variable
outcome (e.g., an election), or can be nonspecific.
 6 Language Teaching

Table 1 Pedagogic task types (adapted from Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993)

Information Interaction Goal Outcome

Type flow requirement orientation options
Jigsaw 2 way + Required + Convergent 1 fixed
Information gap 1 or 2 way + Required + Convergent 1 fixed
Problem-solving 2 or 1 way - Required + Convergent 1 fixed
Decision-making 2 or 1 way - Required + Convergent 1 variable
Opinion exchange 2 or 1 way - Required - Convergent Any or none

The following subsections present and discuss examples of each type. As

described later (Section 2.1), TBLT is based on needs. This point is demon-
strated by using the running example of nutrition, although TBLT, like most
education, often caters to less basic and more psychological needs. All five
examples form a unit of lessons for US-based adult learners whose needs
include understanding English concerning proper nutrition. Specifically, they
aim to support learners’ ability to understand the nutritional value of food, make
healthy choices, share preferences, and so on. Each subsection provides a brief
definition, followed by the sample task, and a discussion of its potential for
classroom language acquisition, based on Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun’s (1993)
study. Though the examples describe pair work, these task types can also be the
foundation for group work.

1.4.1 Jigsaw
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

In a jigsaw task, learners engage in a two-way exchange of information. The

exchange leads to completing some type of puzzle, hence the name. In the
jigsaw and information gap tasks (see Section 1.4.2), interlocutors have clearly
defined roles as information provider and/or information requester. In the case
of the jigsaw task, both roles are held by each speaker. Because they each have
only a portion of the information needed, they must take turns to gather all of it.
The example here unfolds in two stages, which are called the input stage and
communication stage (Anderson, 2019). During the input stage, the teacher
gives pairs of students two different nutrition facts labels for sandwich bread
(see Figure 1), asking them not to show their information to their partner. The
teacher then asks the students to read their labels silently and checks under-
standing of the language with the whole class. As soon as they are ready to begin
the communication stage, the students cooperate to find out which product is
more nutritious and why (i.e., it has more fiber, protein, and vitamins and less
 Task-Based Language Teaching 7

Figure 1 Two nutrition facts labels: white versus wheat bread (amounts are
a composite based on actual products)

fat, sodium, and sugar). To reach this conclusion, the learners verbally share
their information.
The main advantage of the jigsaw task derives from the need for both
participants to interact in order to converge on one solution. To compare all of
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

the data, participants must sustain their interaction over multiple turns, incorp-
orating lexical items that may be new or unfamiliar. They may also engage in
further discussion to weigh the importance of any differences uncovered. For
these reasons, Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993, p. 21) claimed the jigsaw to be,
“the type of task most likely to generate opportunities for interactants to work
toward comprehension, feedback, and interlanguage modification processes
related to successful SLA [second language acquisition].” This claim has
been supported by face-to-face studies as well as those involving text-based
computer-mediated communication (Blake, 2000).

1.4.2 Information Gap

Like jigsaw tasks, information gap tasks also require messages to be exchanged.
However, they need only involve a one-way exchange: one person requests the
information while the other provides it. A two-way exchange can happen if the
listener actively seeks confirmation of the information received, or if the listener
 8 Language Teaching

and speaker alternate roles. The goal of each person in the interaction is the
same (+ Convergent) and there is one fixed outcome according to the input
provided. As an example, the teacher could first have students write down their
favorite recipe. This can follow a simple formula: the name and origin of the
dish, the ingredients, and a list of steps. Once this material has been prepared,
the first student in the pair describes their recipe to a partner, who takes notes.
Then, they switch roles and repeat the task. Having students write down each
other’s recipes would benefit their interaction, as that can prompt them to seek
clarification and confirmation. Doing so would also allow the students and
teacher to check the accuracy of the exchange.
Alternatively, if the teacher rather than the students prepares the input, it is
possible to design information gap tasks drawing attention to specific language
features that are difficult to acquire due to low salience. Research on such tasks
by Pica, Kang, and Sauro (2006) found a strong association between inter-
actional processes and the noticing of specifically targeted forms. For example,
while working in pairs to complete tasks requiring them to discuss and make
choices about English articles, pronouns, determiners, and verb morphology,
intermediate-level learners’ interactions often showed evidence of noticing
these targeted forms. In Schmidt’s (1990) account, noticing, or conscious
registration of language, is necessary for the acquisition of an L2. Although
many tasks do not require such close attention to language input, Pica and
colleagues assumed on the basis of their evidence that task-based interaction
can prompt learners to notice. Maps, drawings, texts, and other materials can
provide content for information gap tasks.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

1.4.3 Problem-Solving

In a problem-solving task, learners are expected to interact to find a single

solution to a given problem. As an example, consider a lesson where the teacher
asks students to sit in pairs. The task input (Figure 2) is then displayed to the
whole class. The teacher explains that these items are all popular snack foods,
which differ in their calorie content, then instructs the students in pairs to
discuss each example with the goal of ranking them from the least to most
calories. The outcome of these discussions can be checked easily by having
a student or students write the answer on the chalkboard: carrot < apple <
banana < frozen yogurt < croissant < pizza slice. Then, any discrepancies in the
ranking among pairs can be dealt with and follow-up discussions on the topic
can be conducted.
Pica, Kanagy, and Faldoun (1993) noted some problems with problem-
solving tasks. Namely, as seen in Table 1, the information should flow in two
 Task-Based Language Teaching 9

Figure 2 Popular snack foods

directions, but if either student does not possess the requisite confidence,
knowledge, or skill, then the other may lead throughout the discussion.
Because the information requester versus provider roles are unspecified, the
design does not strictly require interaction. These problems also apply to
decision-making and opinion exchange tasks (see Sections 1.4.4 and 1.4.5). In
the example, it may turn out that only one individual dominates the discussion.
To promote more equal participation, the teacher might instruct students to take
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

turns giving their answers and provide reasons for them. However, the fact
remains that the amount and quality of interaction may be limited in comparison
to jigsaw tasks, in which the discourse is more predictable. On the other hand,
this design, like the previous two, has an advantage because its shared, fixed
goal provides a clear direction and endpoint for the discussion.

1.4.4 Decision-Making

The decision-making task encourages learners to discuss a given topic and agree
upon one of a finite number of acceptable outcomes. Other possible outcomes
suggested by the input may be unacceptable. To illustrate, the teacher could
provide the class with copies of a restaurant menu (Figure 3) to read. The task
involves a scenario in which students are at lunch with a friend who needs
assistance to understand the menu. This friend would prefer a meal that contains
protein and vegetables, but no dairy. The teacher asks pairs of students to look
over the menu in order to help choose a suitable option. Based on the criteria
 10 Language Teaching

Figure 3 Menu

provided, two menu options can be eliminated immediately (those containing

cheese) and a third (the salad) would not satisfy the need for protein. This leaves
two choices, either of which constitutes an acceptable suggestion. The students
agree on one of these and explain their choice to the class.
As already noted, the interactional activity in decision-making tasks is the
same as in problem-solving tasks. The information on which the decision is
based is shared among the students, who are expected to talk in order to reach
a common goal, though there is no built-in requirement to interact. The distin-
guishing feature of this task is that while it requires an outcome, that outcome
may vary (Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993). This brief example leaves room for
only two options, but more could be added by increasing the number of items on
the menu. Indeed, doing so might lead to more substantial discussion. Samuda
and Bygate (2008) presented a task they called ‘Things in Pockets,’ in which
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

students given a number of objects found in someone’s coat pockets are asked to
reach a consensus on the owner’s identity. These authors made the point that the
discourse emerging from such tasks has important qualities such as the potential
for social engagement and collaborative thinking.

1.4.5 Opinion Exchange

In an opinion exchange task, learners are expected to share their opinions in

order to discuss or debate a topic. Continuing with the diet and nutrition theme,
the instructor could pair students up to have them discuss which locally pro-
duced foods they enjoy eating. Based on Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun’s (1993)
study (see Table 1 of this Element), the flow of information would presumably
be two-way, but if either student is unfamiliar with the food sourced locally, then
it will become one-way. Interaction is possible, but not required. The commu-
nication goal of opinion exchange tasks poses unique challenges. This design
 Task-Based Language Teaching 11

does not provide an inherent goal for the discussion to converge on. If students
express disagreement, their goal orientation would be considered divergent.
Besides, the goal is relatively simple: state any local food product or combin-
ation thereof, or none at all. For all of these reasons, exchanging opinions is
unlikely to guarantee learners equal opportunities for conversational interaction
to the extent seen in jigsaw and information gap tasks. Nonetheless, opinion
exchange would be appropriate for different aspects of L2 development
(Skehan, 1998). In fact, divergent tasks, in which learners produce additional
clauses to support their arguments, have been shown to generate more syntac-
tically complex discourse than convergent ones, in face-to-face (Duff, 1986)
and computer-mediated (Jackson, 2011) settings. To communicate effectively
in an L2, one must share opinions. Tasks that promote this ability also provide
valuable opportunities for students to raise issues or concerns that might not
otherwise come to light.

1.5 Additional Perspectives on Task Design

The previous section focused on how task design may shape classroom dis-
course to bring about favorable conditions for L2 acquisition (i.e., comprehen-
sible input, negative feedback, and opportunities for modified output). Before
going further, it is worth briefly noting two additional perspectives on the design
of tasks. These views lead to broader understandings of the value of tasks in
language education.
First, learning opportunities in TBLT have been viewed in terms of the task-
essentialness (Loschky & Bley-Vroman, 1993; Ortega, 2007) of certain lan-
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

guage items, which may be challenging to acquire under more naturalistic

learning conditions. According to this perspective, tasks vary in terms of
whether they make the comprehension or production of specific grammatical
constructions essential, useful, or natural. It is easier to design one-way tasks
that make comprehension of certain features essential to successful perform-
ance, although two-way tasks, such as those just described, can also be evalu-
ated in terms of the essentialness of language features. As for grammar, in the
problem-solving task (Section 1.4.3), comparatives are highly useful (e.g.,
carrots have fewer calories than apples, frozen yogurt has more calories than
a banana). The concept of essentialness has also been extended to pronunci-
ation (Solon, Long, & Gurzynski-Weiss, 2017). The jigsaw task in Section 1.4.1
makes the use of the schwa essential because this sound occurs in several words
(e.g., sodium, calcium, potassium) that learners can be expected to use. Teachers
might leverage these opportunities to draw attention to language, or promote
increased fluency.
 12 Language Teaching

Second, more recently, the learners’ level of engagement has been recognized
as a major consideration in task-based learning. Philp and Duchesne (2016)
described engagement in terms of its cognitive (e.g., attention), behavioral (e.g.,
time on task), social (e.g., affiliation), and emotional (e.g., feelings) facets.
Researchers have measured engagement in various ways. With regard to task
design, findings suggest that key dimensions of engagement are enhanced when
using learner-generated as opposed to teacher-generated content (Lambert,
Philp, & Nakamura, 2017; Phung, Nakamura, & Reinders, 2021). In other
words, giving learners some control over the content appears to make tasks
more meaningful and engaging. Among the examples provided, the information
gap task in Section 1.4.2 does this by inviting learners to exchange their favorite
recipes. It is sometimes easy to make minor adjustments to existing tasks in
order to allow creativity and promote engagement. For example, the decision-
making task (Section 1.4.4) could be redesigned so that learners first write down
menu items individually, pool them to create their own menu, and then discuss
which ones would make appropriate choices based on certain dietary
restrictions.
These views are helpful for understanding the value of tasks, though in
a broader sense, TBLT offers even more than conversational interaction, lan-
guage practice, and learner engagement. As the following sections demonstrate,
the outcomes can extend far beyond even these important goals.

2 The Task-Based Curriculum

Tasks are the building blocks for the development of task-based language
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

curricula.1 The components that define a curriculum and its development

include needs analysis, objectives, testing, materials, and teaching, as well as
ongoing evaluation of each of these elements (Brown, 1995). The design of
task-based curricula (Long, 2015; Long & Norris, 2000; Norris, 2009) is
similar, albeit distinguished by a focus on tasks at each stage. In terms of the
learner’s contribution, strictly task-based syllabi differ from those of traditional
language teaching because they are analytic, rather than synthetic (Wilkins,
1976, as cited in Long & Crookes, 1992). That is, students analyze and perform
tasks under the assumption that they will use their own abilities and knowledge
to learn new, developmentally appropriate language, instead of being taught
from a prescribed list of disconnected grammatical structures, presented piece-
by-piece, which they must themselves recombine for use in later communica-
tion. To supplement learners’ own analysis of the language used in tasks,

1
As a reviewer helpfully pointed out, ‘curriculum’ has the same meaning as ‘syllabus’ in some
parts of the world.
 Task-Based Language Teaching 13

teachers can provide a focus on form. As described by Long and Robinson

(1998), focus on form involves a momentary shift of attention (via recasts,
clarification requests, and so on) to learner language produced during task
performance. Another way in which task-based curricula potentially differ
from traditional approaches is that learners are given a wider range of options
for negotiating content and procedures (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000).
The view of tasks outlined in the preceding paragraph has aptly been
described as uppercase Task-Based Language Teaching by Long (2015).
Contrary to this scenario, it should be noted that, in practice, tasks are often
viewed as “simply a context for learners to experience language in a range of
ways” (Bygate, 2000, p. 188). Indeed, the acronym TBLT may be adopted as an
umbrella term for any use of tasks in language teaching. Fully task-based
programs are outnumbered by task-supported implementations, which put less
emphasis on the overall role of tasks. Given that hybrid or task-supported
options are described elsewhere (e.g., Ellis, 2018; Samuda & Bygate, 2008),
this section will focus on the practicalities of orienting to tasks at each stage in
a language curriculum, as in an uppercase or strong version of TBLT. The
perspective offered here acknowledges that without a commitment to the
coherent integration of tasks throughout programs, the maximal effectiveness
of TBLT cannot properly be evaluated (Norris, 2009).

2.1 Needs Analysis

Needs analysis is the process of identifying the needs that a given learner
group aims to fulfill through their education. The assumption is that it is more
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

efficient, particularly in the case of adults, to tailor instruction to the specific

academic, professional, or vocational domain in which the learners intend to
use language. Language curriculum developers who undertake needs analyses
utilize a wide range of sources (e.g., literature reviews, learners, and experts)
and methods (e.g., interviews, questionnaires, and observations) (Long,
2005). Long argued that adopting tasks as the focal point avoids
a bottleneck in such analyses. Experts typically possess considerable know-
ledge regarding their professional domains, but are untrained in linguistic
description. This situation makes it challenging for curriculum designers to
filter out relevant language from the wealth of information domain experts can
provide. Ultimately, the needs analysis should accurately reflect the domain
and spotlight how language is used within it. Therefore, collaboration between
outside experts and applied linguists is recommended to provide valid and
useful information about both the content and the language taught and
assessed throughout the curriculum (Long, 2015).
 14 Language Teaching

Several examples of needs analyses illustrate its potential to foster TBLT.

First, Park (2015) examined the needs of English as a foreign language (EFL)
students in an urban middle school in Korea. The sources included students,
teachers, and relevant documents. Descriptive analyses of survey data indicated
students’ perceived needs and their preferences regarding participation styles,
learning strategies, and conversation topics, which were compared with teacher
results to identify areas of agreement and disagreement. Both groups valued
preparation for examinations, as well as communication, which has implica-
tions for implementing tasks in this context.
Second, Malicka, Gilabert Guerrero, and Norris (2019) conducted a study
with hotel receptionists in Barcelona, Spain, including both experts (those with
three to five years’ work experience) and novices (tourism students interning at
hotels). Based on interviews and on-site observations, they identified a variety
of target task types (e.g., greeting and saying farewell to clients, providing
directions, and solving problems) and their frequency. The interviewees were
also asked to assess the relative ease/difficulty of the tasks. These results were
used to design a task-based unit on handling overbooking, which was perceived
as a difficult task, comprising simple, complex, and +complex task versions.
Third, Oliver (2020) documented the needs of Aboriginal students at
a vocational high school in Western Australia. Various sources were used,
including classroom observations and student, as well as teacher, interviews.
Examination of these sources revealed that school teachers focused on meeting
students’ needs related to occupational, social, and life skills. The author
describes how these needs were met through authentic, culturally appropriate
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

tasks. Other recent examples have focused on the language needs of medical
students using isiZulu (Gokool & Visser, 2021) and Syrian refugee parents
using Turkish (Toker & Sağıç, 2022).
Needs analysis is one of the features distinguishing a strong version of TBLT
from its weaker variants. Indeed, considering that L2 learning can be a choice or
a necessity, some argue that general approaches to curriculum development, as
often seen in commercial English as a second language (ESL) and EFL text-
books, are “particularly detrimental” (Serafini, 2022, p. 75) when learners need
assistance in integrating into society. The nature and scope of learner needs are
highly differentiated, as these three studies illustrate. In Park’s study, they
included academic and social needs, in Malicka’s study, they involved highly
specific occupational duties, and in Oliver’s study, they encompassed work-
place and social skills. Detailed knowledge of the sectors relevant to learners’
future success is the first step in selecting and sequencing appropriate tasks for
instruction.
 Task-Based Language Teaching 15

2.2 Task Selection and Sequencing

Assuming the needs analysis has provided detailed information about the target
tasks, these can be reclassified into more general target task types from which
pedagogic tasks can be derived to create a syllabus (Long & Norris, 2000; Long,
2015). To return to the aforementioned study by Malicka, Gilabert Guerrero,
and Norris (2019), ‘overbooking’, a challenging target task that hotel employ-
ees sometimes faced, was classified under the target task type ‘solving prob-
lems’. This selection process led to the development of three, increasingly more
complex pedagogic tasks. Each of these involved having learners, playing the
role of a receptionist at a popular hotel, leave a voice message with various
clients concerning their reservation details and room options. These steps are
meant to transform real-world, target tasks into more accessible, instructional
tasks that are useful to teachers and learners.
In the case of Park’s (2015) research in the Korean middle school EFL setting
(also reviewed in Section 2.1), the author noted broad agreement between
students, teachers, and the national curriculum in terms of the need to develop
communicative skills. A key suggestion here was to develop instruction based
on target tasks which participants had identified, including sending email,
traveling in English-speaking countries, giving directions to visitors to Korea,
playing online games with an English speaker, and volunteering for community
service overseas. Though this study did not seek to develop pedagogic tasks, it
did provide highly valuable information for those responsible for doing so. In
Section 2.3, materials development based on such advice is dealt with in detail.
Sequencing means to arrange these pedagogic tasks in a principled order
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

on the syllabus. In keeping with the overall approach, it is determined by

nonlinguistic criteria. One proposal is that cognitive complexity should be
used as the basis of sequencing (Robinson, 2007, 2011a, 2011b, 2015; see
especially Baralt, Gilabert, & Robinson, 2014). As for the effect of sequen-
cing on language production, studies comparing repeated performance on
simple versus complex tasks have shown small, yet meaningful, effects on
learner production in terms of accuracy and fluency, though not syntactic
complexity (Jackson & Suethanapornkul, 2013). Surprisingly, it appears
difficult to empirically demonstrate that a sequence of simple to complex
tasks yields better results than a random sequence across groups of learners.
Malicka (2014) addressed this issue using two sequencing orders: (1) simple
to complex versus (2) randomized sequencing. Learners in these two groups
performed three tasks involving hotel clients and their complexity, accuracy,
and fluency were measured. Task complexity influenced oral production in
each of these dimensions. As expected, on complex tasks, fluency decreased
 16 Language Teaching

whereas accuracy and syntactic complexity increased. However, the sequen-

cing did not influence results: no differences were found across the two
groups. Similarly, Gilabert and Barón (2018) grouped learners into (1) simple
to complex versus (2) randomized sequence conditions, within which they
carried out four email writing tasks. In this case, ten experts rated the
learners’ pragmatic performance holistically. No group differences were
reported based on this measure. So, the effect of sequencing oral or written
tasks specifically according to increasing cognitive complexity is an area
where more research is needed (see Sasayama, Malicka, & Norris, in press,
cited in Sasayama & Norris, 2019).
Pending further evidence, other criteria that may offer answers to the problem
of sequencing tasks include: the importance or urgency of the target task to
learners, how often it is expected to occur, and whether is it ordinarily encoun-
tered as part of a sequence (e.g., applying for a job, attending an interview,
accepting an offer by email). Another intriguing possibility is to allow learners
choice with regard to the order in which they complete certain tasks (Candlin,
1987).

2.3 Materials Development

Task-based materials may come from several sources. The best ones are pro-
duced by specialists working in the educational context where the materials will
be used (Long, 2015). Having invested time and effort in a comprehensive
needs analysis, program administrators, curriculum coordinators, and teachers,
along with their collaborators, will be ideally positioned to develop suitable in-
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

house materials. Should the time or resources be lacking to develop custom

materials, there are several other possibilities. These constitute practical solu-
tions to the challenge of getting started with TBLT:

• Integrate task-based materials found in general teacher training guides into

lessons. Many examples of tasks have been published in teaching handbooks
or activity books, such as Anderson and McCutcheon’s (2019). Containing
dozens of example tasks, lesson notes, and ready-to-use materials, this
volume is for busy English teachers (for learners at CEFR A2 to C1 level).
• Similar to the previous suggestion, if available, consult domestically pub-
lished teaching guides. These present tasks that can be used to support the
goals of specific national curricula. For examples geared toward the Japanese
context, see Kato, Matsumura, and Wickings’ (2020) work. For a similar
account from Germany, see Müller-Hartmann and Schocker-von Ditfurth’s
(2011) book.
 Task-Based Language Teaching 17

• Adopt commercially available task-based textbooks. For example, Benevides

and Valvona’s (2018) textbook contains six units of spoken and written
materials, each culminating in an outcome intended for teacher and/or peer
assessment. It focuses on business English by presenting product develop-
ment and marketing scenarios (for learners at or above CEFR B1 level). As
another example, On Task (Harris & Leeming, 2018) is a textbook series with
three levels (High A1 to B1).
• Try out communicative tasks available through the Internet. For instance, at
the TBLT Language Learning Task Bank website (Gurzynski-Weiss &
IATBLT, n.d.; see also Gurzynski-Weiss, 2021), one can search and download
materials created by teachers and researchers.
• Modify existing materials. Willis and Willis (2007) suggested that textbooks
often contain tasks without explicitly labeling them as such. Once teachers
identify these incognito tasks, they could build on them by adding specific
goals, planning time, or a posttask report.
• Make use of sample task-based lesson plans used by teachers, such as those in
Willis and Willis’s (2007, Appendix 1) work.
• Read about specific applications of TBLT. The chapters in Shehadeh and
Coombe (2010) usefully described applications of TBLT in terms of the
authors’ (1) teaching context, (2) curriculum, tasks, and materials, and (3)
reflections.

Any of these approaches might also stimulate discussion among teachers to

develop additional materials appropriate for their own local contexts.
The influence of technology on language teaching in general and TBLT in
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

particular cannot be overstated. Many publications have offered examples of

how tasks can be implemented through technology (e.g., González-Lloret &
Ortega, 2014a; González-Lloret, 2016; Seedhouse, 2017; Thomas & Reinders,
2010). This integration has been described as technology-mediated TBLT
(González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014b, pp. 5–9), which requires close consider-
ation of both sides of the TBLT–technology equation in order to: (1) utilize
TBLT-informed definitions; (2) be aware of the transformative implications of
technology on learning; and (3) articulate relationships between technology,
tasks, and curricula. Following from this, González-Lloret (2014, 2016) distin-
guished between pedagogic language tasks (PLTs) and pedagogic technology
tasks (PTTs). The former focus on language whereas the latter comprise the
language as well as the technologies and digital literacies employed to accom-
plish a task. For example, learners can be instructed on appropriate language use
in a business letter (a PLT), or this instruction can be integrated into
a presentation of relevant email tools and skills (a PTT). Emerging technologies
 18 Language Teaching

will necessitate continual revision of materials as long as these new tools are
required to fulfill learners’ needs.
Perusing existing, published task-based materials or lesson plans is often
a useful way to understand task-based teaching. In Section 2.4, an account of
task-based instruction is described and briefly critiqued.

2.4 Teaching
The use of tasks in classroom practice affords opportunities to redefine teaching
and reshape the learning environment. The most influential framework for task-
based teaching comes from Willis (1996), who divided instructor roles into
three phases that promote increased student involvement and reposition the
teacher as a guide. First, in the pretask phase, the teacher introduces the topic
and, along with the class, explores the content of the task by, for example,
brainstorming vocabulary. Here, learners are expected to orient receptively to
and activate language that will be useful in performing the task. Models may
optionally be provided in the form of teacher demonstrations, audio- or video-
recordings of the task being done, or relevant written texts. This phase culmin-
ates with the teacher providing instructions about what the students should do in
the main phase, including a clear statement of the goal. If applicable, the teacher
can announce the amount of time allocated to performance. As an example, in
Newton and Bui’s (2018) implementation study of TBLT in primary school EFL
lessons in Vietnam, pretask work involved (1) brainstorming school subjects to
prime relevant vocabulary and (2) listening to a conversation modeling the task
while completing a handout.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

In the second phase, called the task cycle, the students carry out the task as the
teacher monitors them. There are three distinct stages to this cycle: task,
planning, and report. During the task stage, the teacher must step out of the
limelight to allow students to independently perform the task. At this stage, only
minimal teacher action is called for, which may include encouraging students
who need it, noticing the particular dynamics of student or group performance
for later reference, and keeping time. The planning stage follows the task and
provides students with time and resources to prepare a report on their task
performance. This report may concern the process or outcome of the task. Here,
the teacher needs to provide further instructions and advice on language.
Finally, during the report stage, the teacher manages the process by selecting
groups, taking notes as students share their reports, and then summarizing the
key points. In the case of Newton and Bui (2018), during the main phase,
students undertook an information gap task to share details about two timetables
and then had to identify three differences and two similarities across the
 Task-Based Language Teaching 19

timetables. Subsequently, three pairs of students were chosen to publicly per-

form this main task.
The third and final phase of Willis’ framework is the language focus, which
comprises analysis and practice. This phase is based on a comparison of the
students’ performance with similar models. As these contain semantic, lexical,
or phonological features inherent to the task, they serve as a starting point for
raising awareness of language. Students are encouraged to search these models
and notice particular linguistic aspects, with the stipulation that “they need to
test their own hypotheses and make their own discoveries” (Willis, 1996,
p. 103). The teacher now addresses individual questions, which are expected
to vary according to students’ previous language knowledge. To follow up, oral
or written practice of the features students focus on is recommended. This phase
was accomplished in Newton and Bui’s (2018) setting through teacher-led focus
on form and additional language practice in the form of a game.
Willis’ tripartite framework has value for helping teachers acclimate to task-
based teaching. In particular, the study by Newton and Bui showed the flexibil-
ity and viability of such a structure when teachers are transitioning from
traditional PPP (presentation, practice, production/performance) to newer
TBLT lessons. More recent alternatives build on this model, such as the
description in Ellis and colleagues’ (2019) work, which consists of pretask
options, main-task options, and posttask options. These authors also helpfully
noted that the participatory structure of lessons in TBLT varies. Namely, at
different points, learners may (1) work individually, (2) collaborate in pairs/
groups, or (3) present to the class, and, at times, (4) teachers may lead the lesson.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

In light of Willis’ careful articulation of task-based teaching, further commen-

tary has expanded on the teacher’s role (see Norris, 2009; Samuda, 2001, 2015;
Van den Branden, 2016; Vandommele, Van den Branden, & Van Gorp, 2018;
and Section 5 of this Element).

2.5 Assessment
In task-based language assessment (TBLA), “learners have to use their second
language (L2) abilities to get things done” (Norris & East, 2022, p. 507; see
also Norris, 2016). This approach is a radical departure from traditional tests
that require learners only to demonstrate their second language skills, often
rather differently from the ways we ordinarily use language. For instance,
a multiple-choice vocabulary test that asks students to read a word, then
choose the equivalent item in their first language (L1) is not a task-based
test. Alternatively, in TBLA, tests can be designed to measure learners’
abilities to use the language they have been learning in class in situations
 20 Language Teaching

that are potentially relevant to them. For example, in the context of

Hong Kong schools, task-based assessments of English ability have been
designed which ask students to (1) listen to a recording of the members of
a community youth club discussing what to buy for their annual trip to the
beach and then (2) complete a shopping list with the items and quantities
referred to (Chow & Li, 2008).
Since the mid-1990s, researchers such as Brindley (1994) have commented
on the potential of such assessments, noting as key advantages their: (1)
underlying conceptualization of language as a tool; (2) integration of assess-
ment with content; (3) use of explicit task criteria to provide diagnostic feed-
back; and (4) communication of outcomes to stakeholders in terms of
performance. The aforementioned ‘shopping list’ example reflects these char-
acteristics, in that language is used to achieve a real-world goal (i.e., preparing
for trip to the beach), there is age-appropriate content, clear criteria can be
established according to whether test-takers correctly list each item and quan-
tity, and their degree of success can be communicated based on these criteria.
Brindley also noted practical obstacles, including the efforts involved in devel-
oping TBLAs and training educators (who may be unaccustomed to such
practices) to maximize their benefits. For those seeking to integrate TBLA
into classroom instruction, Chow and Li (2008) is a valuable practical resource,
especially owing to its numerous activities, which explain the purpose and types
of assessment, invite readers to critique sample assessments, and cover practi-
calities such as scoring, feedback, and using criteria, as well as self and peer-
assessment tools.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Two further examples from the literature illustrate how, like other types of
assessment, the uses of TBLA can be described as either summative or forma-
tive. Formative refers to assessment for learning during ongoing instruction,
while summative refers to high-stakes assessment of learning after instruction.
First, Weaver (2012) described the application of a formative assessment
cycle in a task-based business presentation course for university students in
Japan. The task was for students to deliver a PowerPoint presentation of a stock
listed on the New York Stock Exchange that they thought would be a good
investment. Across five class meetings, the instructor led forty-six students to
complete a number of steps, including: (1) listening to a description of the
assessment cycle; (2) watching a video of a student performing the task; (3)
collaboratively discussing the task definition and developing rating criteria (i.e.,
English speaking skills and presentation design skills); (4) evaluating additional
task videos using these criteria; and (5) delivering their own video-recorded
presentations, which were rated by their classmates. After this, the teacher (6)
analyzed these scores to provide an overall summary of the performances; (7)
 Task-Based Language Teaching 21

met with each student to discuss their scores on the criteria; (8) had the students
transcribe their performances; and, finally (9) provided additional feedback on
these transcriptions.
Second, as an example of research oriented to summative purposes, Youn
(2018) employed roleplay tasks to gauge how much pragmatic competence
examinees displayed. In this study, 102 English as a second language (ESL)
students in the United States carried out five roleplay tasks based on scenarios
encountered in academic settings with a trained interlocutor who took the role of
a professor or classmate. These audio-recorded performances were then judged
using five rating criteria: content delivery, language use, sensitivity to the
situation, engaging in interaction, and turn organization (i.e., when and how
participants organize conversational turns). The analysis successfully distin-
guished examinees according to six levels of pragmatic ability. The author
recommended that care be taken in designing roleplays so that various, relevant
interactional behaviors can be elicited and assessed and also urged that rating
criteria explicitly incorporate descriptions of such behavior. For an earlier
example of developing and researching TBLA, see Norris and colleagues’
(1998) work plus the companion volume by Brown and colleagues (2002).

2.6 Evaluation
Having considered the main elements of a carefully designed TBLT program
(i.e., needs analysis, task sequencing, materials, teaching, and assessment), this
section describes program evaluation. Despite numerous studies focused solely
on its constituent elements, strong TBLT entails a programmatic view whereby
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

all of these elements are taken into consideration when seeking to determine the
effectiveness of TBLT (Norris & Davis, 2022). Program evaluation involves
systematically gathering data to judge the effectiveness the program as a whole.
It uses an array of research methods suited to the purpose of broadly under-
standing program outcomes. It also differs from individual research studies
because its primary aim is to guide decisions about a program. Norris and Davis
(2022, pp. 536–537) delineated several ways in which an evaluation can be
focused. These highlighted the following unique aspects of task-based pro-
grams: the learning sequences, materials, assessments, teacher and student
responses, and alignment with the local context.
For example, Markee (1997) reported on the design, implementation, and
evaluation of the curricular and teacher innovation (CATI) project, which
promoted TBLT as an innovation within a university EFL program in the
United States. Taking a participatory and formative approach to the evaluation
stage, the author gathered data from action research, teaching journals, and
 22 Language Teaching

surveys to address the issue of how instructors, who were teaching assistants
enrolled in a teacher education program, responded to the innovation by devel-
oping new materials, skills, and values. Among the many detailed results
Markee provided, teachers contributed to an eventually large bank of tasks
and some of them developed new skills relevant to task-based teaching.
However, these teachers were not uniformly in agreement regarding the most
efficient classroom discourse strategies for promoting student talk during tasks,
which suggested that further realignment of pedagogic values might assist in
implementing TBLT. Markee also noted that turnover created difficulty in this
context because experienced teachers often help to transmit knowledge and
skills to new teachers.
The evaluation by Markee represented one approach of many. Other types of
evaluation may be viewed as a matter of comparing TBLT to existing, often
traditional, approaches such as PPP (see Shintani, 2016, described in
Section 3.3). Having offered a general account of each stage in a task-based
curriculum in this section, the next section will describe concrete examples of
how practitioners developed task-based programs in specific settings.

3 Task-Based Approaches in Context

Tasks, like any educational innovation, must be adapted to the local environ-
ment to be effective (Butler, 2011; McDonough, 2015; Newton, 2022). Based
on the postulate that diverse, localized implementations resonate with the idea
of a task-based curriculum, this section explores a multiplicity of needs and
examines how tasks have been used to address these needs. The cases described,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

which are arranged alphabetically according to the language of instruction,

represent diverse geographical locations and educational settings. The learners
differ in age, first language, socioeconomic status, L2 proficiency, and other
relevant attributes. Around the globe, whether they teach Chinese to under-
graduates in Hawai’i, Zapotec to children in Mexico, or other languages to
groups elsewhere, educators dedicated to the linguistic, cognitive, social, and
professional development of learners in their communities have found merit in
TBLT. As a lingua franca, English is also included but no particular language is
given priority, so that a range of language- and culture-specific concerns may be
brought to light.

3.1 Chinese
As an example of the feasibility of introducing TBLT via the development of
instructional modules, Hill and Tschudi (2011) applied a task-based approach in
a blended university program on conversational Mandarin Chinese at the
 Task-Based Language Teaching 23

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. The authors started with a series of needs

analyses, which confirmed that students considered asking for directions to be
an important real-world task. Having selected this task scenario as a starting
point for the innovation, the authors developed a week-long sequence of online
and face-to-face activities informed by task-based methodological principles
(Doughty & Long, 2003; Long, 2015). Materials for the course were carefully
designed to reflect authentic discourse, which was collected by means of
interviews and roleplays with Chinese speakers. Discourse features closely
pertaining to asking for and providing directions were identified and used to
create teaching materials. These features included the macro discourse structure
of the target task, as follows:

1. A asks whether B knows the location

2. If B answers “yes,” then B asks whether A will walk, drive, or take public
transportation
3. A replies
4. B gives appropriate directions
5. A thanks B

In a blended learning format, teaching is construed as independent, online

study as well as face-to-face instruction. Appropriately for this context,
support for the task-based approach was integrated using a wide array of
technological resources. These included online maps and audio files contain-
ing model dialogues, as well as gap-filling exercises to introduce task-
relevant language items. After working through these materials, the students
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

met face-to-face to perform a map gap (one kind of information gap) task in
pairs. They then completed additional cooperative tasks online to practice
understanding and giving directions. Regarding assessment, the final exam
was based on interactive test tasks with different partners.
Hill and Tschudi (2011) reported an evaluation of this module consisting of
formative and summative dimensions. The formative evaluation pinpointed
a need for additional technology resources to support an assessment of real-
time interactions in online courses. The summative evaluation included
research concerning students’ uptake of linguistic features and their attitudes
toward the course. The uptake analysis targeted topicalization, renomination,
repetition, and modal verbs as features of natural discourse. Based on data
from two direction-giving pedagogic tasks used in courses for first-
and second-year students, the results showed greater use of these target
features among second-year students, but also revealed underuse of certain
features (topicalization and repetition). Finally, there was some variation
across the two tasks used, which interacted with the student year.
 24 Language Teaching

On the whole, these results were viewed positively, because they were
achieved through completing meaningful tasks and indicated use of naturally
occurring discourse features. Students also expressed satisfaction with various
elements of the program, including the integration of educational technology,
cultural knowledge, authentic discourse, and their own increased awareness of
conversational Chinese. In sum, this was an exemplary study of the teacher-led
development of a web-based language course informed by student needs. Given
the intense effort across its different stages and the varying nature of the
expertise required, Hill and Tschudi recommended collaborating with col-
leagues to undertake such projects.

3.2 Dutch
The duration and scope of task-based teaching in Flanders, in the north of
Belgium, makes it one of the best-known examples of a regional implementa-
tion of TBLT. Beginning in the 1990s, educators have transformed Flemish
schools at the primary, secondary, and adult levels in order to support immi-
grants, refugees, and their families in their efforts to learn Dutch and integrate
into society. This initiative has been fueled by government education policy and
the work of the Centre for Language and Education at the Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven. The Centre for Language and Education has assisted
hundreds of school teams in the region in implementing task-based syllabuses
to meet the language needs of a wide variety of students, including speakers of
Dutch as an L1 or L2. This process has resulted in a trove of research offering
teacher perspectives on tasks in classroom practice (see, e.g., Van den Branden,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

2006, 2015, 2016; Van den Branden, Van Gorp, & Verhelst, 2007; Vandommele,
Van den Branden, & Van Gorp, 2018). Over the years, that emphasis has
expanded from individual in-service teachers’ use of tasks in their own lessons
to preservice teacher education and school-wide language policies encouraging
collaboration (Van den Branden & Van Gorp, 2021).
Van den Branden (2015) provided a vivid snapshot of the theoretical back-
ground to this implementation of TBLT, as well as of three theory-to-practice
accounts based on classroom research in primary school settings. The first study
described how three teachers all modified, in their own ways, a task in which
learners were asked to plan and deliver a radio news program for a fictitious,
multilingual country. One teacher emphasized creativity and thus prohibited
students from referring to real events. Another took the opposite approach,
modeling the task using an authentic news broadcast and expecting students to
incorporate features of this genre. Whereas both of these teachers disallowed
multiple languages, the third one invited students to decide for themselves
 Task-Based Language Teaching 25

whether to go along with the original task’s encouragement to use their own
languages and relied on students to cooperate in groups. In the second study,
student–teacher interactions were observed in order to relate them to students’
writing development over one year. Writing was scored in several ways,
including communicative effectiveness, accuracy, and complexity. Student
progress in writing varied both within and across individuals and some of this
variation was attributed to the teacher’s individualization of instruction.
Namely, the teacher encouraged L1 learners to be creative while asking L2
learners to write shorter, more accurate sentences. The third study dealt with the
use of tasks to support Dutch learners in a science project on DNA. The study
used a pretest-posttest research design with a control group to measure out-
comes and also closely examined classroom processes. A key insight here was
that two individual students who made large gains varied considerably in their
classroom behavior, or the extent to which they engaged with the teacher.
From these studies, Van den Branden (2015) concluded that what matters for
learning is not the task design, or workplan, but instead the interaction that
emerges between teachers and students in the classroom, as well as students’
own unique motivation, goals, and self-regulation.

3.3 English
There have been questions about the applicability of TBLT in contexts where
the target language is not widely spoken, and about its appropriateness for
beginning, younger learners. In response to these issues, Shintani (2016)
reported on a study carried out with six-year-old, novice English learners in
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Japan, which compared task-based lessons with more traditional presentation-

practice-production (PPP) lessons. The context was a small, privately owned
school where students whose parents consented to the study received free
English lessons twice per week. Three comparison groups engaged in different,
age-appropriate lessons catering to the needs of absolute beginners. In the TBLT
group, lessons were based around listen-and-do tasks (see the one-way infor-
mation gap task in Section 1.4.2) and a bingo game. In the PPP group, they
involved choral repetition and picture-naming activities. The control group
practiced songs and the alphabet. The results of this carefully designed
classroom-based study first illustrated how teacher–learner discourse is quali-
tatively different in TBLT and then showed its quantitative advantages for
acquiring vocabulary and grammar.
First, concerning the qualitative findings, this study’s use of conversation ana-
lysis to inspect classroom discourse revealed several differences between the
TBLT and PPP settings. For instance, both involved initiation-response-feedback
 26 Language Teaching

(IRF) exchanges, but these were longer in the TBLT lessons. The types of questions
varied, with more teacher-initiated display questions in PPP and more student-
initiated referential questions in TBLT. Whereas the teacher had control of the floor
in PPP, students had more control over turn-taking in TBLT. Finally, as might be
expected, turns occurred in chorus in PPP but not in TBLT.
Second, moving on to the quantitative results, the study employed a battery of
pretests before the treatments followed by immediate and delayed posttests to
compare outcomes across the groups. Regarding vocabulary, there were four
tests covering nouns and adjectives introduced in the TBLT and PPP lessons.
The nouns were acquired equally well by learners in both groups. However, the
TBLT group outperformed the PPP group on adjectives. In accordance with its
focus on communication, in the TBLT lessons adjectives were not pretaught but
learned incidentally through meaningful exchanges. Concerning grammar, five
tests were used to assess incidental learning of two features: the plural –s and
copula be. In this case, the results were less robust. Neither group improved in
their production of these features. Nonetheless, those in the TBLT classes
showed improvement in comprehending plural –s. Shintani (2016, p. 136)
suggested that this positive result could be explained by the relevance of the
plural to completing the task, as illustrated here:

T: please take the mandarins, mandarins to the supermarket.

S1: mandarin.
T: right. mandarins.
S2: one?
T: no.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

S3: two?
T: two?
S2: three?
T: three, yes. okay? ready? three, two, one, go.
Ss: (show the correct card).

Because the listen-and-do task in this example required the children to

listen carefully for the exact number of items, it may have led them to
notice plural marking. As a reminder, noticing (Schmidt, 1990) occurs
when learners consciously attend to lexical, phonological, grammatical,
or other features of L2 input. The nature of the tests used in this study
may explain the results for production. In conclusion, Shintani (2016)
argued that TBLT is a flexible, communicative option that can be localized
to enhance the value of English classes for not only younger but also
mature learners in Japan.
 Task-Based Language Teaching 27

3.4 German
A commendable case of grounding curricular thinking in notions of task and
genre can be found in Byrnes’ work within the Georgetown University German
Department (see Byrnes, 2014, 2015; Byrnes, Maxim, & Norris, 2010; Byrnes
et al., 2006). Systemic functional linguistics provided the basis for this unique
curriculum. This theory views language as a semiotic resource that enacts and
construes social contexts by presenting choices that enable users to express (1)
what they experience, (2) who is taking part (and their social relations), and (3)
the role of language itself. Such expression comprises frequently occurring
genres, which are recognizable to communities of language users. Based on
the academic and professional needs of its students, the department’s curricu-
lum aims to promote longitudinal development to advanced levels through
a focus on oral and written genres. This is achieved through genre-oriented,
task-based teaching, the gist of which is described by Byrnes (2014, p. 243) as
follows:

In order to perform certain genres, learners need to have access to certain

language resources and, in reverse, in order to develop certain language
resources, learners must be given the opportunity to perform certain generic
tasks that tend to deploy those resources

In a way, Byrnes’ (2014) suggestion circumvents the bottleneck problem (see

Section 2.1); genres are defined by fixed and flexible language choices, so
orienting to them from the outset narrows the scope of a task’s linguistic
requirements.
In practice, this curriculum spans five levels, which correspond to several
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

years of instruction, depending on whether students are enrolled intensively or

nonintensively. Byrnes and colleagues (2006) illustrated how the first four
levels were designed to facilitate literacy development along a continuum
from personal to public discourses. For instance, among the writing tasks
found in Levels I through IV are a personal letter, application letter, Aufruf
(political appeal), and journalistic report, respectively. Materials used to support
learning included vocabulary sheets and functional phrase charts. Detailed
assessment guidelines are also provided to students, which spell out criteria
related to task, content, and language.
Byrnes’ research has explored learners’ writing development within this
curricular framework. One study utilized longitudinal data from a range of
standard and innovative measures to chart student progress in written German
(Byrnes, 2014). Concerning Levels I through IV, clear gains in syntactic
complexity across the curriculum were found on two of three general measures.
 28 Language Teaching

Concerning Levels II through IV, on a measure of lexical density (the ratio of

content to function words), very clear increases differentiated each level, which
suggested that writers expanded not only the length of their sentences, but also
that of their clauses. Further analyses showed large increases in nominalization,
realized through the use of grammatical metaphor, especially between Levels
III and IV. The author cautiously does not attribute these results solely to the
curriculum, instruction, or tasks, but cites in addition the shared philosophy and
coordination among program educators, which cannot be taken for granted.

3.5 Spanish
The context for González-Lloret and Nielson (2015) was the US Border Patrol
Academy, which provides language training tailored to the needs of agents who
must speak fluent Spanish in order to offer assistance, communicate legal rights,
and safely resolve conflicts. The TBLT program resulted from dissatisfaction
with a previous grammar-based course that left agents-in-training underpre-
pared for these responsibilities. This is a highly informative case as it illustrates
how linking all six, interconnected curricular components to the notion of task
can improve training programs. First, a needs analysis identified seven target
tasks, or job duties likely requiring the L2. Second, these tasks were sequenced
to form an eight-week series of increasingly complex modules. Third, materials
were developed, including audio- and video-recordings, roleplay scenarios, and
an interactive video game. Fourth, regarding teaching, native speakers partici-
pated in roleplaying and unscripted practice activities, and instructors were
encouraged to use focus on form. Fifth, task-based assessment was used. At
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

the end of each module, instructors evaluated students on task performances

they carried out with native speakers, using rubrics that stipulated linguistic
competencies linked to specific success criteria (e.g., “using appropriate
Spanish, the trainee extracts subject from hiding place”, p. 530). The final
examination was also performance-based. Several years into the implementa-
tion of this program, the sixth component, evaluation, was carried out.
González-Lloret and Nielson (2015) reported three evaluation studies, each
of which shed light on key indicators of the effectiveness of the program. Study
1 compared students from the TBLT course with those who had taken the
grammar-based course at the academy. Based on an oral picture narration
task, measures of fluency, lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and gram-
matical accuracy were used. The oral production of those in the TBLT group
was significantly more fluent than those in the grammar-based group, and also
not less complex or accurate. Study 2 looked at gains in proficiency in the TBLT
program only. Students took a computerized oral test at the beginning and end of
 Task-Based Language Teaching 29

the course. Over the duration of the program, their scores significantly increased
on overall spoken proficiency, as well as on sentence mastery, vocabulary,
fluency, and pronunciation. Further analyses demonstrated that the increase in
their ability was unrelated to starting proficiency. Study 3 gauged opinions of
the program using a questionnaire methodology. Respondents included those
who were enrolled in the task-based course, as well as agents who had graduated
from it. All of these individuals generally found the program useful, interesting,
and relevant. Particularly worth noting is that graduates agreed that they could
use the Spanish they learned in the field.

3.6 Zapotec
South of the Mexico–US border, in a very different context, Riestenberg and
colleagues (Riestenberg & Sherris, 2018; Riestenberg & Manzano, 2019) have
applied task-based principles in teaching Macuiltianguis Zapotec to children
living in the community in Oaxaca where this language is traditionally spoken.
Because there are fewer younger than older speakers, needs include the preser-
vation of the culture and revitalization of the language. Therefore, the project
highlighted the transmission of traditional knowledge and creation of new
domains of language use through tasks. Riestenberg and Sherris (2018) elabor-
ated on the role of investment (encompassing identity and ideology) and task-
based methodological principles (Long, 2015) in Indigenous language educa-
tion. Pedagogic tasks in the Zapotec classroom concerned greetings, small talk,
and shopping for food. During instruction, teachers used elaborated spoken
input (i.e., repetition and paraphrasing) and provided limited, contextually
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

appropriate negative feedback (i.e., recasts) on mispronunciation. These dis-

course moves facilitate comprehension and production in a new language.
Learners also practiced performing tasks in collaboration with native speakers
in the community, which fostered their identities as language users and led to
further use of Zapotec in new authentic settings, such as sporting events.
Assessment was conducted in a culturally appropriate way by adopting
a formative approach that fostered “the perception of linguistic knowledge as
symbolic capital” (Riestenberg & Sherris, 2018, p. 451). In practice, this
involved giving students points for task completion, which could then be
exchanged for a prize. In these ways, the program achieved its aim of increasing
spoken interaction, although the authors cautiously noted that a long-term
commitment is necessary to reach the more ambitious goal of establishing
a new generation of speakers.
One way that new spaces for the use of Macuiltianguis Zapotec, a mainly oral
language, might be created is through writing. Riestenberg and Manzano (2019)
 30 Language Teaching

examined how tasks support the development of literacy within this setting,
viewing writing as a set of processes embedded within sociocultural contexts,
according to Ivanič’s model (cited in Riestenberg & Manzano, 2019). This
effort built upon those of a revitalization group that has standardized the
alphabet and created print resources: a word list, various games, and booklets
containing songs, stories, and local history. The following examples illustrate
how writing was used as a scaffold for speaking tasks. First, to prepare students
for the task of asking a speaker how to prepare a traditional drink, the teacher
asked them to listen to the ingredients, write them down, and compare their
spelling with a classmate’s. The teacher then gave them the spelling and had
them label the ingredients on a whiteboard. Second, to prepare the students to
introduce themselves at a community event, they first memorized and then were
provided with a written sample of a self-introduction, from which they bor-
rowed chunks of language to write their own personalized introduction. In
a final example, the students made use of Spanish and Zapotec on signs that
they created with slogans promoting Earth Day, which were posted on a nearby
highway. As such, in addition to developing phonological and orthographic
knowledge, new arenas for the everyday use of Zapotec emerged from the
integration of written language and task-based teaching.
Holistic accounts of instruction (such as those above) are invaluable for under-
standing how various features of educational practice come together when tasks are
viewed as primary. To offer another, complementary perspective, Section 4 will
introduce several discrete approaches to pedagogic research on tasks.

4 Research into TBLT

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

This section reviews twenty-five studies of TBLT published in the most recent
decade (between 2011 and 2021). First, some good news. Studies comparing
TBLT programs to traditional, non-TBLT programs indicate that using tasks
leads to stronger gains on L2 outcomes, as well as positive attitudes toward
TBLT programs by teachers and learners (Bryfonski & McKay, 2017).
Accordingly, this section will focus on studies illustrating the use of tasks in
practice, rather than methods comparison studies (see Section 3.3 for instance;
for a recent example, see Borro, 2022).
The review is organized into several branches, based on the notion that tasks
can be viewed as either static workplans constructed by materials designers or
as a series of processes implemented by teachers and learners (e.g., Breen, 1987;
Samuda, 2015; Van den Branden, 2016). The main features of the task workplan
are design and mode. The primary task processes are preparation, interaction,
and repetition. These branches (Figure 4) are each explained, reviewed, and
 Task-Based Language Teaching 31

Figure 4 Research foci based on task-as-workplan versus task-in-process

summarized to provide breadth as well as depth. Studies were purposely

selected with a view toward providing a balanced treatment of each area (due
to space constraints, the review was limited to five representative studies per
area). The outcomes that researchers investigated in these studies varied from
measures of conversational interaction to individual performance (see
Sections 4.1 to 4.6 for details). Measurement of individual learner performance
has often involved looking at its complexity, accuracy, and fluency in order to
capture dimensions of speech or writing that are relevant to L2 development (for
a detailed synthesis, see Skehan & Foster, 2012).
As an initial point of departure, readers may wish to consider: Is the language
learning potential of tasks primarily a matter of the stable, abstract properties of the
workplan or of the varied, particular processes in which teachers and learners
engage?
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

4.1 Design
As already indicated in Section 1.4, much attention has been paid to the inherent
features of tasks as workplans. Present research in this area is an outgrowth of
decades of work, beginning in the 1980s, which described and classified tasks
according to their essential characteristics (e.g., Nunan, 1989; Prabhu, 1987;
Yule, 1997). In the 1990s, researchers began to consolidate various pedagogic
task types into systematic frameworks (Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993;
Skehan, 1996) which referenced key considerations in SLA, such as the essen-
tial roles of negotiated interaction and psycholinguistic processing. The turn of
the millennium brought with it research seeking to refine and test theoretical models
of the influence of task design on L2 performance and learning, especially Skehan’s
Limited Attentional Capacity Model and Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis
(for state-of-the-art commentaries, see Skehan, 2018 and Robinson, 2015).
 32 Language Teaching

The latter approach, focused on here due to space limitations, is based on Robinson’s
Triadic Componential Framework, which differentiates between:

1. task complexity, or cognitive factors2 that direct or disperse language pro-

cessing resources
2. task conditions, or interactive factors concerning participation or participants
3. task difficulty, or learner factors related to ability or affect.

As a teacher-friendly example, Michel (2011) designed tasks presenting adult

L2 learners of Dutch with a scenario wherein they had to decide which of the
contestants on a dating show would make the best couple, based on their age,
hobbies, and other characteristics. There was a simple version with four con-
testants and a complex version with six contestants. In this example, increasing
the number of contestants is assumed to increase cognitive task complexity,
with beneficial consequences for L2 output, interaction, and learning.
Studies on task complexity using this framework have typically looked at
whether various features of task design make a difference in terms of learners’
language use during spoken or written performance. In the case of speaking, the
effects may differ, and have been investigated separately, for monologic (i.e.,
narrative) or dialogic (i.e., interactive) performance. There are meta-analytic
reviews describing the effects on spoken monologic (Jackson & Suethanapornkul,
2013) and written (Johnson, 2017) language production. These studies have helped
to identify which task design variables have been most widely investigated. For
instance, across studies of their effects on spoken and written performance, research
had mainly looked at the influence of the following resource-directing features of
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

task complexity: number of elements, reasoning demands, and whether the task was
to be performed in here-and-now or there-and-then conditions. Importantly, these
studies also bring to light small, yet meaningful effects of task complexity on L2
production across the literature. For instance, increasing task complexity influences
oral narrative production by raising accuracy (d = 0.28; CI = ± 0.12) and lowering
fluency (d = -0.16; CI = ± 0.09) (Jackson & Suethanapornkul, 2013).3 The focus
here on interactive tasks is intentional, as this line of research has received less
attention despite its relevance to instruction.
The findings from several studies into the effects of task design on learner–
learner interaction in pairs or groups (see Table 2) are briefly summarized here. To
begin with face-to-face studies, Révész (2011) showed that learners

2
These factors include resource-directing variables, which make conceptual/cognitive demands, as
well as contrasting resource-dispersing variables (e.g., planning time) which make performative/
procedural demands (Robinson, 2022, p. 211).
3
Cohen’s d is a measure of effect size that indicates how large or small a difference was found
between groups or across time.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 2 Studies on simple versus complex interactive task design

Study Location Setting Learners Task(s)

Révész (2011) United States University L1 various/L2 English To allocate funds to community programs in NYC
Kim (2012) South Korea University L1 Korean/L2 English To roleplay finding part-time work, being
a matchmaker, discussing a promotion, hiring
employees
Kim & Taguchi (2015) South Korea
Junior high L1 Korean/L2 English To complete a drama script by adding a dialogue to
school a picture
Solon, Long, & Gurzynski- United States University L1 English/ L2 Spanish To complete a tour map with missing information
Weiss (2017)
Adams, Alwi, & Newton Malaysia University L1 various/L2 English To compare and recommend engineering software
(2015)
 34 Language Teaching

produced more lexically diverse (but less syntactically complex) language

in complex versus simple tasks. She also found more language-related
episodes (LREs), in which learners spontaneously discuss language they
are using, in complex tasks. Focusing on question formation, Kim (2012)
also investigated LREs. Learners doing ++complex tasks produced the
greatest number of LREs, whereas +complex tasks generated more LREs
than simple tasks. Furthermore, the percentage of students showing question
development increased according to the task design from 67 percent in the
simple group to 72 percent in the +complex group to 82 percent in the
++complex group. In Kim and Taguchi’s (2015) study, learners in
the complex group produced more LREs about certain pragmatic features
than those in the simple group. Both these treatment groups outperformed
a control group on a written discourse completion test of pragmatic know-
ledge on immediate posttests. The complex group also did better than either
of the other groups on a delayed posttest. Solon, Long, and Gurzynski-
Weiss (2017) found that learner production of pronunciation-focused LREs
was not different across simple versus complex tasks. However, production
of the Spanish /e/ vowel sound was more nativelike when performing
a complex task. As an extension of the research in face-to-face settings,
turning to computer-mediated communication (CMC), Adams, Alwi, and
Newton (2015) reported that a simple task, which provided further instruc-
tions on the procedure and a comparison table, led to more accurate written
production than a complex task that withheld this support.
In the aforementioned studies, complex task versions were carefully created
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

by adding reasoning demands, increasing the number of elements, or remov-

ing structural support. It appears that such modifications to task design can, in
ways more or less in keeping with Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis, impact
immediate learning opportunities and longitudinal language development. To
summarize:

• In theory, during complex interactive tasks, learner L2 production should

display greater accuracy and more interaction, in the form of confirmation
checks and clarification requests (Robinson, 2015).
• Complex tasks have been found to yield less accurate grammar but also
more accurate pronunciation, so their effect on accuracy remains unclear.
• More complex tasks generate more LREs. This suggests that complex tasks
facilitate interaction among learners to address language issues. It might also
imply a greater need for teacher intervention, should learners need expert
assistance to resolve LREs.
 Task-Based Language Teaching 35

• Over time, the challenges posed by complex tasks may be more suited than
simple tasks and traditional instruction to the development of syntactic and
pragmatic features.

Instructors ought to take note of such differences and plan sequences of

engaging and appropriately challenging tasks.

4.2 Mode
Mode refers to whether communication is oral or written, and includes
hybrid modes having characteristics of both speech and writing, such as
CMC. In practice, tasks may be conducted entirely in a single mode (e.g.,
oral discussions versus written essays) or they may involve more than one
mode (e.g., note-taking based on a lecture). This might be considered a part
of the task’s design, but it is also independent of it, because a given task can
sometimes be carried out in different modes. For example, L2 learners in
a business program might practice offering a position to a successful job
candidate via either a spoken message left on an answering machine or
a written email, with a given number of details required to be conveyed
regardless of the mode. Problematically, the language teaching field has
strongly tended to associate tasks with oral communication, as shown by
much of the literature dating back to the 1990s and earlier. According to
Byrnes and Manchón (2014), this dominant emphasis on the oral mode
continues to permeate task-based theory, research, and practice. It is there-
fore highly appropriate that recent research has shifted to look at the
contribution of the written mode to learning in tasks, as well as to how task-
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

based studies might inform our understanding of L2 writing. In connection

with this shift, studies have begun to investigate task modality effects (e.g.,
Kormos, 2014; Kuiken & Vedder, 2011; Tavakoli, 2014).
In their commentary on mode, Gilabert, Manchón, and Vasylets (2016) define
and situate mode within a model of orality-literacy, discuss relationships
between mode and stages in L2 learning, and conclude by calling for further
research on mode as an option in task design and, in particular, research on the
effect of modality on input processing in tasks. They share a key assumption,
found throughout the literature, that different modes offer different learning
potential. This idea is based on close consideration of the inherent qualities of
speaking versus writing. Speech is heard, rapidly delivered, ephemeral, typic-
ally involves two or more interlocutors, combines with nonverbal information
such as gestures to convey meaning, and provides opportunities for immediate
feedback. In contrast, writing is seen, slower paced, permanent, addressed to
distant audiences, and offers more opportunities to draw upon explicit
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 3 Studies on oral versus written modes

Study Location Setting Learners Task(s)

Kuiken & Vedder (2011) Netherlands University L1 Dutch/L2 Italian To recommend a holiday destination to
a friend
Kormos (2014) Hungary Secondary school Hungarian–English To narrate a comic strip; to create
bilinguals/English a story based on pictures
learners
Tavakoli (2014) United Kingdom Private language L1 various/L2 English To narrate a story based on pictures
school
Vasylets, Gilabert, & Spain University Spanish–Catalan To explain life-saving actions during
Manchón (2017) bilinguals/L2 English a crisis based on pictures of
a building on fire
Ziegler & Phung (2019) Vietnam University L1 Vietnamese/L2 To describe pictures to a partner based
English on a story
 Task-Based Language Teaching 37

knowledge and external resources, such as dictionaries. Another important

point raised by Gilabert, Manchón, and Vasylets is that, though it may at
times be helpful to consider the contributions of speaking and writing separ-
ately, pedagogic tasks often engage learners in a blending of modes, including
speaking-to-write and writing-to-speak. The real-world tasks learners aspire to
may frequently blend oral and written communication. Therefore, TBLT
researchers and practitioners should attend to the dynamic permutation of
modes found within and across tasks for the sake of authenticity.
A few relevant studies (see Table 3) are summarized here. In the first four
studies in this table, researchers compared narrative tasks carried out in
spoken and written modalities in terms of the complexity and accuracy of
L2 production. The final study in the table investigated how an interactive task
under different modes of CMC yielded distinct opportunities for learning. The
analyses in Kuiken and Vedder (2011) mainly addressed task complexity
effects, which were similar across modes, but their descriptive results indi-
cated greater syntactic complexity and lexical diversity in the written mode, as
well as fewer errors in the oral mode. Kormos (2014) directly compared
spoken and written performances, finding that the latter were stronger in
terms of lexical variety, lexical complexity, accuracy, and use of noun phrase
modifiers. In contrast, spoken performances were stronger on measures of
cohesion. Tavakoli’s (2014) study used simple and complex tasks. The results
indicated that, in the simpler task design, learners produced more syntactically
complex structures in writing versus speaking, though the more complex task
showed no such differences across modes. In a large-scale study, Vasylets,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Gilabert, and Manchón (2017) found main effects for both task complexity
and mode. The written task performances were higher in lexical, structural,
and propositional complexity, whereas no mode-related difference was found
in accuracy. Lastly, considering the influence of mode during interaction in
CMC, Ziegler and Phung (2019) compared four modes available via Skype:
text, audio, video, and multimodal. Tasks performed using multimodal chat
showed the greatest percentage of all interactional features, including negoti-
ation, recasts, and explicit feedback. The video mode had the second highest
percentage for nearly all features.
Mode is a relevant consideration in language classrooms. To recap, the
findings suggest the following:

• Mode influences L2 narrative production and interaction during task

performance.
• These effects appear to be independent of task design, although the possibility
remains that the effect of mode and complexity are interrelated.
 38 Language Teaching

• In narrative tasks, the written mode tends to show more syntactic and lexical
complexity than the oral mode.
• Learners may be aware of differences in these modes and use their L2
differently in speaking versus writing tasks.
• In interactive CMC tasks, oral modes supported by video technology are
more suited to the negotiation of meaning as they afford access to nonverbal
signals.

These results should encourage teachers to think carefully about mode when
planning task-based instruction. In addition, they suggest that learners should
have opportunities to demonstrate their L2 abilities in different modes, at
different times. However, there are certain limitations to note, as well. First, it
should be kept in mind that challenges arise when seeking to compare perform-
ance across the distinctive modes of speaking and writing, particularly with
regard to the amount of time taken. Second, it is of utmost importance in TBLT
to remain faithful to the mode in which the task is most likely to be performed in
the real world, including tasks which blend modes (Gilabert, Manchón, &
Vasylets, 2016). In light of these issues, teachers might find it easier to adjust
the degree of task complexity than to render a task typically done in speaking as
a writing task, or vice versa. Despite these caveats, the studies reviewed here
generally reflect bottom-up concerns because the teaching of writing and liter-
acy skills is a major area of language instruction. Fortunately, the lack of
attention to this area in TBLT has begun to be addressed (Byrnes & Manchón,
2014). Moreover, these studies were generally clear about task design, content,
and procedures and forthcoming as regards pedagogic implications. Put suc-
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

cinctly, as Vasylets, Gilabert, and Manchón (2017) concluded, “mode may

mediate the way in which L2 learners use their linguistic knowledge” (p. 422).

4.3 Preparation
The discussion of task processes, or those factors that play out directly in the
classroom, begins with the question of how teachers and learners can prepare
together before a task. Section 2.4 has already introduced the framework offered
by Willis (1996), noting that the pretask phase may involve discussing the task’s
topic and content, brainstorming useful language, analyzing models of success-
ful task performance, and establishing expectations for the main task phase,
among other forms of preparation. A related, useful concept from recent
research is that of task readiness.
As proposed by Bui (2014), readiness for a task consists of implicit and
explicit types of planning. Implicit planning includes a learner’s inherent
familiarity with content (e.g., professional knowledge), schema (e.g., routines
 Task-Based Language Teaching 39

used during the task), and the task itself. Learners may gain certain advantages
when their knowledge of these areas is activated. Teachers should therefore try
to leverage student familiarity with task content and schema, as Willis (1996)
recommended. Otherwise, the benefit of this type of readiness may not extend to
task performance. This view is also consistent with the use of motivational
strategies as preparation. During the preactional stage of task motivation
(Dörnyei, 2002), for instance, the teacher helps to orient students to goals,
convey intentions behind the task, and initiate purposeful action.
Another kind of readiness according to Bui (2014) is explicit planning, which
involves externally imposed forms of planning. The options here include pre-
task planning and within-task planning. Based on Ellis (2005), pretask planning,
or planning that ensues prior to task performance, includes rehearsal and
strategic planning. The former involves practicing a task. The latter encourages
students to carefully think about what they want to say and how they will say it.
Pretask planning differs from within-task planning, which concerns the amount
of time allocated to the task. Providing more or less time for performance
naturally influences the amount of planning time available to learners within
a task. As shown in Section 4.2, there are differences across the oral and written
mode in this respect. In practice, these two broad types of explicit planning can
be combined to yield lessons using distinct combinations of planning conditions
(e.g., +/- pretask planning and +/- within-task planning).
A further distinction for instructors to be aware of is whether strategic pretask
planning is guided or unguided. For instance, Mochizuki and Ortega (2008)
described a study carried out with groups of EFL learners at a high school in
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Japan who were asked to retell a picture story. The unguided and guided
planning groups were given the same amount of time to prepare; however, the
guided planning group was also given a handout on relative clause formation
and told that it might be useful for the task, but they could only use it during
planning. The results showed large effects in favor of the guided planners on
both the quantity and quality of relative clauses produced, with no significant
difference in fluency between groups. This study shows that the processes
undertaken during planning are essential. From the perspective of the class-
room, an obvious question is how learners may support each other during the
process of preparing for a task. Finally, another approach to preparation
involves metacognitive instruction to enhance students’ learning opportunities
during interactive tasks (Fujii, Ziegler, & Mackey, 2016).
Table 4 summarizes details from a handful of studies on learners preparing
for tasks. The first two studies looked into individual planning. Bui (2014) gave
students no planning time versus ten-minutes planning time before speaking
about familiar versus unfamiliar topics. Planning time improved complexity
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 4 Studies on preparation and planning for tasks

Study Location Setting Learners Task(s)

Bui (2014) Hong Kong University L1 Cantonese/L2 English To describe the process of virus
transmission
Van de Guchte et al. Netherlands Secondary school L1 Dutch/L2 German To describe a school cafeteria
(2019)
Kang & Lee (2019) South Korea Secondary school L1 Korean/L2 English To write a story based on pictures
Lee & Burch (2017) United States University L1 various/L2 English To give a presentation based on
research
Sato (2020) Chile Secondary school L1 Spanish/L2 English To exchange personal opinions on
controversial issues
 Task-Based Language Teaching 41

and familiarity enhanced accuracy. Both kinds of readiness promoted fluency.

Next, Van de Guchte and colleagues (2019) prepared students by first having
them watch videos of peer-models carrying out a task while focusing on either
a specific language feature, or the persuasiveness of the content. These groups
were given two posttests during which they performed a narrative. The lan-
guage group was more accurate (only on posttest 1), whereas the content group
produced more complex structures (on both posttests). The next two studies
expand the focus to collaborative planning. Kang and Lee (2019) studied the
effects of individual versus collaborative (i.e., paired) planning conditions.
Students first did a writing task after a set amount of unguided, individual
planning time and then performed an equivalent task after planning with a self-
selected partner. Fluency and complexity improved after collaborative planning,
during which learners mainly discussed useful words and expressions. Accuracy
was unaffected by planning condition. In contrast to studies measuring the
complexity, accuracy, and fluency of L2 production, Lee and Burch (2017)
showed that collaborative planning involves learner-relevant social processes.
Three students engaged in negotiation of their own group’s plan through various
proposals, agreements, and disagreements, while discussing a handout presenting
them with a workplan for a week-long research project. Beyond orienting them to
form or content, this required them to attend to their roles and responsibilities as
group members progressing toward the shared goal of task completion. Lastly,
Sato (2020) investigated how metacognitive instruction for collaborative inter-
action (MICI) can prepare learners to reap the benefits of tasks. Learners in the
MICI group, who participated in a multistage intervention targeting collaborative
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

strategies, used more appeals, clarification requests, and comprehension checks

during task interaction and outperformed both controls and a task-only group on
a posttest measure of comprehensibility.
Preparation is a crucial stage, which must not be overlooked. The following
are some key findings from this section:

• Before monologic speaking tasks, when compared to no time, ten minutes of

pretask planning time improves fluency and complexity. Other options such
as guided planning and familiarity may improve accuracy.
• Before dialogic speaking tasks, targeted metacognitive instruction can pro-
mote learner engagement and enhance comprehensibility during spontaneous
production.
• Before group presentations, providing detailed workplans helps learners to
orient to their roles, which can facilitate work being carried out smoothly.
• Before writing tasks, having learners pair up to actively discuss their ideas
can improve their fluency and complexity, if not their accuracy.
 42 Language Teaching

Given the wide range of options, these findings are tentative conclusions which,
ideally, will be augmented by future research. Metacognitive instruction (Sato,
2020; see also Fujii, Ziegler, & Mackey, 2016) appears to be one of the most
promising avenues, particularly in foreign language settings. Planning studies
highlight learner involvement in TBLT, given the clear effects it has on improv-
ing language performance, comprehensibility, and interaction.

4.4 Interaction
Conversational interaction assists the development of L2 knowledge because it
fosters comprehension, provides feedback, and encourages output (see, e.g.,
Behney & Gass, 2021; Long, 1996; Mackey, 2007, 2012, 2020; Philp, Adams,
& Iwashita, 2013; Pica, 1994). In L2 classroom settings, particularly during pair
and group work, interaction research has focused on the negotiation of meaning,
which occurs during conversations where a listener works to repair understand-
ing of a speaker’s intended meaning by using clarification requests (what do you
mean?) or confirmation checks (you said ten-fifteen not ten-fifty, right?), or
when a speaker attempts to find out whether an utterance is understood by the
listener using a comprehension check (do you understand?). These speaker/
listener roles may be adopted by teachers or learners. Interaction research has
also examined the negotiation of form through corrective feedback provided to
learners by teachers using recasts, elicitations, or metalinguistic explanations to
follow up on erroneous L2 production. Tasks create opportunities for these
forms of interaction and studies viewing interaction as a catalyst for L2 acqui-
sition have often relied on tasks.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

For instance, important work by Keck and colleagues (2006) summarized the
results of fourteen studies that had investigated the impact that communication
tasks have on the acquisition of specific grammatical or lexical features by adult
L2 learners. The tasks used in these studies included the five types described by
Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993; see Section 1.4 of this Element), as well as
narrative/story-telling tasks incorporating interaction. In these quantitative
studies, the impact of task-based interaction was assessed using test scores.
Keck and colleagues’ meta-analytic study used standardized measures of these
scores to combine results from the entire set of primary studies. There were
clear outcomes in favor of task-based interaction. In terms of its immediate
effectiveness, the average effect when comparing task-based versus control
groups was large (d = 0.92; CI = ± 0.24). Considering the duration of these
effects, results varied according to the delay between the treatment and the test.
A short delay (eight to twenty-nine days later) yielded a large average effect
within a narrow range (d = 1.12; CI = ± 0.31). A longer delay (thirty to sixty days
 Task-Based Language Teaching 43

later) yielded a similar, large average effect, within a wider range (d = 1.18; CI =
± 0.83). That is, the observed positive effects remained large but became less
precise as time went on. This pattern could be due to the fact that fewer studies
investigated the long-term effects of task-based interaction on SLA.
Nonetheless, the findings clearly demonstrate the contribution of task-based
interaction to grammar and lexis.
Given the effectiveness of interaction, new research directions have emerged.
In terms of explanatory variables, the interactionist agenda has looked to the
unique contributions of learners, instructors, and other interlocutors
(Gurzynski-Weiss, 2017) for insight, including studies on cognitive individual
differences (see Mackey, 2020 for a review). Another recent development,
exemplified by studies using conversation analysis (e.g., Kunitz & Skogmyr
Marian, 2017; Ro, 2018) or those grounded in engagement (e.g., Baralt,
Gurzynski-Weiss, & Kim, 2016; Philp & Duchesne, 2016), is increased atten-
tion to the interplay between task-based interaction and social or psychological
processes. In light of these trends, the studies reviewed in Table 5 focused on
what learners bring to their interactions and how they experience them.
Factors such as age and proficiency make a difference in how students
interact, as do their roles. Among groups of younger (five-to-seven-year-old)
and older (eleven-to-twelve-year-old) children, Oliver, Philp, and Duchesne
(2017) found that primary students supported each other to complete a set of
information gap tasks. Several age-related differences emerged, with more
language play among the younger group and more cooperation and on-task
behavior among the older group, though task effects were also found to influ-
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

ence these outcomes. Turning to proficiency, Dao and McDonough (2017) had
adult learners do a task in mixed-level pairs. They gave either the lower- or
higher-proficiency student the role of information holder versus information
receiver. When the less proficient partner had to convey the information, pairs
engaged in more LREs, though no difference occurred in how these were
resolved. These pairs also demonstrated higher mutuality, which refers to
collaborative or expert/novice dynamics thought to be beneficial for L2 learning
(see Storch, 2002). Roles were also the focus of Le’s (2021) study, in which
university students joined an academic reading circle in a different role each
week: leader, notetaker, luminary (responsible for teaching words from the
text), or contextualizer (responsible for making connections based on the
text). Analyses showed how students used their roles to orient to performance
and problematize interactions. Suggestions for minimizing the challenges of
certain roles included simplifying or modeling the task, as well as checking to
ensure progress.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 5 Studies on interacting during tasks

Study Location Setting Learners Task(s)

Oliver, Philp, & Australia Primary school L1 various/L2 English To talk about animals, shapes, and sports
Duchesne
(2017)
Dao & Vietnam University L1 Vietnamese/L2 English To watch a video, retell the story, and cowrite it
McDonough with an original ending
(2017)
Le (2021) United States University L1 various/L2 English To discuss an academic text in groups
Aubrey (2017) Japan University L1 Japanese/L2 English To exchange information and make a decision
Nakamura, Thailand University L1 mostly Thai/L2 English To discuss and choose three buildings to add to
Phung, & campus
Reinders
(2021)
 Task-Based Language Teaching 45

Turning to sociopsychological outcomes, learner experiences of flow or

engagement appear to depend on the interactional context. Aubrey (2017)
studied flow experiences (e.g., challenge-skill balance, concentration, and
enjoyment) among Japanese learners in intracultural versus intercultural pair-
ings. The latter group, who interacted with non-Japanese international students,
consistently reported more flow-enhancing experiences and fewer flow-
inhibiting ones across a series of five communicative tasks. Lastly, Nakamura,
Phung, and Reinders (2021) investigated how choice influences interaction by
creating two versions of a task: one that gave learners predetermined options to
discuss and another that let them choose their own options to discuss with their
group. The version allowing for more choice led to greater engagement, as
measured using cognitive, behavioral, social, and emotional indices (see also
Lambert, Philp, & Nakamura, 2017).
In sum, learners influence task-based interaction in at least these ways:

• Age and maturity influence children’s social worlds and their interactions.
Tasks should be designed specifically for children in order to sustain their
interest. Younger learners engage in play and conflict more than older peers.
• Proficiency will naturally influence the amount of L2 input, feedback, and
output generated. Mixed proficiency dyads can be effective when the lower
proficiency partner is required to share information and the higher proficiency
partner must request it.
• Roles create expectations about the task which can guide performance and
lead to group management. Teachers can assist by assigning or helping
learners choose roles, modeling them, and checking that they are carried
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

out efficiently.

Also, in addition to fostering their L2 development, interacting in tasks influ-

ences learners:

• Matching learners with those from different cultural backgrounds may

increase their experience of flow, thereby creating optimal classroom
experiences.
• Giving learners choices may enhance their engagement, which encompasses
cognitive, behavioral, affective, and social dimensions of learning.

4.5 Repetition
Unlike the areas reviewed up to this point, task repetition is a relatively recent
area of empirical interest. Bygate (2018) presented the first edited collection
covering the topic. In the editor’s introductory chapter, it is pointed out that
 46 Language Teaching

a task can never be precisely repeated. There will always be at least some slight
variation in a learner’s performance owing to the fluctuating psychological and
social conditions under which it is carried out. For this reason, Larsen-Freeman
(2018) proposed replacing the term repetition with iteration, in order to better
convey that the rationale for doing tasks again is, indeed, to promote change and
L2 development, rather than to have learners reproduce their speech or writing
verbatim.
Bygate (2018) also helpfully summarized early research on task repetition,
drawing three conclusions from a spate of studies that began in the early 1990s.
Specifically, all studies had found some significant differences based on repeat-
ing tasks. It was found that these effects occurred regardless of age or profi-
ciency. And it was not possible to predict which of three dimensions of L2
production (complexity, accuracy, or fluency) would mainly be affected by
repetition. There is thus an ongoing need for research into this key area of
TBLT, which can have practical implications. To illustrate how much ground
there is to cover, Bygate also identified various types of partial repetition
occurring in educational contexts: tasks can hold some feature (such as the
design or material) constant, but vary in terms of the interlocutor, the arrange-
ment of the material, the number of contents, the response, or the mode, and so
forth. For example, a map gap task can be redone with students navigating
different routes or locations, addressing different partners, using maps of the
same location at a different scale, adding obstacles to the path, or reducing the
time allowed, and so on. The studies summarized in Table 6 were recent
attempts to address the panoply of ways that tasks can be repeated.
The first two studies in Table 6 used monologic tasks. Ahmadian and Tavakoli
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

(2011) compared four conditions based on planning type (careful vs. pressured)
and repetition (with vs. without). In the repetition conditions, the task was
repeated after one week. It was found that careful planning in combination
with repetition led to improved performance on measures of complexity, accur-
acy, and fluency. Thai and Boers (2016) compared learners who repeated
monologues in a constant time group (2/2/2 minutes) with a shrinking time
group (3/2/1 minutes). Despite the popularity of 3/2/1-type activities among
practitioners, this study revealed that although the shrinking time condition
benefitted fluency, it also seemed to inhibit planning to enhance complexity
and accuracy, which was evident under the constant time condition. The remain-
ing three studies used interactive tasks. Kim and Tracy-Ventura (2013) looked at
the differences between exact repetition (same procedure, same content) and
procedural repetition (same procedure, new content). Based on three iterations
spanning one week, they reported few significant differences between these
groups on measures of complexity, fluency, and accuracy. Procedural repeaters
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 6 Studies on repeating tasks

Study Location Setting Learners Task(s)

Ahmadian & Tavakoli Iran English language center L1 Persian/L2 English To watch a short film and give
(2011) a narration of the story
Thai & Boers (2016) Vietnam High school L1 Vietnamese/L2 To talk about one’s favorite movie
English
Kim & Tracy-Ventura South Korea Junior high school L1 Korean/L2 English To discuss hosting an American
(2013) friend, etc.
Azkarai & García Mayo Spain Primary school L1 Spanish/L2 English To spot picture differences with
(2017) a partner
Kobayashi & Kobayashi Japan University L1 Japanese/L2 English To present and discuss a self-
(2018) created poster on a current topic
 48 Language Teaching

did, however, outperform exact repeaters on measures of syntactic complexity,

and both groups improved their use of the simple past tense. Next, Azkarai and
García Mayo (2017) investigated the two conditions of exact versus procedural
repetition among children. When the task was repeated after three months, it was
found that both groups made less use of their L1, and that its function shifted
from phatic communication to coping with knowledge gaps. Repetition in
Kobayashi and Kobayashi’s (2018) study was operationalized as a poster carou-
sel task during one lesson in which student groups presented a poster three times
to different audiences. Students were shown to make adjustments to their
subsequent performances based on backstage collaborative dialogue with other
group members, instructor assistance, and appropriation of audience questions.
To make a few observations based on the growing task repetition literature:

• Monologic task repetition can benefit fluency, and these benefits may also
extend to complexity and accuracy when careful online planning is imple-
mented, such as in constant time conditions.
• Learners should be informed of the goal of repetition (e.g., improving
multiple dimensions of speech production) so as to draw their attention to it
during subsequent iterations.
• Interactive task repetition seems to yield benefits such as increased accuracy
and decreased reliance on L1, though any differences between exact and
procedural conditions remain somewhat unclear.
• Repeating tasks with different partners or audiences can help learners focus
on their delivery and alleviate any potential boredom associated with
repetition.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

• More natural settings for repetition, such as the poster carousel task, offer
many social learning affordances.

4.6 Evaluating the Research

TBLT research in educational settings can be conducted with an emphasis
on task design or task implementation. If we remain open to both these
possibilities, tasks appear to offer teachers both stability (complexity,
mode) and flexibility (preparation, interaction, repetition). As stated at
the beginning of the section, an interesting and enduring question for
debate is whether the learning potential of tasks arises more from their
fixed, abstract properties or from their varying, concrete particulars.
Evidence from meta-analytic reviews shows that both contribute positively
to learning outcomes, but currently reveals stronger effects for negotiated
interaction than for task complexity (compare Keck et al., 2006 and
 Task-Based Language Teaching 49

Jackson & Suethanapornkul, 2013), though it is premature to draw firm

conclusions. Among the nuances to consider is the fact that complex tasks
generate more interaction in the form of LREs (Révész, 2011; Kim, 2012
Kim & Taguchi, 2015). One can easily argue in favor of both efficient
design and engaging implementation.
This review targeted recent studies on tasks in practice. Thus, these studies
can be evaluated in terms of how well they meet the three criteria for establish-
ing a researched pedagogy put forth by Samuda, Bygate, and Van den Branden
(2018). These were directionality (from the classroom to language pedagogy),
transparency (contextualization of task purpose/use in the actual educational
setting), and relevance (to teaching in the form of pedagogic implications).
First, concerning their directionality, the studies were conducted in schools,
often in classrooms, with learners collaborating alongside peers on tasks suited
to their needs and interests. However, this selective review shows a slight bias
toward university settings (fourteen of twenty-five studies, or 56 percent). It
also reflects the predominance of English as a target language, despite some
noteworthy exceptions (Kuiken & Vedder, 2011; Solon, Long, & Gurzynski-
Weiss, 2017; Van de Guchte et al., 2019; see also Section 3 of this Element).
From a classroom perspective, whether students speak various L1s or the same
L1 is important. These conditions were represented by six versus nineteen of the
studies reviewed, respectively. This is clear evidence that TBLT has been
successfully adopted in same-L1, foreign language classrooms (Shehadeh &
Coombe, 2012).
Second, regarding the issue of transparency, in each study, the task purpose
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

was carefully described (see Tables 2–6). The authors did not merely theorize
and specify workplans. They also discussed excerpts of learner production or
interaction, highlighting the nature of the task-in-process. Nonetheless, it could
also be argued that space limitations imposed by academic journals may, at
times, discourage authors from offering detailed descriptions of the links
between learner’s needs, the tasks they research, and the wider curriculum
context. Furthermore, the value of TBLT sometimes seems in danger of being
obscured by technical discourse, which these studies contained.
Third, as for relevance, in many instances, the studies generated knowledge
relevant to understanding teaching. They show that the research often targets
areas of potentially overlapping interest to teachers and researchers (Spada,
2022). For instance, based on the bulleted summaries in each subsection in
Section 4, instructors could develop ideas about how to plan sequences of tasks,
guide performance using different modes, support learner preparation, match
students for group and pair work, or repeat tasks. The work summarized offers
practical insight drawn from a range of geographic locations and educational
 50 Language Teaching

settings, with a focus on the needs of adult, and to a lesser extent, child L2
learners.
Thanks to an increasingly active research community, it is even truer now
than when first asserted that “TBLT is the closest thing to a researched language
pedagogy that exists” (Long, 2015, p. 343). Nevertheless, there is no guarantee
that research on tasks will always be understandable and meaningful to educa-
tors. Furthermore, for all the information it provides, in the classroom, a thriving
literature is no substitute for teacher expertise, gained through personal encoun-
ters with target and pedagogic tasks. TBLT research seems ideally positioned to
achieve its aims when it is located in schools in which teachers and researchers
are similarly invested, its realization is a process imbued with ethical values
shared by local communities, and its findings represent a dialogue about what
we want and need to know concerning language education in particular settings.
Thus, close attention has also been paid to teachers and tasks.

5 Teachers and Tasks

The relationship between teachers and tasks is another steadily emerging area of
interest and it is one of the most practical lines of TBLT research. As noted in the
previous section, tasks provide teachers with flexibility and stability. However,
one needs to be careful not to anthropomorphize tasks. In addition to the fact
that teachers introduce tasks to their students, there is a broad and long-standing
consensus that teachers play a role in fostering learner participation and guiding
attention to meaning-making during implementation (e.g., Long & Robinson,
1998; Norris, 2009; Prabhu, 1987; Samuda, 2001; Willis, 1996; see Section 2.4
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

of this Element). More recently, they are additionally recognized as being

agents of change in curricular innovation (Van den Branden, 2016; see
Section 3.2 of this Element). This section provides further coverage of studies
into teachers’ experiences with understanding, preparing for, and doing TBLT.

5.1 Teacher Perspectives

A number of studies have considered how teachers responded to the introduction
of tasks in various educational settings (e.g., McDonough & Chaikitmongkol,
2007). A study in Hong Kong revealed that, even with clear guidelines from
education authorities, teachers raised issues concerning use of the L1, classroom
management, and the amount and quality of students’ L2 production (Carless,
2004; see also Chan, 2012). This resonates with findings from New Zealand
where teachers faced with a new curriculum reported their lack of knowledge
about TBLT, concerns about its effectiveness, and worries about preparing
students for high-stakes examinations (East, 2012). Teachers in Ukrainian
 Task-Based Language Teaching 51

schools have likewise identified challenges to implementation, including com-

pulsory marking, excessive noise, and time constraints (Bogachenko & Oliver,
2020). In the face of such challenges, and without additional training, teachers
may opt for task-supported approaches that retain a strong focus on grammar and
utilize tasks for communication practice, as has been reported in the Chinese
context (Zheng & Borg, 2014; Chen & Wright, 2017). There are also reports of
teachers lacking clarity regarding the definition of tasks (Erlam, 2016; Oliver &
Bogachenko, 2018). In light of these studies, one can assume that moving from
traditional practices to the optimal use of tasks will require further preparation and
collaboration.

5.2 Teacher Preparation

A few studies have investigated whether integrating task-based principles into
university courses taken by preservice teachers might predispose them toward
the approach, with mixed results. Ogilvie and Dunn (2010) found that partici-
pants significantly improved in their disposition to TBLT from the beginning to
the end of an L2 pedagogy course, although these individuals also noted reasons
for not adopting tasks in a later practicum. Jackson (2012) illustrated how
participants in a TESOL methods course gained practical knowledge from
performing teaching tasks. However, there were no significant differences in
attitudes toward TBLT between these participants and a group of nontrainee
peers: both groups held positive attitudes. According to Chacón (2012), pro-
spective teachers reported that being asked to carry out film-oriented tasks to
improve their L2 ability gave them insight into how to use TBLT. A limitation of
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

these studies is that they did not investigate the impact of these interventions
over the long-term (but see East, in press, which presents a longer-term per-
spective on preservice teacher education and TBLT).
Research has also been undertaken with in-service teachers. These studies
highlight the diversity of approaches to preparing teachers to create and/or use
tasks. Such approaches have included short-term intensive training programs
(Bryfonski, 2021), action research done in conjunction with task-based lessons
(Zhu, 2020), courses and workshops using loop approaches wherein teachers
experience and reflect on L2 tasks themselves (Hall, 2015; Sherris et al., 2013),
exploratory practice to better understand the competencies supporting teacher-
led focus on form (Müller-Hartmann & Schocker, 2018), and government-
sponsored faculty development programs (Cozonac, 2004). In one detailed
study, Bryfonski (2021, p. 16) reported “varied success in TBLT implementa-
tion after training” among first-year teachers assigned to English-Spanish
bilingual schools in Honduras. Lessons prepared by these teachers used input
 52 Language Teaching

elaboration, but were not highly individualized. Teachers viewed their lessons
as promoting cooperative/collaborative learning, though not as providing nega-
tive feedback. In other words, these teachers partly succeeded in putting Long’s
(2015) methodological principles into practice. The author concluded by
recommending that more attention be paid to teachers’ prior experience and
more time be spent on educating teachers about principles that seem challenging
to implement.

5.3 Teacher Agency

Teacher involvement is crucial to TBLT, whether their role involves designing
or implementing tasks. Studies of these two areas are invaluable for understand-
ing teachers’ readiness to engage in TBLT. First, a seminal study by Johnson
(2003) investigated how expert versus novice materials designers went about
creating a task from a design brief. The brief specified the learners’ proficiency,
hours of instruction, and a linguistic target and asked participants to prepare an
interactive speaking lesson lasting fifteen to thirty minutes. Based on the results,
Johnson hypothesized that good task designers possess many attributes, includ-
ing visualization capacity, learner/context sensitivity, and a wide repertoire,
among others. Several other studies, as well, have probed how teachers design
and evaluate tasks for the classroom (Ellis, 2015; Erlam, 2016) as well as the
extent to which they draw upon task complexity frameworks in planning lessons
(Baralt, Harmath-de Lemos, & Werfelli, 2014). For instance, it has been found
that in spite of teachers’ positive opinions, individual and institutional factors
mediate their adoption of lessons incorporating task complexity principles
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

(Gurzynski-Weiss, 2016). Clearly, capacity, self-direction, and freedom from

constraints, which are components of teacher autonomy (Jackson, 2018), are
important in order for teachers to meaningfully act on knowledge gleaned from
task-based research.
Second, moving beyond their potential role as designers, teachers are active
agents when they use tasks. For instance, a recent study (Jackson, 2021) showed the
advantages of putting preservice teachers in charge of tasks. In this study, sixteen
participants in the teacher’s role engaged in a series of map tasks with a partner in
the student’s role. As for the benefits, first, the teacher participants noticed verbal
and nonverbal resources that facilitate task performance. Second, the use of video-
based stimulated recall methodology allowed them to see how they managed the
interactions, which were often successful. Third, the intervention encouraged the
development of professional identities by inviting participants to act, think, and
speak as teachers do (Jackson & Shirakawa, 2020). Engagement in tasks also
benefits in-service teachers, as Samuda (2015) noted. She proposed that teachers
 Task-Based Language Teaching 53

construct a series of plans, spanning their lesson plan, their dynamic or in-class
plans, and their retrospective plan, which can be used in future teaching. Based on
these studies, effective instructors possess a sophisticated communicative reper-
toire, responsiveness to contingencies arising during tasks, and a forward-looking
orientation to their role as teacher based on reflective practice. For a recent study
with teachers that sought to bridge an in-service program with classroom imple-
mentation, see Erlam and Tolosa’s (2022) work.

6 Epilogue: The Potential of TBLT

In this epilogue, three purposes for putting tasks into practice are described. The
intent is to encapsulate to a degree the transformative potential of TBLT. Past
work on it contains seeds for growth and change. The feasibility of these
rationales for using tasks will naturally vary according to the context, the
learners, and the teacher. Having thoroughly considered what tasks are and
how they are used, this section provides answers to the question of why language
educators, as key agents in its successful implementation, should continue to
invest time and effort in curricular innovation guided by TBLT.

6.1 Transforming Classroom Learning

The aim of TBLT is to transform classrooms (whether face-to-face or virtual)
into spaces full of rich, elaborated input and collaborative/cooperative inter-
action (Long, 2015). It sets out to establish a context for balanced L2 learning,
viewed here as both acquisition and participation (Ortega, 2011). In response to
the question of where the learning comes from in TBLT (Shehadeh, 2005),
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

a partial list of processes associated with learning in such settings appears in

Table 7. Apart from any explicit teaching – of questionable value because much
of what language users know cannot be taught – learning derives from what
students do in tasks, as “an active, personally conducted affair” (Dewey, 1916,
p. 320).
On one hand, to acquire an L2, adults must notice, or attend to input with
some level of awareness. Schmidt (1990, p. 149) argued that noticing plays

Table 7 Some fundamental processes in task-based classroom learning

Cognitive processes Social processes

Noticing Turn-taking
Chunking Sequence organization
Categorization Repair
Contingency learning Recipient design
 54 Language Teaching

a role in task-based settings: “incidental learning is certainly possible when task

demands focus attention on relevant features of the input.”. Once noticing has
taken place, a default implicit processing mode is assumed to operate (Long,
2015). Implicit learning ability, which involves the learning of patterns based
upon multiple, recurring instances, has a very small, yet still positive relation-
ship with L2 outcomes (Jackson & Maie, in press). According to usage-based
accounts (Ellis, Römer & O’Donnell, 2016), associative mechanisms may
further strengthen learning from noticed instances. These mechanisms include
chunking language items, which leads to fluency, categorization, which aids the
organization of linguistic units according to meaning, and learning of contin-
gencies between different units, which drive prediction during L2 use. Such
cognitive processes contribute to L2 proficiency and, therefore, task materials
designed to engage them build learners’ semantic knowledge.
On the other hand, to actively participate during tasks, learners must also
attend to social processes. Tasks, whether inside or outside of the classroom,
require cooperation among speakers to achieve a goal or aim. In settings of
conversational language use, speakers use a number of processes to manage
interaction, including turn-taking (how speakers begin and end turns appropri-
ately), sequence organization (how adjacent turns build upon one another),
repair (how speakers and listeners resolve miscommunication), and recipient
design (how speakers design their utterances for specific hearers). These
observable indicators of social interaction contribute to L2 competence
(Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2015). A fuller account of participation
across target and pedagogic tasks would go further to consider the relationships
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

between language users, the choices inherent in spoken versus written language,
and the influence of various resources, including technology, on meaning-
making. In the classroom, having learners adopt specific roles during tasks
builds their pragmatic knowledge.
Some of the processes in Table 7 were mentioned earlier (e.g., noticing,
repair), whereas others constitute areas for future study. In short, tasks transform
classrooms by creating contexts for primarily student-centered learning pro-
cesses. This consequently alters the teacher’s role, which emphasizes their
noticing (Jackson, 2021) of learners’ cognitive, behavioral, social, and emo-
tional engagement (Philp & Duchesne, 2016). Teachers in task-based settings
should try to notice and promote student involvement.

6.2 Transforming Language Programs

Whether the notion of task is expressed in technical terms (as a “unit of
analysis”, Long, 1985, p. 89), or educational terms (as a “pedagogic tool”,
 Task-Based Language Teaching 55

Samuda & Bygate, 2008, p. 60), its contribution to language programs can be
substantial (Long & Norris, 2000; Markee, 1997; Norris, 2009, 2015). At this
scale, TBLT cannot be understood without attention to complex social realities
(Byrnes, 2019). The types of questions then raised can be partly illustrated by
referring back to the curriculum framework introduced in Section 2:

1. Needs analysis – What sources and methods are used to determine needs?
How do past, present, and future students inform program developers’
understandings of relevant target tasks?
2. Task selection and sequencing – In what way(s) are pedagogic tasks organ-
ized across the curriculum and within courses? To what extent does their
arrangement promote ongoing learner development?
3. Materials development – Does the program rely on in-house or commercial
materials and are these resources task-based? Which materials may benefit
from further development?
4. Teaching – What qualifications, expertise, and support are needed for
teachers to engage in task-based instruction? How are teachers made
aware of the program’s alignment with TBLT?
5. Assessment – What roles do formative and summative assessment play?
Does the program utilize task-based language assessment and, if so, how
does it communicate its outcomes?
6. Evaluation – How, by whom, and for what purposes is each of the afore-
mentioned components evaluated? And how might evaluation improve the
program overall?
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

If TBLT is to transform language programs, then those in charge of its imple-

mentation will need to think through these and many other questions. Despite
the enormity of this undertaking, programmatic thinking is valuable because it
fosters understanding of classroom realities, longitudinal development, context-
ual factors, and, ultimately, the potential of task-based programs and their
graduates (Norris, 2015).

6.3 Transforming Societies

Recently, Crookes and Ziegler (2021) considered the compatibility between
TBLT, as a mainstream approach to language education based on SLA research,
and critical language pedagogy, which is grounded in social justice. They
pointed out several areas of potential overlap, among them the use of critical
needs analysis to uncover problematic issues in learners’ lives. Through task-
based dialogue, students can be awakened to forms of oppression including
bullying at school (Konoeda & Watanabe, 2008) and media stereotypes
 56 Language Teaching

(da Silva, 2020). The affinity between task-based and critical perspectives also
extends to teacher education, as described by Vieira (2017), whose study of two
beginning teachers revealed how tasks enabled them to promote student choice,
authentic language use, and engagement with issues, including democratic
participation. She described the use of tasks by these teachers as providing
space “between reality and ideals”, where “possibilities for transformation are
explored” (Vieira, 2017, p. 711).
Seeking to align TBLT with critical language pedagogy links it to democracy
and raises questions of when and how it might enact those principles (Crookes,
2021). From this perspective, one might ask whether a given implementation of
tasks reflects the following democratic values:

• Choice – To what extent are learners involved in decisions related to individ-

ual tasks or even the overall curriculum and its implementation? Do any
choices presented to them faithfully represent their concerns and interests?
• Equality – Does classroom discourse put teachers and all learners on equal
footing? Do materials and teaching invite discussion of inequalities due to
race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and social class?
• Solidarity – Do teachers, learners, and other participants form bonds through
collaboration? Does the use of tasks promote intercultural awareness and
acceptance?

Successful TBLT might address needs less fundamental than those expressed
above. Nonetheless, unlike some language teaching approaches, TBLT can
nurture an environment conducive to them, if carried out with an understanding
of – and a commitment to – its learner-centered and communicative nature. By
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

reshaping classrooms to promote balanced L2 development and reorienting

programs to major challenges in the real world, TBLT may ultimately contribute
to empowering students and transforming society for the better.
 Appendix: Discussion Questions
1. A jigsaw puzzle can be done by one person whereas a jigsaw task cannot.
State in your own words why this is so and give an example of any task type
in Section 1.4.
2. Which of the six curricular components in Section 2 seems the most and
least challenging to develop? Give reasons for your answers.
3. What social or cultural factors might arise when seeking to implement tasks?
Start by listing any of those mentioned in Section 3, then add your own ideas.
4. Does the effectiveness of pedagogic tasks depend mostly on careful design
or skillful implementation? Support your answer with evidence from
Section 4.
5. In light of Section 5, what knowledge, skills, and attitudes might help
teachers put tasks into practice?
6. Describe one problematic issue faced by society. How might critical TBLT
(Section 6.3) help to raise learners’ awareness of this issue?
7. How would you choose, design, and implement a task for a group of
language learners?
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 References
Adams, R., Alwi, N. A. N. M., & Newton, J. (2015). Task complexity effects on
the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 29, 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.002.
Ahmadian, M. J., & García Mayo, M. D. P. (Eds.). (2018). Recent
Perspectives on Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of
careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and
fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research,
15(1), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383329.
Anderson, J. (2019). Deconstructing jigsaw activities. Modern English Teacher,
28(2), 35–37. www.modernenglishteacher.com/deconstructing-jigsaw-
activities
Anderson, N., & McCutcheon, N. (2019). Activities for Task-Based Learning:
Integrating a Fluency First Approach into the ELT Classroom. Stuttgart:
Delta.
Aubrey, S. (2017). Measuring flow in the EFL classroom: Learners’ perceptions
of inter- and intra-cultural task-based interactions. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3),
661–692. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.387.
Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. D. P. (2017). Task repetition effects on L1 use
in EFL child task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21(4),
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

480–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816654169.
Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (2014). Task Sequencing and Instructed
Second Language Learning. London: Bloomsbury.
Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). Engagement with the
language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement
explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In M. Sato &
S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning:
Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda (pp. 209–239). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Baralt, M., Harmath-de Lemos, S., & Werfelli, S. (2014). Teachers’ application
of the Cognition Hypothesis when lesson planning: A case study. In
M. Baralt, R. Gilabert, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task Sequencing and
Instructed Second Language Learning (pp. 179–206). London: Bloomsbury.
Behney, J., & Gass, S. (2021). Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
 References 59

Benevides, M., & Valvona, C. (2018). Widgets Inc.: A Task-Based Course in

Workplace English (2nd ed.). Tokyo: Atama-ii.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2
Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 111–125.
http://dx.doi.org/10125/25089.
Bogachenko, T., & Oliver, R. (2020). The potential use of tasks in post-Soviet
schools: Case studies from Ukraine. In C. Lambert & R. Oliver (Eds.), Using
Tasks in Second Language Teaching: Practice in Diverse Contexts (pp.
162–177). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Borro, I. (2022). Comparing the effectiveness of task-based language teaching
and presentation-practice-production on second language grammar learning.
In M. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Task-
Based Language Teaching (pp. 549–565). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Breen, M. P. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin &
E. Murphy (Eds.), Language Learning Tasks (pp. 23–46). London: Prentice
Hall.
Breen, M. P., & Littlejohn, A. (2000). The significance of negotiation. In
M. P. Breen & A. Littlejohn (Eds.), Classroom Decision-Making:
Negotiation and Process Syllabuses in Practice (pp. 5–38). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brindley, G. (1994). Task-centered language assessment in language learning:
The promise and the challenge. In N. Bird, P. Falvey, A. Tsui, D. Allison, &
A. McNeill (Eds.), Language and Learning: Papers Presented at the Annual
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

International Language in Education Conference, Hong Kong (pp. 73–94).

Hong Kong: Hong Kong Education Department.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The Elements of Language Curriculum: A Systematic
Approach to Program Development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Brown, J. D., Hudson, T., Norris, J., & Bonk, W. J. (2002). An Investigation
of Second Language Task-Based Performance Assessments. Honolulu:
University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Bryfonski, L. (2021). From task-based training to task-based instruction:
Novice language teachers’ experiences and perspectives. Language
Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211026570.
Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. H. (2019). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A
meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 603–632. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1362168817744389.
Bui, H. Y. G. (2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical
evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels.
 60 References

In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing Perspectives on Task Performance (pp.

63–93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based
language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 31, 36–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000122.
Bygate, M. (2000). Introduction. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 185–192.
https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400301.
Bygate, M. (2018). Introduction. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning Language
through Task Repetition (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate,
P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second
Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 1–20). Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited.
Byrnes, H. (2014). Linking task and writing for language development:
Evidence from a genre-based curricular approach. In H. Byrnes &
R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-Based Language Learning – Insights from and
for L2 Writing (pp. 237–263). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Byrnes, H. (2015). Linking “task” and curricular thinking. In M. Bygate (Ed.),
Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT: A Decade of Plenaries
from the International Conference (pp. 193–224). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Byrnes, H. (2019). Affirming the context of instructed SLA: The potential of
curricular thinking. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 514–532. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1362168818776666.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (2014). Task-based language learning: Insights

from and for L2 writing: An introduction. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón
(Eds.), Task-Based Language Learning – Insights from and for L2 Writing
(pp. 1–27). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H. H., & Norris, J. M. (2010). Realizing advanced foreign
language writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design,
pedagogy, assessment [Special issue]. The Modern Language Journal,
94(s1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01147.x.
Byrnes, H., Crane, C., Maxim, H. H., & Sprang, K. A. (2006). Taking text to
task: Issues and choices in curriculum construction. ITL: International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 152(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL
.152.0.2017864.
Candlin, C. N. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. N. Candlin &
D. Murphy (Eds.), Language Learning Tasks (pp. 5–22). London: Prentice
Hall.
 References 61

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

in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 639–662. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3588283.
Chacón, C. T. (2012). Task-based language teaching through film-oriented
activities in a teacher education program in Venezuela. In A. Shehadeh &
C. A. Coombe (Eds.), Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language
Contexts: Research and Implementation (pp. 241–266). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Chan, S. P. S. (2012). Qualitative differences in novice teachers’ enactment of
task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms. In
A. Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe (Eds.), Task-Based Language Teaching in
Foreign Language Contexts: Research and Implementation (pp. 187–214).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chen, Q., & Wright, C. (2017). Contextualization and authenticity in TBLT:
Voices from Chinese classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 21(4),
517–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816639985.
Chow, A., & Li, B. (2008). Task-based assessment. In A. Ma (Ed.), A Practical
Guide to a Task-Based Curriculum: Planning, Grammar Teaching, and
Assessment (pp. 101–178). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.
Cozonac, K. (2004). It’s all in the team: Approaches to teacher development in
a content-based, task-based EFL program. In B. L. Leaver & J. R. Willis
(Eds.), Task-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education: Practices
and Programs (pp. 280–295). Washington, DC: Georgetown.
Crookes, G. V. (2021). Critical language pedagogy: An introduction to prin-
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

ciples and values. ELT Journal, 75(3), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/

ccab020.
Crookes, G. V., & Ziegler, N. (2021). Critical language pedagogy and
task-based language teaching: Reciprocal relationship and mutual benefit.
Education Sciences, 11(6), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060254.
da Silva, L. (2020). Critical tasks in action: The role of the teacher in the imple-
mentation of tasks designed from a critical perspective. Ilha do Desterro, 73(1),
109–127. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2020v73n1p109.
Dao, P., & McDonough, K. (2017). The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL
learners’ collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System, 65, 15–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.012.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. Mineola: Dover.
Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In
P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language
Learning (pp. 137–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 62 References

Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments

for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology,
7(3), 50–80. http://dx.doi.org/10125/25214.
Duff, P. A. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In
R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language
Acquisition (pp. 147–181). Rowley: Newbury House.
East, M. (2012). Task-Based Language Teaching from the Teachers’
Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
East, M. (2021). Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching.
New York: Routledge.
East, M. (In press). Mediating Innovation through Language Teacher
Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-Based Approaches
to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus
Investigations of Construction Grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In
R. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language (pp.
3–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2015). Teachers evaluating tasks. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and
Directions in the Development of TBLT: A Decade of Plenaries from the
International Conference (pp. 247–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2018). Reflections on Task-Based Language Teaching. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019). Task-Based
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Language Teaching: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Erlam, R. (2016). “I’m still not sure what a task is”: Teachers designing
language tasks. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 279–299. https://doi
.org/10.1177/1362168814566087.
Erlam, R., & Tolosa, C. (2022). Pedagogical Realities of Implementing Task-
Based Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fujii, A., Ziegler, N., & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive
instruction in the EFL classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer
Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical Potential and
Research Agenda (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
González-Lloret, M. (2014). The need for needs analysis in technology-
mediated TBLT. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-
Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks (pp. 23–50).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 References 63

González-Lloret, M. (2016). A Practical Guide to Integrating Technology into

Task-Based Language Teaching. Washington, DC: Georgetown.
González-Lloret, M., & Nielson, K. B. (2015). Evaluating TBLT: The case of a
task-based Spanish program. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 525–549.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541745.
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.) (2014a). Technology-Mediated TBLT:
Researching Technology and Tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (2014b). Towards technology-mediated
TBLT: An introduction. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.),
Technology-Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks (pp.
1–21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hall, S. J. (2015). Gaining acceptance of task-based teaching during Malaysian
rural in-service teacher training. In Thomas, M. & Reinders, H. (Eds.),
Contemporary Task-Based Teaching in Asia (pp. 156–169). London:
Bloomsbury.
Harris, J., & Leeming, P. (2018). On Task 1. Tokyo: ABAX ELT Publishers.
Hill, Y. Z., & Tschudi, S. L. (2011). Exploring task-based curriculum develop-
ment in a blended-learning conversational Chinese program. International
Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 2(1), 19–36. https://
doi.org/10.4018/jvple.2011010102.
Gilabert, R., & Barón, J. (2018). Independently measuring cognitive complex-
ity in task design for interlanguage pragmatics development. In N. Taguchi &
Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing
Pragmatics (pp. 159–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Gilabert, R., Manchón, R., & Vasylets, O. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical
TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 36, 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000112.
Gokool, R., & Visser, M. (2021). IsiZulu task-based syllabus for medical
students: Grading and sequencing doctor-patient communication tasks.
South African Journal of African Languages, 41(2), 149–159. https://doi
.org/10.1080/02572117.2021.1948214.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2016). Spanish instructors’ operationalization of task com-
plexity and task sequencing in foreign language lessons. The Language Learning
Journal, 44(4), 467–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1015151.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2017). L2 instructor individual characteristics. In
S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Instructed
Second Language Acquisition (pp. 451–467). New York: Routledge.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2021). Let’s talk tasks: A conversation between task-
based researchers, language teachers, and teacher trainers. TASK, 1(1),
138–149. https://doi.org/10.1075/task.00012.gur.
 64 References

Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & IATBLT (n.d.). The TBLT Language Learning Task
Bank. https://tblt.indiana.edu
Jackson, D. O. (2011). Convergent and divergent computer-mediated commu-
nication tasks in an English for academic purposes course. TESL-EJ, 15(3),
1–18. http://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej59/a1.pdf.
Jackson, D. O. (2012). Task-based language teacher education in an under-
graduate program in Japan. In A. Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe (Eds.), Task-
Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts: Research and
Implementation (pp. 267–285). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jackson, D. O. (2018). Teacher autonomy. In J. Liontas & M. DelliCarpini
(Eds.), TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–6).
Hoboken: Wiley.
Jackson, D. O. (2021). Language Teacher Noticing in Tasks. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Jackson, D. O., & Burch, A. R. (2017). Complementary theoretical perspectives
on task-based classroom realities. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 493–506. https://
doi.org/10.1002/tesq.393.
Jackson, D. O., & Maie, R. (In press). Implicit statistical learning and second
language outcomes: A Bayesian meta-analysis. In Z. E. Wen, P. Skehan, &
R. Sparks (Eds.), Language Aptitude Theory and Practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, D. O., & Shirakawa, T. (2020). Identity, noticing, and emotion among
pre-service English language teachers. In B. Yazan & K. Lindahl (Eds.),
Language Teacher Identity in TESOL: Teacher Education and Practice as
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Identity Work (pp. 197–212). New York: Routledge.

Jackson, D. O., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The Cognition Hypothesis:
A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task
complexity. Language Learning, 63(2), 330–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/
lang.12008.
Johnson, K. (2003). Designing Language Teaching Tasks. New York: Palgrave.
Johnson, M. D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic
complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis
and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13–38. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001.
Kang, S., & Lee, J. H. (2019). Are two heads always better than one? The effects
of collaborative planning on L2 writing in relation to task complexity.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jslw.2019.08.001.
Kato, Y., Matsumura, M., Wicking, P., et al. (2020). Komyunikēshon tasuku no
aidea to materiaru: Kyōshitsu to sekai o tsunagu eigo jugyō no tame ni [Ideas
 References 65

and Materials for Communication through Tasks: Connecting the English

Language Classroom with the Real World]. Tokyo: Sanshusha.
Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006).
Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisi-
tion: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing
Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL
learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
34(4), 627–658. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000368.
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in
EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. The Modern Language
Journal, 99(4), 656–677. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12273.
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 perform-
ance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction?
System, 41(3), 829–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005.
Kobayashi, E., & Kobayashi, M. (2018). Second language learning through
repeated engagement in a poster presentation task. In M. Bygate (Ed.),
Learning Language through Task Repetition (pp. 223–254). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Konoeda, K., & Watanabe, Y. (2008). Task-based critical pedagogy in Japanese
EFL classrooms: Rationale, principles, and examples. In M. Mantero,
P. C. Miller, & J. L. Watzke (Eds.), Readings in Language Studies:
Language across Disciplinary Boundaries (pp. 45–72). St. Louis:
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

International Society for Language Studies.

Kormos, J. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance: An investi-
gation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks. In H. Byrnes
& R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-Based Language Learning – Insights from
and for L2 Writing (pp. 193–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in
L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In P. Robinson (Ed.), x Task
Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning
and Performance (pp. 91–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kunitz, S., & Skogmyr Marian, K. (2017). Tracking immanent language learn-
ing behavior over time in task-based classroom work. TESOL Quarterly,
51(3), 507–535. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.389.
Lambert, C., Philp, J., & Nakamura, S. (2017). Learner-generated content and
engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching
Research, 21(6), 665–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816683559.
 66 References

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2018). Task repetition or task iteration? It does make

a difference. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning Language through Task
Repetition (pp. 311–329). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Le, H. T. (2021). Exploring L2 learners’ task-related identities in a reading
circle task through conversation analysis. Canadian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 24(2), 128–155. https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.31343.
Lee, J., & Burch, A. R. (2017). Collaborative planning in process: An ethno-
methodological perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 536–575. https://doi
.org/10.1002/tesq.386.
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based method-
ology. In S. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and Language Learning:
Integrating Theory and Practice (pp. 123–167). Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-
based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.),
Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition (pp. 77–99).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (Ed.). (2005). Second Language Needs Analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H. (2015). Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language
Teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Long, M. H., & Ahmadian, M. J. (2022). Preface: The origins and growth of
task-based language teaching. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The
Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching (pp. xxv–xxxii).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus
design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587368.
Long, M. H., & Norris, J. M. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In
M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and
Learning (pp. 597–603). London: Routledge.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and
practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom
Second Language Acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mackey, A. (Ed.). (2007). Conversational Interaction in Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 References 67

Mackey, A. (2012). Input, Interaction, and Corrective Feedback in L2

Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A. (2020). Interaction, Feedback and Task Research in Second Language
Learning: Methods and Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malicka, A. (2014). The role of task sequencing in monologic oral production.
In M. Baralt, R. Gilabert, & Robinson, P. (Eds.), Task Sequencing and
Instructed Second Language Learning (pp. 71–93). London: Bloomsbury.
Malicka, A., Gilabert Guerrero, R., & Norris, J. M. (2019). From needs analysis to
task design: Insights from an English for specific purposes context. Language
Teaching Research, 23(1), 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817714278.
Markee, N. (1997). Managing Curricular Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
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: A Decade of Plenaries from the
International Conference (pp. 225–246). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reac-
tions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1),
107–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00042.x.
Michel, M. C. (2011). Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 per-
formance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second Language Task Complexity:
Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and
Performance (pp. 141–173). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning

and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 11–37. https://doi
.org/10.1177/1362168807084492.
Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker, M. (2018). The challenges of integrating
focus on form within tasks: Findings from a classroom research project in
secondary EFL classrooms. In V. Samuda, K. Van den Branden, & M. Bygate
(Eds.), TBLT as a Researched Pedagogy (pp. 97–129). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker-von Ditfurth. M. (2011). Teaching English:
Task-Supported Language Learning. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Nakamura, S., Phung, L., & Reinders, H. (2021). The effect of learner choice on
L2 task engagement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(2),
428–441. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226312000042X.
Newton, J. (2022). The adoption of task-based language teaching in diverse
contexts: Challenges and opportunities. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long
 68 References

(Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching (pp.

639–670). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Newton, J., & Bui, T. (2018). Teaching with tasks in primary school EFL
classrooms in Vietnam. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. D. P. García Mayo (Eds.),
Recent Perspectives on Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching (pp.
259–278). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. H. Long &
C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 578–594).
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Norris, J. M. (2015). Thinking and acting programmatically in task-based
language teaching. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and Directions in the
Development of TBLT: A Decade of Plenaries from the International
Conference (pp. 27–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Norris, J. M. (2016). Current uses for task-based language assessment.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0267190516000027.
Norris, J. M., & Davis, J. M. (2022). Evaluating task-based language programs.
In M. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Task-
Based Language Teaching (pp. 529–548). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Norris, J. M., & East, M. (2022). Task-based language assessment. In
M. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Task-
Based Language Teaching (pp. 507–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T., & Yoshioka, J. (1998). Designing
Second Language Performance Assessments. Honolulu: University of
Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ogilvie, G., & Dunn, W. (2010). Taking teacher education to task: Exploring the
role of teacher education in promoting the utilization of task-based language
teaching. Language Teaching Research, 14(2), 161–181. https://doi.org/10
.1177/1362168809353875.
Oliver, R. (2020). Developing authentic tasks for the workplace using needs
analysis: A case study of Australian Aboriginal vocational students. In
C. Lambert & R. Oliver (Eds.), Using Tasks in Second Language Teaching:
Practice in Diverse Contexts (pp. 146–61). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Oliver, R., & Bogachenko, T. (2018). Teacher perceptions and use of tasks in
school ESL classrooms. In V. Samuda, K. Van den Branden, & M. Bygate
 References 69

(Eds.), TBLT as a Researched Pedagogy (pp. 71–95). Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.
Oliver, R., Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2017). Children working it out together:
A comparison of younger and older learners collaborating in task-based
interaction. System, 69, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.08.001.
Ortega, L. (2007). Meaningful L2 practice in foreign language classrooms:
A cognitive-interactionist SLA perspective. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.),
Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and
Cognitive Psychology (pp. 180–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ortega, L. (2011). SLA after the social turn: Where cognitivism and its alterna-
tives stand. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative Approaches to Second
Language Acquisition (pp. 167–180). Hoboken: Routledge.
Park, M. (2015). A needs analysis for a Korean middle school EFL general
English curriculum. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Contemporary
Task-Based Language Teaching in Asia (pp. 261–278). London: Bloomsbury.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2
interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence
organization, repair organization, and preference organization. In
T. Cadierno. & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-Based Perspectives on
Second Language Learning (pp. 233–268). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language
classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0267190515000094.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2013). Peer Interaction and Second
Language Learning. New York: Routledge.
Phung, L., Nakamura, S., & Reinders, H. (2021). The effect of choice on
affective engagement: Implications for task design. In P. Hiver, A. H. Al-
Hoorie, & S. Mercer (Eds.), Student Engagement in the Language Classroom
(pp. 163–181). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about
second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language
Learning, 44(3), 493–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication
tasks for second language instruction and research. In S. Crookes &
S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and
Practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pica, T., Kang, H. S., & Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: Their
multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology.
 70 References

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 301–338. https://doi.org/10

.1017/S027226310606013X.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual
differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95,
162–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241.x.
Riestenberg, K. J., & Manzano, R. E. C. (2019). Teaching task-based writing in
Zapotec in Oaxaca, Mexico. In A. Sherris & J. K. Peyton (Eds.), Teaching
Writing to Children in Indigenous Languages: Instructional Practices from
Global Contexts (pp. 126–142). New York: Routledge.
Riestenberg, K., & Sherris, A. (2018). Task-based teaching of indigenous
languages: Investment and methodological principles in Macuiltianguis
Zapotec and Salish Qlispe revitalization. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 74(3), 434–459. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.4051.
Ro, E. (2018). Facilitating an L2 book club: A conversation-analytic study of
task management. The Modern Language Journal, 102(1), 181–198. https://
doi.org/10.1111/modl.12450.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design:
A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson
(Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 287–318).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In
M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

(pp. 7–26). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2011a). Second Language Task Complexity: Researching
the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2011b). 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: John
Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands,
and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Bygate (Ed.),
Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT: A Decade of Plenaries
from the International Conference (pp. 87–121). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2022). The Cognition Hypothesis, the Triadic Componential
Framework and the SSARC model. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long
 References 71

(Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching (pp.

205–225). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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: Pearson.
Samuda, V. (2015). Tasks, design and the architecture of pedagogical spaces. In
M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT:
A Decade of Plenaries from the International Conference (pp. 271–302).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in Second Language Learning.
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Samuda, V., Bygate, M., & Van den Branden, K. (2018). Introduction: Towards
a researched pedagogy for TBLT. In V. Samuda, K. Van den Branden, &
M. Bygate (Eds.), TBLT as a Researched Pedagogy (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Sasayama, S., & Norris, J. (2019). Unravelling cognitive task complexity:
Learning from learners’ perspectives on task characteristics and second
language performance. In Z. E. Wen & M. J. Ahmadian (Eds.),
Researching L2 Task Performance and Performance: In Honour of Peter
Skehan (pp. 95–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sasayama, S., Malicka, A., & Norris, J. (in press). Cognitive Task Complexity:
A Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sato, M. (2020). Metacognitive instruction for collaborative interaction: The
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

process and product of self-regulated learning in the Chilean EFL context. In

C. Lambert & R. Oliver (Eds.), Using Tasks in Second Language Teaching:
Practice in Diverse Contexts (pp. 215–236). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.
Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11
.2.129.
Seedhouse, P. (Ed.) (2017). Task-Based Language Learning in a Real-World
Digital Environment: The European Digital Kitchen. London: Bloomsbury.
Serafini, E. J. (2022). Adapting and advancing task-based needs analysis meth-
odology across diverse language learning contexts. In M. J. Ahmadian &
M. H. Long (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language
Teaching (pp. 73–98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shehadeh, A. (2005). Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and
applications. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers Exploring Tasks in
English Language Teaching (pp. 13–30). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
 72 References

Shehadeh, A., & Coombe, C. A. (Eds.) (2010). Applications of Task-Based

Learning in TESOL. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Shehadeh, A., & Coombe, C. A. (Eds.) (2012). Task-Based Language Teaching
in Foreign Language Contexts: Research and Implementation. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Sherris, A., Pete, T., Thompson, L. E., & Haynes, E. F. (2013). Task-based
language teaching practices that support Salish language revitalization. In
Jones, M. C. & S. Ogilvie (Eds.), Keeping Languages Alive: Documentation,
Pedagogy, and Revitalization (pp. 155–168). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-Based Tasks in Foreign Language Instruction for
Young Learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.
Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2018). Second Language Task-Based Performance: Theory,
Research, Assessment. New York: Routledge.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis in task-
based performance: A synthesis of the Ealing research. In A. Housen,
F. Kuiken, F., & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and
Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in SLA (pp. 199–220).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Solon, M., Long, A. Y., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2017). Task complexity,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

language-related episodes, and production of L2 Spanish vowels. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 347–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0272263116000425.
Spada, N. (2022). Reflecting on task-based language teaching from an
Instructed SLA perspective. Language Teaching, 55(1) 74–86. https://doi
.org/10.1017/S0261444821000161.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning,
52(1), 119–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179.
Tavakoli, P. (2014). Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing
and speaking tasks. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-Based
Language Learning – Insights from and for L2 Writing (pp. 217–236).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thai, C., & Boers, F. (2016). Repeating a monologue under increasing time
pressure: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly,
50(2), 369–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.232.
 References 73

Thomas, M., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). (2010). Task-Based Language Learning

and Teaching with Technology. London: Bloomsbury.
Toker, Ș., & Sağıç, A. (2022). A task-based language needs analysis of Syrian
refugee parents in Turkey. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The
Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching (pp. 109–120).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van de Guchte, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., & Bimmel, P. (2019). Focus
on language versus content in the pre-task: Effects of guided peer-video
model observations on task performance. Language Teaching Research,
23(3), 310–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817735543.
Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006a). Task-Based Language Education: From
Theory to Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Branden, K. (2006b). Training teachers: Task-based as well? In K. Van
den Branden (Ed.), Task-Based Language Education: From Theory to
Practice (pp. 217–248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Branden, K. (2015). Task-based language education: From theory to
practice. . . and back again. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and Directions in
the Development of TBLT: A Decade of Plenaries from the International
Conference (pp. 303–320). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van den Branden, K. (2016). The role of teachers in task-based language
education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 164–181. https://doi
.org/10.1017/S0267190515000070.
Van den Branden, K. (2022). How to Teach an Additional Language: To Task or
Not to Task? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Van den Branden, K., & Van Gorp, K. (2021). Implementing task-based lan-
guage education in primary education: Lessons learnt from the Flemish
experience. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 3(1), 3–27. https://doi
.org/10.1075/ltyl.20013.bra.
Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., & Verhelst, M. (2007). Tasks in Action:
Task-Based Language Education from a Classroom-Based Perspective.
Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
Vandommele, G., Van den Branden, K., & Van Gorp, K. (2018). Task-based
language teaching: How task-based is it really? In V. Samuda, K. Van
den Branden, & M. Bygate (Eds.), TBLT as a Researched Pedagogy
(pp. 165–97). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchón, R. M. (2017). The effects of mode and
task complexity on second language production. Language Learning, 67(2),
394–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12228.
Vieira, F. (2017). Task-based instruction for autonomy: Connections with
contexts of practice, conceptions of teaching, and professional development
 74 References

strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 693–715. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq

.384.
Weaver, C. (2012). Incorporating a formative assessment cycle into task-based
language teaching in a university setting in Japan. In A. Shehadeh &
C. A. Coombe (Eds.), Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language
Contexts: Research and Implementation (pp. 287–312). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing Task-Based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow: Longman.
Youn, S. J. (2018). Task design and validity evidence for assessment of L2
pragmatics in interaction. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based
Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics (pp. 217–246).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yule, G. (1997). Referential Communication Tasks. New York: Routledge.
Zheng, X., & Borg, S. (2014). Task-based learning and teaching in China:
Secondary school teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching
Research, 18(2), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813505941.
Zhu, Y. (2020). Implementing tasks in young learners’ language classrooms:
A collaborative teacher education initiative through task evaluation.
Language Teaching Research, 26(3), 530–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1362168819894706.
Ziegler, N., & Phung, H. (2019). Technology-mediated task-based interaction:
The role of modality. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

170(2), 251–276. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19014.zie.

 Acknowledgements
This Element owes its existence to a number of excellent mentors who intro-
duced me to TBLT and encouraged my involvement, including Graham
Crookes, Marta González-Lloret, John Norris, Lourdes Ortega, Teresa Pica,
and Peter Robinson. Several collaborators also deserve thanks for broadening
my perspective on task-based teaching and learning, including Rue Burch,
Minyoung Cho, Ryo Maie, Tomoya Shirakawa, and Sakol Suethanapornkul.
I would also like to acknowledge the International Association for Task-Based
Language Teaching for its ongoing efforts to promote and publicize research in
this area. Kanda University of International Studies has provided financial
assistance for my research and I appreciate, as well, the practical insights shared
by those who have joined my classes and workshops on task-based teaching.
This work has benefitted greatly from the expertise of the series editors and two
anonymous reviewers. Lastly, I am grateful to my father (a teacher and former
education writer for the New York Times) for inspiring me, and to my entire
family for their love and support.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Elements in Language Teaching

Heath Rose
Linacre College, University of Oxford
Heath Rose is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Oxford. At
Oxford, he is course director of the MSc in Applied Linguistics for Language Teaching.
Before moving into academia, Heath worked as a language teacher in Australia and Japan in
both school and university contexts. He is author of numerous books, such as Introducing
Global Englishes, The Japanese Writing System, Data Collection Research Methods in Applied
Linguistics, and Global Englishes for Language Teaching. Heath’s research interests are firmly
situated within the field of second language teaching, and includes work on Global
Englishes, teaching English as an international language, and English Medium Instruction.

Jim McKinley
University College London
Jim McKinley is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics and TESOL at UCL, Institute of
Education, where he serves as Academic Head of Learning and Teaching. His major research
areas are second language writing in global contexts, the internationalisation of higher
education, and the relationship between teaching and research. Jim has edited or authored
numerous books including the Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Applied
Linguistics, Data Collection Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, and Doing Research in
Applied Linguistics. He is also an editor of the journal System. Before moving into academia,
Jim taught in a range of diverse contexts including the US, Australia, Japan, and Uganda.

Advisory Board
Brian Paltridge, University of Sydney
Gary Barkhuizen, University of Auckland
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Marta Gonzalez-Lloret, University of Hawaii

Li Wei, UCL Institute of Education
Victoria Murphy, University of Oxford
Diane Pecorari, City University of Hong Kong
Christa Van der Walt, Stellenbosch University

About the Series

This Elements series aims to close the gap between researchers and practitioners by
allying research with language teaching practices, in its exploration of research
informed teaching, and teaching informed research. The series builds upon a rich
history of pedagogical research in its exploration of new insights within the field of
language teaching.
 Elements in Language Teaching

Elements in the series

Language Teacher Educator Identity
Gary Barkhuizen
Language Teacher Agency
Jian Tao and Xuesong Gao
Pedagogical Translanguaging
Jasone Cenoz and Durk Gorter
Intercultural and Transcultural Awareness in Language Teaching
Will Baker
Technology and Language Teaching
Ursula Stickler
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching
Thomas S. C. Farrell
English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education
David Lasagabaster
Task-Based Language Teaching
Daniel O. Jackson
Mediating Innovation through Language Teacher Education
Martin East

A full series listing is available at: https://www.cambridge.org/ELAT

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067973 Published online by Cambridge University Press