USING TASKS IN

LANGUAGE TEACHING

Rod Ellis
University of Auckland
Outline
1. What is a ‘task’?
2. Two ways of using tasks in language
teaching
3. Evaluating a task
4. Final comments
What is a task?
Four criteria
1. A task involves a primary focus on
meaning.
2. A task has some kind of ‘gap’.
3. The participants choose the linguistic
and non-linguistic resources needed to
complete the task.
4. A task has a clearly defined
communicative outcome.
Map Task
Listen to the teacher’s description of the island.
Enter these places on the map of the island.

1. Betu
2. Songa
3. Botomless Bay
4. Mataka
5. River Ironga
6. River Ilonga
7. Iluba Mts.
 Iluba Mts.

River River
Ironga Ilonga

Betu


Botomless Bay
Songa

Mataka

Comparing a task and an exercise
A task An exercise
1. Primary focus on trying 1. Primary focus on using
to communicate language correctly
2. There is a gap 2. There is no gap
3. Learners use own 3. Text manipulating
linguistic resources 4. Successful
4. Successful performance =
performance = accurate use of target
outcome of task feature
achieved
 Going Shopping
Look at Mary's shopping list. Then look at the list of items in Abdullah's store.

Mary's Shopping List

1. oranges Abdullah's Store
2. eggs 1. bread 7. rice
2. salt 8. sugar
3. flour 3. apples 9. curry powder
4. powdered milk 4. tins of fish 10. biscuits
5. biscuits 5. coca cola 11. powdered milk
6. flour 12. dried beans
6. jam

Work with a partner. One person is Mary and the other person is Mr.
Abdullah. Make conversations like this.
Mary: Good morning. Do you have any ____?
Abdullah: Yes, I have some./ No, I don’t have any.
What Can You Buy?
Student A:
Student B:
You are going shopping at
You own a store. Here is a list of
Student B’s store. Here is
items for sale in your store. Find
your shopping list. Put ticks
the items that Student A asks for
next to the items on your list
that you do not stock.
you can buy.
Mary's Shopping List Abdullah's Store
1. oranges 1. bread 7. rice
2. eggs 2. salt 8. sugar
3. flour 3. apples 9. curry powder
4. tins of fish 10. biscuits
4. powdered milk
5. coca cola 11. powdered milk
5. biscuits 6. flour 12. dried beans
6. jam
Types of tasks
1. Real-life tasks vs. pedagogic tasks

2. Input-based vs. output-based tasks

3. Unfocused vs. focused tasks

4. Closed vs. open tasks

5. Here-and-now vs. there-and- then

tasks
Suiting the task type to the learner
Type of learner Type of task
Beginner learners Pedagogic input-based tasks; closed; here-
and-now tasks
Intermediate learners Pedagogic input-based and output-based
tasks; some focused tasks; mixture of
pedagogic and real-life tasks; mixture of
closed/ open and here-and-now and there-
and-then tasks
Advanced learners Mainly output-based tasks; focused tasks; real-
life tasks; mainly open there-and-then tasks

Special purpose Real-life tasks – input-based and output-

learners based; closed and open tasks
Two ways of using tasks in
language teaching
Task-supported teaching
Tasks can constitute the final step in a traditional
present-practice-produce (PPP) sequence:
 A language item is first presented to the learners
by means of examples with or without an
explanation.
 This item is then practised in a controlled
manner using 'exercises'.
 Finally a ‘task’ provides opportunities for using
the item in free language production.
Skill-learning theory

Declarative knowledge

Practice

Procedural knowledge
Limitations of task-supported language teaching

1. It assumes a strong interface position (i.e. explicit

knowledge is converted into implicit knowledge).
2. Learners may not be developmentally ready to acquire
the target structure.
3. The task may result in conscious attempts to use the
target structure rather than genuine communication.
4. It results in semi-automatized explicit knowledge rather
than implicit knowledge.
5. Grammar is too complex to learn intentionally in this
way.
Task-based Teaching
In task-based language teaching, tasks serve as the
organizing principle for a course:
 The course consists of a series of tasks sequenced
according to difficulty.
 The course can consist of a mixture of focused and
unfocused tasks.
 The pre-task phase of a lesson can provide an opportunity
for direct teaching – especially of vocabulary.
 Meaning is primary but attention to form is achieved
through the way a task is designed and how it is
implemented.
Incidental acquisition
Task-based teaching caters to incidental language
acquisition – i.e. learners ‘pick up’ new language
while they are working to achieve the outcome of
the task.

In this respect it differs from task-supported

teaching which caters to intentional language
acquisition.
Incidental Acquisition

Greater Control

Focus on
Acquisition
Meaning

New language
Focus on Form
Incidental language acquisition requires that learners
pay attention to form while they are performing a task.
Teachers can facilitate attention to form in a number of
different ways:
 By highlighting features in the input of an input-
based task.
 By providing opportunities for learners to plan
before they perform a production-based task.
 Interactionally when learners experience problems
in understanding or expressing themselves clearly
or fail to use the L2 correctly.
An example of focus on form
Learner: He pass his house.
Teacher: He passed his house? (= recast)
Learner: Yeah, he passed his house.
Advantages of task-based teaching
1. Learning incidentally through communicating results in
implicit knowledge.
2. It facilitates learning through the simultaneous
development of interactional competence in the L2.
3. Students are more likely to develop intrinsic motivation
in a task-based approach.
4. A task-based approach enables teachers to see if
students are developing the ability to communicate in
an L2.
Evaluating a task
Does a task ‘work’?
This involves investigating:
 whether students enjoyed doing the task and
found it useful
 the extent to which the task results in the type
of learner behaviour that the teacher had in
mind when selecting or designing the task
 whether the task contributes to the students’
acquisition of the L2.
Approaches for the micro-evaluation of a task
Approach Evaluative criteria Data collection
Student- Motivation (‘Were the students Self-report – rating slips;
based motivated when performing the questionnaire; interviews;
task?’) post-task written commentary.

Response- Performance (‘Do the students Transcriptions of audio and

based perform the task in a manner video recordings of students
intended by the design and performing the task;
implementation of the task?’; observation check lists.
‘Are they successful in Documentary record of task
achieving the task outcome?’) outcome.
Learning- Development (‘Is there any Uptake-charts (Slimani, 1989);
based evidence that learners have pre- and post-tests;
acquired some new language or transcriptions of audio and
achieved greater control over video-recordings examined
their existing L2 resources?’ over the duration of the task.
An example of a task evaluation
Sharon Whippy’s task evaluation
The task
1. Pre-task
This was an input-based task. Students were given a
map and listened to directions. They had to draw the
routes on their map. They could request clarification if
they did not understand.
2. Main task
Students worked in pairs. Each student had the same
map but with 6 different locations marked on it. They
took turns describing the routes they took to get from one
location to the another and their partners drew in the
routes they described. They were given 15 minutes to
complete the task.
Students

11 intermediate level students from a variety of

countries.
The English Language Academy of the
University of Auckland.
Aims of the task
1. Were the students able to use their own
linguistic resources to describe the routes on
the map?
2. Were the students able to deal with
communication problems when these arose?
3. Were they able to complete the task
successfully?
4. Did the students enjoy the task and find it
useful for their learning?
Data collection
Approach Type of data
Student-based Questionnaire about different aspects
of the lesson. Completed at the end of
the lesson
Response-based 1. Audio-recordings of the students as
they performed the task;
transcriptions prepared.
2. Completed maps.
Student questionnaire
1. I think doing map direction tasks is helpful to
my learning.
2. I think working in pairs helps me to practice
my spoken English.
3. I think the way we did the task motivates me
to carry out the task.
4. I think the task was enjoyable and fun to do.
5. I think the time limit for the task encouraged
me to speak more fluently
6. I think the pre-task helped me to do the main
task.
Sample interaction (1)
S1: Ah now to say this? (pointing at traffic light symbol on
map)
S2: So go …
S1: No no no this one
S2: I don’t know
S3: I don’t know
S1: (to teacher) How to say this?
T: traffic lights
SI: traffic lights
Sample interaction (2)
S1: go south along the High Street
S2: along
S1: go south go to go to south
S2: south?
S1: south s-o-u-t-h
S2: ah yeh yey yeh yeh south
Analysis
1. Interactions analysed for evidence that
students were able to negotiate for meaning
when a communication problem arose.
2. Interactions analysed for evidence of ‘pushed
output’
3. Quantitative analysis of the students’ responses
to the questionnaire.
Results (1)
 Most of the students agreed that the task was
useful and fun
 They all found the pre-task activity helpful

 They approved of the time limit set for the task

 One student, however, was negative about the

task
Results (2)
 There was some confusion about how to complete the
task (e.g. some pairs did not draw in the routes on their
map until the teacher reminded them).
 All the pairs were able to complete the task
successfully.
 The pairs differed in the time it took them to do the task
and the number of turns they produced.
 Comprehension problems were addressed mainly by
confirmation checks.
 Students had problems with each others’ pronunciation.
 There was little evidence of ‘pushed output’.
 Some students requested assistance from the teacher.
Whippy’s conclusions
1. It was clear that the students responded to the
task in different ways.
2. Setting a time limit had little overall effect.
3. In general, though, the students demonstrated
‘staying power’.
4. The tasks did result in interactionally authentic
language use.
5. The task resulted in very short, simple turns.
Improving the task
1. Some initial vocabulary input would have
helped the students – e.g. how to pronounce
street names.
2. Giving more planning time might have resulted
in more complex language use.
3. A different discourse mode (e.g. story telling)
may be needed to elicit more complex
language.
Final Comment
Whippy commented:
It has been a huge learning process undertaking
an evaluation such as this as a teacher and as a
researcher. Through evaluating the task what
has become apparent is the myriad of factors
that influence learner language development,
from task design and implementation through to
psycho-cognitive and sociocultural elements.
Probably the most important point is the
importance of the processes a learner goes
through in acquiring an L2.
Conclusion
Final Comments
1. Instructional programme can consists of a mixture of task-
based and task-supported language teaching.
2. Tasks help students to activate their L2 knowledge in
communication (i.e. to develop interactional competence).
3. Tasks also help students to acquire new vocabulary and
grammar.
4. Using tasks in the classroom requires teachers to adopt a
different role from traditional teaching (i.e. they have to
become ‘performers’ and ‘assistants’ rather than ‘knowers’).
5. Effective use of tasks involves ensuring that they are at an
appropriate level of difficulty for the students.
6. For tasks to be effective students needs to be primarily
focused on meaning but also focus on form when the need
arises.