9 Task-Based Language Teaching Introduction Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) refers to the use of tasks as the core unit of planning and instruction in language teaching. It has been defined as “an approach to language edu- cation in which students are given functional tasks that invite them to focus primarily on meaning exchange and to use language for real-world, non-linguistic purposes” (Van den Branden 2006). Some of its proponents (e.g., Willis 1996; Willis and Willis 2007) present it as.a logical development of Communicative Language Teaching (Chapter 5) since it draws on several principles that formed part of the CLT movement from the 1980s. For example: Activities that involve real communication are essential for language learning, ‘© Activities in which language is used for carrying out meaningful tasks promote learning, # Language that is meaningful to the learner supports the learning process. ‘BLT is usually characterized as an approach, rather than a method. According to Leaver and Willis (2004: 3), “TBI [task-based instruction] is not monolithic; it does not consti- tute one single methodology. It is a multifaced approach, which can be used creatively with different syllabus types and for different purposes” Thus, it can be linked with other approaches and methods, such as content-based and text-based teaching (Leaver and Willis 2004). Proponents of TBLT contrast it with earlier grammar-focused approaches to teach- ing, such as Audiolingualism, that they characterize as “teacher-dominated, form-oriented classroom practice” (Van den Branden 2006) A key distinction can be made between curricula/syllabuses that formulate lower- level goals in terms of linguistic content (ie. elements of the linguistic system to be acquired) and curricula/syllabuses that formulate lower-level goals in terms of language use (2. the specific kinds of things that people will be able to do with the target language). Task-based curricula/syilabuses belong to the second category: they formulate operational language learning goals not so much in terms of which particular words or grammar rules the learners will need to acquire, but rather in terms of the purposes for which people are learning a language, .. the tasks that earners will need to be able to perform, (Van den Branden 2006: 3) 749 Task-Based Language Teaching 175 While in practice, some proponents of TBLT' may implement the approach only partially and combine it with more traditional classroom activities, advocates of TBLT often seek to contrast it with the Present-Practice-Production (PPP) strategy found in the situ- ational approach (see Chapter 3), as seen in the following comparison: © Unlike a PPP approach, the students are free of language control. In all three stages they must use all thelr language resources rather than just practicing one pre-selected item. '* Annatural context is developed from the students’ experiences with the language that is personalized and relevant to them. With PPP it is necessary to create con- texts in which to present the language, and sometimes they can be very unnatural ‘© The students will have a much more varied exposure to language with TBL [task- based learning]. They will be exposed to a whole range of lexical phrases, colloca- tions and patterns as well as language forms. © The language explored arises fram the students’ neads. This need dictates what will be covered in the lesson rather than a decision made by the teacher or the coursebook, Its a strong communicative approach where students spend a lot of time com- municating. PPP lessons seem very teacher-centered by comparison. Just watch how much time the students spend communicating during a task-based lesson. ‘* Itis enjoyable and motivating, (Frost 2004) ‘Two early applications of a task-based approach within a communicative framework for language teaching were the Malaysian Communicational Syllabus (1975) (see Chapter 5) and the Bangalore Project (Beretta and Davies 1985; Prabhu 1987; Beretta 1990), both of which were relatively short-lived. The focus on tasks as units of teaching and learning derives from the field of second language acquisition (SLA) (e.g, Long and Crookes 1993; Ellis 2003; Van den Branden, Bygate, and Norris 2009). An interest in tasks as potential building blocks of second language instruction emerged when researchers turned to tasks in the mid-1980s asa research tool to explore SLA. “In SLA research, tasks have been widely used as vehicles to elicit language production, interaction, negotiation of meaning, process- ing of input and focus on form, all of which are believed to foster second language acquisi- tion” (Van den Branden 2006: 3). SLA research has focused on the strategies and cognitive processes employed by second language learners. This rescarch suggested a reassessment of the role of formal grammar instruction in language teaching. There is no evidence, it is argued, that the types of grammar-focused teaching activities used in many language classrooms reflect the cognitive learning processes employed in naturalistic language learning situations outside the classroom. Engaging learners in task work provides a better context for the activation of learning processes than form-focused activities, and hence ultimately provides better opportunities for language learning to take place. Language learning is believed to depend on immersing students not merely in comprehensible176 Current approaches and methods input but in tasks that require them to negotiate meaning and engage in naturalistic and meaningful communication. As with other innovations in language teaching, advocates of BLT assume on faith that it will be more effective than the methods it replaces. In their book of case studies of TBLT, Edwards and Willis (2005: 5) compare it with the PPP meth: odology and comment: And although PPP lessons are often supplemented with skills lessons, most students taught mainly through conventional approaches such as PPP leave school unable to communicate effectively in English. This situation has prompted many ELT profession- als to take note of the findings from second language acquisition (SLA) research stud- ies [see Chapter 1] and to turn towards holistic approaches where meaning is central and where opportunities for language use abound. Task-based learning is one such approach and many of the writers in this book have moved from PPP to TBL. ‘The key assumptions of task-based instruction are summarized by Feer. (1998: 17) as, follows: ‘¢ The focus is on process rather than product, '* Basic elements are purposeful activities and tasks that emphasize communication and meaning, ¢ Learners learn language by interacting communicatively and purposefully while engaged in the activities and tasks, ‘© Activities and tasks can be either: those that learners might need to achieve in real life; those that have a pedagogical purpose specific to the classroom, ‘* Activities and tasks of a task-based syllabus are sequenced according to difficulty. ‘¢ The difficulty of a task depends on a range of factors including the previous experi- ence of the learner, the complexity of the task, the language required to undertake the task, and the degree of support available, Richards (forthcoming) also explains the interest in TBLT: Because of its links to Communicative Language Teaching methodology and support from some prominent SLA theorists, TBLT has gained considerable attention within applied linguistics. In recent years it has moved beyond research and small-scale settings and seen a number of applications in mainstream education, particularly in the Benelux countries (Van den Branden 2006). It has also been recommended as a component of the reform of language teaching in China (Wang and Lam 2009). Its success is cited in many different contexts. For example Shehadeh (2005: 14) reports: “American Government Language Institutions found that with task-based instruction and authentic materials, learners made far more rapid progress and were able to use their new foreign language in real-world circumstances with a reasonable level of efficiency after quite short courses. They were able to operate an effective meaning system, ie, to express what they wanted to say, even though their grammar and lexis were often far from perfect9 Task-Based Language Teaching 177 Richards then cites another study (Leaver and Kaplan, 2004: 61) in which the benefits of ‘TBLT were reported afer US State Department programs shifted to a task-based approach: * Greater motivation ‘© Opportunity for repetition without boredom © Greater curricular flexibility ‘* Promotion of learning how to learn ‘© An opportunity for natural error correction ‘+ Promotion of risk taking Higher proficiency results Increased student satisfaction, and better progam evaluation results, Perhaps TBLT is the long-awaited elixir of language teaching! However, Leaver reports that it is not clear whether the positive results were entirely attributable to TBLT since the programs also used a content-based approach. 'TBLT proposes the notion of “task” as a central unit of planning and teaching; hence, the concept of task needs to be clearly articulated in order to understand the nature of TBLT. Although definitions of task vary in TBLT, there is a commonsense understanding that a task is an activity or goal that is carried out using language, such as finding a solution toa puzzle, reading a map and giving directions, making a telephone call, writing a letter, or reading a set of instructions and assembling a toy. Nunan (1989: 10) offers this definition: ‘The communicative task [is] a piece of classroom work which involves learners in ‘comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form. The task should also have a sense of completeness, being able to stand alone as a communicative act in its own right. ‘Van den Branden offers a simpler definition (2006: 4): A task is an activity in which a person engages in order to attain an objective, and which necessitates the use of language. Edwards and Willis (2005: 3) offer a much fuller explanation of tasks: In carrying out a task the learners’ principal focus is on exchanging and understand- ing meanings, rather than on practice of form or prespecified forms or patterns, '* There is some kind of purpose or goal set for the task, so that learners know what they are expected to achieve by the end of the task, for example, to write a list of differences, to complete a route map or a picture, to report a solution to @ problem, to vote on the best decorated student room or the most interesting/memorable personal anecdote, ‘* The outcome of the completed task can be shared in some way with others, ‘© Tasks can involve any or all four skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing,178 _ Current approaches and methods ‘¢ The use of tasks does not preclude language-focused study at some points in a TBL [task-based learning] lesson, though a focus on specific grammar rules or pat- terns will not generally come before the task itself, as this could well detract from the real communicative purpose of the subsequent interaction, Yet despite these several attempts to pin down a definition of language learning tasks, Cook (2003) feels it necessary to observe: “the way Task has been defined in the last 20 years has been a journey of contradictions in spelling out what Task is NOT, so that the resultant defi- nition is that Task has become what it has replaced, which are exercises” Although tasks are central to TBLT, the use of tasks as a unit in curriculum plan- ning has a much older history in education, Tasks first appeared in the vocational training practices of the 1950s. Task focus here first derived from training design concerns of the military regarding new military technologies and occupational specialties of the period. Trask analysis initially focused on solo psychomotor tasks for which little communication, or collaboration was involved. In task analysis, on-the-job, largely manual tasks were trans- lated into training tasks. The process is outlined by Smith (1971: 584): ‘The operational system is analyzed from the human factors point of view, and a mission profile or flow chart is prepared to provide a basis for developing the task inventory. The task inventory (an outline of the major duties in the job and the more specific job tasks associated with each duty) Is prepared, using appropriate methods of job analy- sis. Decisions are made regarding tasks to be taught and the level of proficiency to be attained by the students. A detailed task description is prepared for those tasks to be taught. Each task is broken down into the specific acts required for its performance. The specific acts, or task elements, are reviewed to identify the knowledge and skill ‘components involved in task performance. Finally, a hierarchy of objectives is organized, A similar process is at the heart of the curriculum approach known as Competency-Based Language Teaching (see Chapter 8). CBLT training identified several key areas of concern. 1. Analysis of real-world task-use situations 2. The translation of these into teaching tasks descriptions 3. The detailed design of instructional tasks 4. ‘The sequencing of instructional tasks in classroom training/teaching, ‘These same issues remain central in current discussions of TBLT. Although studies of the kind above have focused on the nature of occupational tasks, academic tasks have also been the focus of considerable attention in general education since the early 1970s. Doyle noted that in elementary education, “the academic task is the mechanism through which the curriculum is enacted for students” (1983: 161). Academic tasks ate defined as having. four important dimensions: 1, ‘The products students are asked to produce 2. The operations they are required to use in order to produce these products9 Task-Based Language Teaching 179 3. The cognitive operations required and the resources available 4. The accountability system involved, ‘These carly definitions of tasks and the questions (and proposed answers) relating to their successful classroom implementation as well as the training required to facilitate such implementation mirror similar discussions still taking place today in relation to TBLT. In this chapter, we will outline the principles underlying TBLT and provide examples of the practices that derive from them. Approach Theory of language ‘TBLT is motivated primarily by a theory of learning rather than a theory of language. However, several assumptions about the nature of language can be said to underlie current approaches to TBLT. These are: © Language is primarily a means of making meaning. TBLT emphasizes the central role of meaning in language use. Skehan notes that in task-based instruction, “meaning is primary ... the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome” and that task-based instruction is not “concerned with language display” (1998: 98). © Language is a means of achieving real-world goals. TBLT emphasizes that developing language proficiency is not an end in itself but a means to an end, and that language teaching courses must center on the learners’ communicative needs and prepare them for relevant domains and situations of language use (Van Avermaet and Gysen 2006), © Lexical units are central in language used and language learning. In recent years, vocabu- lary has been considered to play a more central role in second language learning than was traditionally assumed. Vocabulary is here used to include the consideration of lexi- cal phrases, sentence stems, prefabricated routines, and collocations, and not only words as significant units of linguistic lexical analysis and language pedagogy. To carry out communicative tasks, a large vocabulary may be needed; therefore, TBLT and strategies for learning vocabulary are often seen as complementary, and many task-based propos- als incorporate this perspective. Skehan, for example (1996b: 21-22), comments: Although much of language teaching has operated under the assumption that lan- guage is essentially structural, with vocabulary elements slotting in to fill structural patterns, many linguists and psycholinguists have argued that native language speech processing is very frequently lexical in nature. This means that speech process- ing is based on the production and reception of whole phrase units larger than the ‘word (although analyzable by linguists into words) which do not require any internal processing when they ara “reeled off” ... Fluency concerns the learner's capacity to produce language in real time without undue pausing for hesitation. It is likely to rely upon more lexicalized modes of communication, as the pressures of real-time speech production are met only by avoiding excessive rule-based computation.180 Current approaches and methods ‘Thus Ellis (2003) recommends that TBLT courses start with a heavy vocabulary input, As summarized by Leaver and Willis (2004) Ellis (2003) argues strongly that syllabuses should begin with a communicative task-based module with an emphasis on rapid vocabulary gain, and then later, at an intermediate level, incorporate a code-based modiule. By this time learners will already have acquired a rich vocabulary along with many basic structures and patterns, © Spoken interaction is the central focus of language and the keystone of language acquisi tion. Speaking and trying to communicate with others through the spoken language drawing on the learner's available linguistic and communicative resources is considered the basis for second language acquisition in TBLT; hence, many of the tasks that are pro- posed within TBLT involve conversation or dialogic interaction based on a text or task, # Language use involves integration of skills. TBLT assumes a holistic view of language - one where language use draws on different skills being used together. Tasks in TBLT hence typically require students to use two or more skills at the same time, thus better reflecting real-world uses of language. Theory of learning TBLT shares the general assumptions about the nature of language learning underlying Communicative Language Teaching; however, it draws more centrally on SLA theory, and many of its proponents describe it from a cognitive perspective (see Chapter 2): © Language learning is determined by learner internal, rather than external, factors. Learning is promoted by activating infernal acquisition processes. Learning is not the mir- ror image of teaching but is determined by internal mental processes. Hence, meaning needs to be constructed by the learner, and the creative-construction theory of learning (Chapter 2) may be said to apply. Skehan (1996a: 18) comments: The contemporary view of language development is that learning is constrained by internal processes. Learners do not simply acquire the language to which they are exposed, however carefully that the exposure may be orchestrated by the teacher, It is not simply a matter of converting input into output. ‘The goal of teaching is to activate these processes. # Language learning is an organic process. Language learning develops gradually and learn- ers pass through several stages as they restructure their language system over time. This principle reflects SLA research and the notion of a learner's developing “interlanguage” a language system in its own right and not simply a malformed version of the native speaker's linguistic system. # A focus on form can facilitate language learning. TBLT does not preclude drawing learn- ers’ attention to form; however, grammar is not taught as an isolated feature of language but as it arises from, its role in meaningful communication. ‘This can be done through9 Task-Based Language Teaching 181 activities that involve “noticing” or “consciousness-raising” while maintaining emphasis on meaning. Such activities draw learners attention to forms they might otherwise not have noticed in the input or their output. Negotiation of meaning provides learners with opportunities for provision of compre hensible input and modified output. This draws on an interactional view of learning (see Chapter 2) that sees language development as resulting from attempts to create meaning through dialogic interaction. In the process the learner receives different forms of feedback such as confirmation checks, comprehension checks, clarifica- tion requests, repetition requests, and repetition that support learning and language development. As learners engage in communication, their output is “stretched” and they acquire new linguistic resources. Comprehensible input as well as output are needed for learning Trasks provide opportunities for learners to “notice the gap.” TBLT also draws on two principles that have had an important impact on SLA theories ~ the “noticing hypoth- esis” and “noticing the gap” Schmidt (1990) proposed that for learners to acquire new forms from input (language they hear), its necessary for them to notice such forms in the input (the noticing hypothesis). Consciousness of features of the input can serve as a trigger which activates the first stage in the process of incorporating new linguistic features into the learner's language competence. In his own study of his acquisition of Portuguese (Schmidt and Frota 1986), Schmidt found that there was a close connection between noticing features of the input and their later emergence in his own speech. Swain suggested (2000) that when learners have to make efforts to ensure that their ‘messages are communicated (pushed output), this puts them in a better position to notice the gap between their productions and those of proficient speakers, thus foster- ing second language development. This is the “notice the gap” hypothesis. Carefully structured and managed output is essential if learners are to acquire new language Managed output here refers to tasks and activities that require the use of certain target language forms, that is, which “stretch” the learner's language knowledge and that con- sequently require a “restructuring” of that knowledge. Van Gorp and Bogaert (2006 89) comment In task-based language education ... learners learn by confronting the gaps in their linguistic repertoire while performing tasks and being interactionally sup- ported ... In fact, for each individual pupil who Is performing a task, the actual “gap” will probably be different. This implies that each learner will run into dif- ferent difficulties when dealing with the same task and, consequently, may learn Gifferent things. Interaction and communication through tasks provides opportunities for scaffolded learn ing. This refers to the sociocultural perspective on learning (see Chapter 2). The social activities in which the learner participates support learning through a process in which a knower guides and supports the learning of the other, providing a kind of scaffold182 _ Current approaches and methods In order for the experienced knower to communicate with the learner, a process of mediation occurs. Learning is a process of participation mediated through the guid- ance of a more knowledgeable other. Through repeated participation in a variety of joint activities, the novice gradually develops new knowledge and skills. The process of mediation involved is often referred to as scaffolding (see Chapter 2 for more detail. Initially, learners depend on others with more experience than themselves and gradually take on more responsibility over time for their own learning in joint activity (Lave and Wenger 19915 Lee 2008). In the classroom, scaffolding is the process of interaction between two or more people as they carry out a classroom task and where one person (e.g. the teacher or another learner) has more advanced knowledge than the other (the learner). During the process, discourse is jointly created through the process of assisted or mediated performance and interaction proceeds as a kind of joint problem-solving between teacher and student. For example, i ing activities by observing what they are capable of, and providing a series of guided stages through the task. Wells (1999: 221) identifies three qualities for a learning event to qualify as an example of scaffolding: a classroom setting the teacher assists the learners in completing learn- ‘* Learners should be enabled to do something they could not do before the event; ‘¢ Learners should be brought to a state of competence which enables them to complete the task on their own; ‘¢ Be followed by evidence of learners having achieved a greater level of independent competence as a result of the scaffolding experiance. Van Gorp and Bogaert (2006: 101-2) describe how this principle applies in TBLT: The cognitive and interactional activity that the students develop at this stage is cru- cial in terms of intended learning outcomes. After all, task-based language learning is highly dependent on the basic premises of social-construetivism, stating that learners acquire complex skills by actively tackling holistic tasks, calling for an integrated use of the target skills, and by collaborating with peers and more knowledgeable partners while doing so. © Task activity and achievement are motivational. Tasks are also said to improve learner motivation and therefore promote learning. This is because they require the learners to use authentic language, they have well-defined dimensions and closure, they are varied in format and operation, they typically include physical activity, they involve partnership and collaboration, they may call on the learner's past experience, and they tolerate and encourage a variety of communication styles. One teacher trainee, com- menting on an experience involving listening tasks, noted that such tasks are "genuinely authentic, easy to understand because of natural repetition; students are motivated to listen because they have just done the same task and want to compare how they did it”9 Task-Based Language Teaching 183 (quoted in Willis 1996: 61-62). (Doubtless enthusiasts for other teaching methods could cite similar “evidence” for their effectiveness.) Van Gorp and Bogaert (2006: 82) similarly emphasize the importance of motivation in selecting tasks: Tasks will work best to the extent that they inspire the learner to work i.e. to invest mental energy in task performance and to persist, even if the task is complex or dif- ficult. The learner has to keep task performance going. The motivation to perform a task should therefore preferably be learner-intrinsic, rather than the kind of “surrogate motivation” provided by gimmicks, grades and superficial devices. © Learning difficulty can be negotiated and fine-tuned for particular pedagogical purposes. Another claim for tasks is that specific tasks can be designed to facilitate the use and learning of particular aspects of language. Long and Crookes (1995: 43) claim that tasks provide a vehicle for the presentation of appropriate target-language samples to learners ~ input which they will inevitably reshape via application of general cogni tive processing capacities ~ and for the delivery of comprehension and production opportunities of negotiable difficulty. In more detailed support of this claim, Skehan suggests that in selecting or designing tasks there isa trade-off between cognitive processing and focus on form. More difficult, cognitively demanding tasks reduce the amount of attention the learner can give to the formal features of messages, such as their grammatical form or choice of vocabulary according to a specific register, and attention to these formal features is thought to be necessary for accuracy and grammatical development. In other words if the task is too difficult, fluency may develop at the expense of accuracy. He suggests that tasks can be designed along a cline of difficulty so that learners can work on tasks that enable them to develop both fluency and an awareness of language form (Skehan 1998: 97). He also proposes that tasks can be used to “channel” learners toward particular aspects of lan- guage: “Such channelled use might be toward some aspect of the discourse, or accuracy, complexity, fluency in general, or even occasionally, the use of particular sets of struc- tures in the language” (1998: 97-8). Design Objectives Advocates of TBLT propose that it is suitable for designing courses at all levels from young learners to adults, and published accounts of course designs for learners of different ages are given in Van den Branden (2006). The objectives of courses for young learners, however, may be very different from those for older learners. For older learners TBLT advocates the use of needs analysis, such as questionnaries or interviews, to determine learner needs as well as the domains and situations of language use a course should focus on. The course184 Current approaches and methods objectives will reflect these needs, whether they are related to academic needs, occupational needs, or social needs. Selection of tasks, according to Long and Crookes (1993), should be based on a careful analysis of the real-world needs of learners. This will be discussed further below in relation toa task-based syllabus. However, in the case of young learners identifiable needs may not be present. As Cameron (2001: 30) observes: Many children do not use the foreign language much outside the classroom, except perhaps on holiday, with tourists to their country, and when using computers, Beyond these limited domains, their outside lives do not readlly provide a needs-related syl- labus for foreign language learning. Furthermore, thelr adult lives and possible needs for the language are still too far away to give content to lessons ... The best we can do is aim for dynamic congruence: choosing activities and content that are appropri- ate for the children's age and socio-cultural experience, and language that will grow with the children. In this case the objectives will relate to a more general communicative competence. Tasks that inform a TBLT syllabus are chosen on the basis of the extent to which they provide for meaningful negotiation and interaction around content and activities that are motivating and meaningful to young learners, such as information gap tasks, problem-solving tasks, and games. In other words it will consist of “pedagogic tasks’ rather than “real-world tasks” (see below). The syllabus ‘The syllabus in TBLT takes a very different form from a conventional language syllabus, which typically specifies such things as language structures, functions, topics, themes, macro-skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing). A TBLT syllabus, by comparison, specifies the tasks that should be carried out by learners within a program. However, as mentioned earlier, when TBLT is linked to other syllabus frameworks, such as content- based (Chapter 6) or text-based (Chapter 10), a syllabus that links tasks to other types of syllabuses is also used (see Leaver and Willis 2004). For example, in a content-based syl labus, a task-based approach may be used to deliver the content and impacts the type of classroom activities selected. Nunan (1989) suggests that a task-based syllabus can be developed with two types of tasks: 1. Real-world tasks, which are designed to practice or rehearse those tasks that are found to be important in a needs analysis and turn out to be important and useful in the real world. This would be the case with courses for learners who have clearly identifiable needs, as noted above. Pedagogical tasks, which have a psycholinguistic basis in SLA theory and research but do not necessarily reflect real-world tasks. This would be the case for learners who do not have clearly identifiable needs, such as with young learners as noted above.9 Task-Based Language Teaching 185 Using the telephone would be an example of the former, and an information gap activity, where speakers must communicate to share information that only one of the participants has, would be an example of the latter, The nature of pedagogical tasks is explained in more detail below. Beglar and Hunt (2002) describe the process involved in developing classroom tasks from a needs analysis of real-world tasks. The terms target task and task type, as used here, refer to what Astika (below) has termed task type and subtask, More information on the range of task types used in TBLT is given later in this chapter. The procedures involved are as follows: 1. Conduct a needs analysis to obtain an inventory of target tasks. 2, Classify the target tasks into task types. 3. From the task types, derive pedagogical tasks. 4. Select and sequence the pedagogical tasks to form a task syllabus. ‘An example of this approach is Astika (2004: 8), which describes the use of a task-based approach in developing a course for tour guides. Needs analysis made use of observat tour guides at work, interviews with guides, and interviews with experts and teachers of tour guides. Two major tasks as well as related subtasks were identified from the needs analysis: n of Tasks Subtasks Taking tourists to the hotel for | 1. Meeting tourists at the airport check in 2. Giving information on the way to the hotel 3. Helping tourists with registration Taking tourists on a day tour | 1. Meeting tourists at the hotel lobby 2, Beginning the tour 3. Describing the itinerary 44. Describing objects on the way to the destination 5. Describing religious objects 6. Describing processes 7. Taking tourists to restaurants 8, Describing sites Functions and language needed to develop pedagogical tasks (i.e. classroom activities, such as information gap activities or problem-solving tasks, that develop the skills needed to perform the subtasks) were then identified and used as the basis for the design of materials, and classroom activities. Types of learning and teaching activities Classroom activities in TBLT seek to provide opportunities to learn language through the process of engaging in task work Van den Branden (2012: 133) describes how this is186 Current approaches and methods accomplished in a course that is developed from the processes described by Beglar and Hunt and Astika above, that is, one which is derived from real-world tasks: Ina task-based approach, students are confronted with approximations and simula- tions of the kinds of tasks that they are supposed to be able to perform outside the classroom and learn about relevant forms of language while trying to understand land produce the language that these communicative tasks involve. If students, for instance, need to be able to comprehend official documents issued by the municipal board, they will be invited to work with these kinds of documents in the language course; if students need to develop the ability to write short reports of observations they have made, they will be confronted with this kind of task in the classroom. In other words, task-based syllabuses do not chop up language into small pieces, but take holistic, functional tasks as the basic unit for the design of educational activity ‘Thus, the documents students work with may be identical to those used in a class where the approach is Competency-Based Language ‘Teaching, but in the case of a task-based approach, specific skills or language needed to understand the document would be focused on only in the context of the task, as opposed to being treated separately using a skill-based theory of language learning, In cases where learners do not have clearly identifiable needs outside of the classroom, pedagogical tasks may be used as the basis for teaching. A number of classifications of pedagogical tasks have been developed. Willis (1996) proposes six task types: listing, ordering and sorting, comparing, problem-solving, sharing personal experiences, creative tasks. Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993) classify tasks according to the type of interaction that occurs in task accomplish ment and give the following classification. Willis’s proposed task types as well as this list by Pica et al, are attempts to provide inventories of pedagogical tasks: igsaw tasks. These involve learners combining different pieces of information to form a whole (e.g, three individuals or groups may have three different parts of a story and have to piece the story together). Information gap tasks. One student or group of students has one set of information and another student or group has a complementary set of information, They must negotiate and find out what the other party's information is in order to complete an activity. 3. Problem-solving tasks. Students are given a problem and a set of information. They must arrive at a solution to the problem, There is generally a single resolution of the problem, 4. Decision-making tasks. Students are given a problem for which there are a number of possible outcomes, and they must choose one through negotiation and discus 5. Opinion exchange tasks. Learners engage in discussion and exchange of ideas. They do not need to reach agreement. Other characteristics of tasks, which apply to both real-life and pedagogical tasks, have also been described, such as the following: 1. One-way or two-way a two-way exchange. whether the task involves a one-way exchange of information or9 Task-Based Language Teaching 187 Convergent or divergent: whether the students achieve a common goal or several dif- ferent goals. 3. Collaborative or competitive: whether the students collaborate to carry out a task or compete with each other on a task. 4. Single or multiple outcomes: whether there is a single outcome or many different pos. sible outcomes, 5. Conerete or abstract language: whether the task involves the use of concrete language or abstract language. 6. Simple or complex processing: whether the task requires relatively simple or complex cognitive processing. 7. Simple or complex language: whether the linguistic demands of the task are relatively simple or complex. 8. Reality-based or not reality-based: whether the task mirrors a real-world activity or is a pedagogical activity not found in the real world. Learner roles A number of specific roles for learners are assumed in current proposals for TBLT. Some of these overlap with the general roles assumed for learners in Communicative Language Teaching, while others are created by the focus on task completion as a central focusing activity, Primary roles that are implied by task work are: ‘© Group participant, Many tasks will be done in pairs or small groups. For students more accustomed to whole-class and/or individual work, this may require some adaptation. ‘* Monitor. In TBLT, tasks are not employed for their own sake but as a means of facilitat- ing learning or as a rehearsal for real-world tasks. Class activities have to be designed so that students have the opportunity to notice how language is used in communication. Learners themselves need to “attend” not only to the message in task work, but also to the form in which such messages typically come packed. ‘Therefore, a learner acts as a “monitor” paying attention to form during the activity. ‘© Risk-taker. Many tasks will require learners to create and interpret messages for which they lack full linguistic resources and prior experience, In fact, this is said to be the point of such tasks, Practice in restating, paraphrasing, using paralinguistic signals, such as pitch, volume, or intonation (where appropriate), and so on, will often be needed. ‘The skills of guessing from linguistic and contextual clues, asking for clarification, and con- sulting with other learners may also need to be developed. Teacher roles ‘Van den Branden (2006) suggests the following roles for teachers in TBLT. ‘© Motivate the students to invest mental energy in task performance, and to support their level of motivation through the various phases of a task-based activity. ‘© Efficiently organize the task-based activity, for instance by giving clear instructions and preparing the students for task performance, guiding the formation of groups (for group188 Current approaches and methods work), making sure that students have all the material necessary for task completion or are informed about the ways they can obtain these materials. ‘© Interactionally support the students while they are performing the task, and differentiate between students (or students groups) while doing so. Additional roles are also assumed for teachers in TBLT, including: Selector and sequence of tasks. A central role of the teacher is in selecting, adapting, and/ or creating the tasks themselves and then forming these into an instructional sequence in keeping with learner needs, interests, and language skill level. © Preparing learners for tasks. Most TBLT proponents suggest that learners should not go into new tasks “cold” and that some sort of pre-task preparation or cuing is important. Such activities might include topic introduction, clarifying task instructions, helping students learn or recall usefull words and phrases to facilitate task accomplishment, and providing partial demonstration of task procedures. Such cuing may be inductive and implicit or deductive and explicit. © Consciousness-raising. In TBLT if learners are to acquire language through participating in tasks, they need to attend to or notice critical features of the language they use and hear. This is referred to as “Focus on Form.” TBLT proponents stress that this does not mean doing a grammar lesson before students take on a task. It does mean employing a variety of form-focusing techniques, including attention-focusing pre-task activities, text exploration, guided exposure to parallel tasks, and use of highlighted material © Monitor. The teacher's role is not merely to give learners tasks to carry out but to observe and monitor their performance on tasks and make decisions as to whether intervention is needed during or after a task according to task performance. Van den Branden (2012: 136) comments: For instance, through recasting, the teacher can offer the students richer versions of what they were trying to say, but are not able to put into (adequate or accurate) words. Likewise through negotiation of meaning, teachers can help their learners to unravel the meaning of new words and expressions, By asking clarification and confirmation questions, or giving feedback, the teacher can “push” the students into producing more complex output, The role of instructional materials Pedagogic materials Instructional materials play an important role in TBLT because it is dependent on a sutfi- cient supply of appropriate classroom tasks, some of which may require considerable time, ingenuity, and resources to develop. Materials that can be exploited for instruction in TBLT are limited only by the imagination of the task designer. Many contemporary language teaching texts cite a “task focus” or “task-based activities” among their credentials, though most of the tasks that appear in such books are familiar classroom activities for teachers9 Task-Based Language Teaching 189 who employ collaborative or Cooperative Language Learning (Chapter 13), Communicative Language Teaching, or small-group activities. Thus, many “task-based” materials may, in fact, draw on the approach only occasionally, as opposed to adhering to the pure or more comprehensive form of TBLT described in this chapter. Realia TBLT proponents favor the use of authentic tasks supported by authentic materials wher- ever possible. Popular media obviously provide rich resources for such materials. For example: Newsearens ‘* Students examine a newspaper, determine its sections, and suggest three new sections that might go in the newspaper. ‘© Students prepare a job-wanted ad using examples from the classified section. ‘© Students prepare their weekend entertainment plan using the entertainment section. TELEMSION ‘+ Students take notes during the weather report and prepare a map with weather symbols showing likely weather for the predicted period. In watching an infomercial, students identify and list “hype” words and then try to con- struct a parallel ad following the sequence of the hype words. © Affer watching an episode of an unknown soap opera, students list the characters (with. known or made-up names) and their possible relationship to other characters in the episode. InTeRNeT * Given a book title to be acquired, students conduct a comparative shopping analysis, of three internet booksellers, listing prices, mailing times, and shipping charges, and choose a vendor, justifying their choice. ‘Seeking to find an inexpensive hotel in Tokyo, students search with three different search. engines (e.g,, Yahoo, Netscape, Snap), comparing search times and analyzing the first ten hits to determine the most useful search engine for their purpose. ‘© Students initiate a “chat” in a chat room, indicating a current interest in their life and developing an answer to the first three people to respond. They then start a diary with these text-sets, ranking the responses. Technology BLT takes a broad, or holistic, view of language development, with different skills being integrated and needed for the completion of different learning activities. Computer- assisted language learning (CALL) shares this integration of skills, and technology is now increasingly being used for the creation and delivery of task-based teaching (Thomas and Reinders 2010). Leaver and Willis (2004) describe its use in online learning190 Current approaches and methods communities that participate in different types of tasks and in the joint development of web-based projects. Procedure Since tasks may take very different forms, a variety of different lesson formats are found in TBLT. Edwards and Willis (2005) provide examples of teachers using tasks in many dif- ferent ways. These include young learners in Hungary doing a “spot the difference” task; learners in Korea listening to directions and drawing a route on a map; teenagers in Greece designing a personality quiz to find out how brave people are; Japanese students in the UK preparing for an oral examination and doing a problem-solving tasks business students in Switzerland doing a web-based project; advanced learners in Italy sharing stories about storms; adult learners in Japan finding out about people’s families and friendships; a class of university students describing embarrassing incidents. Van Gorp and Bogaert (2006) describe the following sequence of activities in task- based lessons: 1. Introducing the task. ‘This phase of the lesson has three functions: a) motivating learners to perform the task; b) preparing the learners to perform the task by discussing pre-supposed or useful: knowledge of the world; ©) organizing the performance phase by providing clear instructions on what the pur- pose of the task is, and how it should or can be performed. 2. Supporting task performance. This involves: a) interactional support in which the teacher mediates between task demands and the learner's current abilities; b) supportive interventions focusing on clarifying meaning or guiding the choice of language; ©) combining focus on meaning with focus on form. 3. ‘The post-task phase. This can involve: a) reflection on the task and how it was accomplished; b) focus on form, Willis (1996: 56-7) describes a more detailed sequence of pre-task, while-task, and post-task activities and divides this sequence into a pre-task focus, a focus on the task eyele, and a language focus. Pre-task Introduction to topic and task '* Teacher helps students to understand the theme and objectives of the task, for example, brainstorming ideas with the olass, using pictures, mime, or personal experience to introduce the topic. ‘* Students may do a pre-task, for example, topic-based odd-word-out games.9 Task-Based Language Teaching 191 * Teacher may highlight useful words and phrases, but would not pre-teach new structures. ‘Students can be given preparation time to think about how to do the task, Students can hear a recording of a parallel task being done (so long as this does not give away the solution to the problem). © Ifthe task is based on a text, students read part of it. The task cycle Task '* The task is done by students (in pairs or groups) and gives students a chance to use whatever language they already have to express themselves and say whatever they want to say, This may be in response to reading a text or hearing a recording. ‘* Teacher walks round and monitors, encouraging in a supportive way everyone's attempts at communication in the target language. ‘* Teacher helps students to formulate what they want to say, but will not intervene to correct errors of form. ‘* The emphasis is on spontaneous, exploratory talk and confidence building, within the privacy of the small group. '* Success in achieving the goals of the task helps students’ motivation, Planning ‘* Planning prepares for the next stage, when students are asked to report briefly to the whole class how they did the task and what the outcome was. Students draft and rehearse what they want to say or write, Teacher goas round to advise students on language, suggesting phrases and helping students to polish and correct their language. ‘© If the reports are in writing, the teacher can encourage peer editing and use of dictionaries. ‘* The emphasis is on clarity, organization, and accuracy, as appropriate for a public presentation, '* Individual students often take this chance to ask questions about specific language items. Report ‘* Teacher asks some pairs to report briefly to the whole class so everyone can com- pare findings, or begin a survey. (NB: There must be a purpose for others to listen.) ‘Sometimes only one or two groups report in full; others comment and add extra points, The class may take notes. © Teacher chairs, comments on the content of their reports, rephrases perhaps, but gives no overt public correction, Post-task listening ‘* Students listen to a recording of fluent speakers doing the same task and compare ‘the ways in which they did the task themselves.192 Current approaches and methods The language focus Analysis. ‘+ The teacher sets some language-focused tasks, based on the texts students have read or on the transcripts of the recordings they have heard. Examples include the following: ‘© Find words and phrases related to the title of the topic or text. Read the transcript, find words ending in s or ’s, and say what the s means. Find all the verbs in the simple past form. Say which refer to past time and which do not. ‘© Underline and classify the questions in the transcript, ‘The teacher starts students off, and then students continue, often in pairs. ‘The teacher goes round to help; students can ask individual questions. In plenary, the teacher then reviews the analysis, possibly writing relevant language up on the board in list form; students may make notes, Practice ‘* The teacher conducts practice activities as needed, based on the language analysis work already on the board, or using examples from the text or transcript. '* Practice activities can include: ‘© choral repetition of the phrases identified and classified ‘© memory challenge games based on partially erased examples or using lists already on blackboard for progressive deletion sentence completion (eet by one team for another) matching the past-tense verbs (iumbled) with the subject or objects they had in the text; ‘Kim's game [a memory game] (in teams) with new words and phrases dictionary reference words from text or transcript Stark (2005: 42-3) gives an example of a task-based activity used with business stu- dents in Switzerland, which focuses on the history of production: task undertaken during the first semester involves verbally summarizing the history of production. The task draws on a video about Henry Ford's early mass production of cars. One specific aim is to draw learners’ attention to form and the relationship between form and function, encouraging them to try out new ways of expressing their meanings and to notice the gap between their own interlanguage and the target language ... In addition to introducing and reinforcing a limited amount of theme related vocabulary, the task draws together students’ earlier work on summarizing, textual coherence and cohesion and grammar (present perfect and simple past). The similarity between the first and second tasks is deliberate: task repetition, provided it is carefully designed and managed, can9 Task-Based Language Teaching 193 help to free up attention for focus on form, thus leading to greater accuracy and com- plexity in performance ... The stages of the task are: '* Students read texts drawn from an academic textbook on Management, covering some elements of the history of production. This initial input includes work on lexis and a cloze exercise concerning the use of the present perfect and simple past. '* Students watch the video on the history of production, taking notes on the various stages and dates in the development of mass production. They are also free to use other sources. ‘* Students work in pairs to produce a list of bullet points covering what they each consider to be key developments in the history of manufacturing. Once they have this list, they then work together on identifying a range of linking words to produce coherent and cohesive text. In addition, they are asked to consider which tenses are appropriate to cover the various stages they are going to explain. '* Students then rehearse the task with their current partner, focusing on form. After this, for the final version | get them to focus more on communication. | try to show them ‘that creating interest and making sure your interlocutor is listening actively is just as important as correct language. ‘* Students give their talk to another partner with focus on meaning and effective com- munication. Since they are allowed to weave in their own knowledge, their talks will be different, so they listen to compare versions, and they feed back to each other on. various aspects of their talks. '* Students write a summary of the History of Production, which | use for diagnostic purposes to fine-tune further activities and give individual coaching where necessary. ‘The focus here shifts back to language and form, with students producing a polished and condensed version of the History, incorporating new lexis, ensuring they have the right tenses and that they use a range of linking words appropriately. These versions are also read, for purposes of comparison, by other students who seem to like the focus on language at this point. ‘An example of a task-based lesson plan is given in the appendix to this chapter. Conclusion Few would question the pedagogical value of employing tasks as a vehicle for promoting communication and authentic language use in second language classrooms, and depend- ing on one's definition of a task, tasks have long been part of the mainstream repertoire of language teaching techniques for teachers of many different methodological persuasions. ‘Task-Based Language Teaching, however, in its pure form, offers a different rationale for the use of tasks as well as different criteria for the design and use of tasks. It is the depen- dence on tasks as the primary source of pedagogical input in teaching and the absence194 Current approaches and methods of a systematic grammatical or other type of syllabus that characterize current versions of TBLT, and that distinguish it from the use of tasks in Competency-Based Language Teaching, another task-based approach but one that is not wedded to the theoretical framework and assumptions of TBLT. And despite extensive studies of various aspects of task definition and design, one prominent researcher comments: further forward in answering the question, ‘What kind of tasks are needed to promote language acquisition?” (Ellis 2003: 101). ‘TBLT is often described as making considerable demands on both teachers and learn- ers, since TBLT courses have to be developed “bottom up” based on the teaching/learning context. In TBLT learners too may also need orientation to new modes of learning. Teachers have to adopt new roles in the classroom, and this may require special training and ongoing support. This means iti likely to appeal to teachers who have considerable experience and professional training, as well as a high-level competence in English or the language they teach. Since TBLT is teacher-led and situation-specific, it does not provide the basis for commercial textbooks, which means teachers also have to take on the additional roles of course designer and materials developer. The flexible way in which TBLI' can be applied ~ either as the sole basis for a course or in conjunction with other approaches ~ means that its long-term impact may be hard to quantify. While it is unlikely to provide the basis for national teaching programs or for use in contexts where teaching is linked to national or international tests, itis likely to appeal to individual teachers who see it supported by SLA theory and who see it as a way of creating learning that is driven by task-based interaction rather than through the use of a language-based syllabus. In modified forms, TBLT may appeal asa partial approach to those teachers who simultaneously use a more conventional language-based syllabus. ‘We are really little Discussion questions 1, Take three activities that you have used in class or observed in a language class recently. Now read the claims for tasks described on pages 181-2. To what extent do your tasks reflect these features? 2. Explain the concepts of “pushed output” and “negotiation of meaning” to a colleague and give an example of how tasks can encourage these 3. You are planning a professional development workshop for colleagues in your depart- ment on using TBLT. As you have read in this chapter, “for each individual pupil who is performing a task, the actual ‘gap’ will probably be different. This implies that each learner will run into different difficulties when dealing with the same task and, con- sequently, may learn different things? (p. 181). How will you address this issue in your workshop, in particular in terms of language lesson planning and assessment? 4. Ask a colleague to observe your class, or observe theirs. Using the three qualities pro- vided by Wells on page 182, determine if scaffolding takes place during the class. How long did each of the three steps take? Do you think there could have been a more efficient way to teach the syllabus point? Would it also have been more effective?2. 9 Task-Based Language Teaching 19 Many tasks require the learners’ main focus to be on meaning. However, TBLT does see an important role for a focus on form. Read the quote by Van Gorp and Bogaert on page 181, What strategies would you use as a teacher to encourage learners to “notice the gap” between themselves and more proficient speakers while performing tasks? .. Skchan recommends using “channelling” of learners’ attention to particular aspects of the language to make tasks easier or harder. In addition to a focus on form, what other aspects of language might a teacher channel a learner's attention to? This chapter makes a distinction between pedagogical and real-world tasks. Give two examples of each. Pedagogical Real-world Read the description of the tasks and subtasks on page 185 for the tour guides course. Then choose another profession. What do you think are the main tasks and subtasks required? Create a chart similar to the one on page 185. Using a current textbook or your own teaching materials, give an example of each of the five task types mentioned on page 186 of the chapter. Supporting task performance (p. 187) is an important part of the classroom procedures a teacher uses in TBLT. Refer to activities in a textbook or ones you use in class, and give an example of how teachers could do each of the following: a) Provide interactional support in which the teacher mediates between task demands. and the learner's current abilities, ) Offer supportive interventions focusing on clarifying meaning or guiding the choice of language ©) Combine focus on meaning with focus on form TBLT, when not combined with more traditional approaches, places considerable demands on teachers and, as mentioned in the conclusion, “is likely to appeal to teach- ers who have considerable experience and professional training, as well as a high-level competence in English or the language they teach” What might be some of the draw- backs of using TBLT with less experienced teachers or those less proficient in the target language? On page 183, you read about task complexity and Skehan's suggestions for varying this. Work with a colleague who has experience in teaching students at the same level as you. Select two tasks from a coursebook you both know and each grade the tasks in terms oftheir complexity for your target students. Were your answers similar? How can you determine task complexity?196 Current approaches and methods 13, Read the following description of a task for intermediate level learners. Next, select (where possible) which of the characteristics below (described on pp. 186-7) best describe this task. You are members of a medical team working with organ transplanis. You have one heart available but three patients who meed one. A decision needs to be made right now. Which of the following patients would you give the heart to? Discuss this with the team. You must come to @ unanimous agreement. 1, Male, 38 years old, married, father of three children, Heavy smoker. Despite warnings in the past has not quit. 2, Male, 72 years old. Widowed. Healthy for his age. He is forgetful which may cause problem when taking his daily medications after the operation. 3. Female, 18 years old. Currently in prison for two years for having injured some- fone ina fight. ‘one-way or two-way convergent or divergent collaborative or competitive concrete or abstract language simple or complex processing iple or complex language reality-based or not reality-based References and further reading Astika, G. 2004. A task-based approach to syllabus design. ACELT Journal: 6-18. Beglar, D., and A. Hunt. 2002, Implementing task-based language teaching. In J. C. Richards and W. Renandya (eds,), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. 96-106. Beretta, A. 1990. Implementation of the Bangalore Project. Applied Linguistics 1(4): 321-37. Beretta, A», and A. Davies. 1985. Evaluation of the Bangalore Project. English Language Teaching Journal 30(2): 131-7. Burns, A.jand J.C, Richards (eds). 2012. The Cambridge Guide to Pedagogy and Practice in Language ‘Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press, Cameron, L. 2001. Teaching Languages to Young Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, G. IATEPL. 2003 debate with Martin Bygate in Brighton, 2003 Doyle, W. 1983. Adademic work. Review of Educational Research 53(2): 159-98. Edwards, C., and J. Willis (eds). 2005. Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Ellis, R. 1992. Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R. 2003. Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.9 Task-Based Language Teaching 197 English Language Syllabus in Malaysian Schools, Tingkatan 4-5. 1975. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka, Feex, S. 1998. Text-Based Syllabus Design. Sydney: National Centre for English Teaching and Research. Frost, R. 2004. (26 April) A Task-Based Approach. Available at: https www:teachingenglish.org.uk/ articles/a-task-based-approach; accessed May 9, 2013 Lave, J. and E, Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: ‘Cambridge University Press. Leaver, B. L., and J. R. Willis (eds). 2004. Task-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education. Washington, DC: Georgeotwn University Press. Leaver, B.L., and M. A. Kaplan. 2004. Task-based instruction in US Government Slavic Language Programs. In Leaver and Wills (eds), 47-66. Lee, L. 2008. Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novie online interae- tion. Language, Learning and Technology 12(3): 53-72. Long, M., and G, Crookes. 1993. Units of analysis in course design ~ the case for task, In G. Crookes and S, Gass (eds.), Tasks in « Pedagogical Context: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon Multilingual Matters. 9-54. Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. 2004, Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oliveira, C. P. 2004, Implementing task-based assessment in a TEFL environment. In Leaver and Willis (eds,), 253-79. Pica, T, R. Kanagy, and J. Falodun. 1993. Choosing and using communicative tasks for second lan- guage instruction. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating ‘Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 9-34. Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards, J. C. Fortheoming, Key Issues in Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Schmidt, R., and S, Frota. 1986. Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: a case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition, Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 237-326. Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 1: Shehadeh, Ali. 2005. Task-based learning and teaching: theories and application. In Edwards and Willis (eds.), 13-30 Skehan, P.1996a. A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 170): 38-61 Skehan, P.1996b. Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis and D. Willis (eds), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann. 17-30. Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, D. 1971. Task training, In AMA Encyclopedia of Supervisory Training. New York: American ‘Management Association. 581-6. Stark, P. P. 2005. Integrating task-based learning into a business English program. In Edwards and Willis (eds), 40-9.198 Current approaches and methods ‘Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and compre- hensible output in development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds.), Input i Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 235-56. ‘Swain, M. 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 97-14. ‘Thomas, M. and Reinders, H. (eds.). 2010, Task-Based Language Teaching and Technology. New York: Continuum. Van Avermact, P, and S. Gysen. 2006. From needs to tasks: language learning needs ina task-based approach. In Van den Branden (ed), 17-46. Van den Branden, K. (ed.). 2006. Task-Based Language Education: From Theory to Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Van den Branden, K. 2012. Task-based language education. In Burns and Richards (eds), 140-8. Van den Branden, K., M. Bygate, and J. Norris (eds.) 2009. Task-Based Language Teaching: A Reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins ‘Van Gorp, K., and N. Bogaert 2006. Developing language tasks for primary and secondary educa~ tion. In Van den Branden (ed), 76-105. Wang, W., and A. Lam 2009. The English language curriculum for secondary schools in China: its evolution from 1949, RELC Journal 40(1): 65-82 Wells, G. 1999. Dialogic inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. New York: Cambridge University Press. Willis, D, and J. Wiliis 2007. Doing Task-Based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press Willis, J. 1996. A flexible framework for task-based learning, In Willis and Willis (eds), 235-56. Willis,J, and D. Willis (eds.). 1996. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann,9 Task-Based Language Teaching 199 Appendix: A task-based lesson plan Review and Homework 1. Teacher greets class and conducts a quick review of the content dealt with in the previous class. 2. Teacher checks homework orally with students, Listening Tasks 3. Teacher elicits information from students (using realia, games, flashcards etc.), aiming at the listening activity (in the textbook) that is to come. 4. Teacher sets a pretask (questions, gap-filing, exercise, tick the words you hear, etc.) for the listening. 5. Tape is played a number of times as more challenging comprehension tasks are presented to learnars. Learners gat both teacher and peer feedback (pair work) during the process, Dialogue Practice 6, Teacher reads aloud follow-up dialogue in the textbook (intended for pair work) and crils it with students. 7. Learners are then asked to practice it in pairs. 8. Teacher walks around providing learners with feedback on pronunciation. Speaking Task 9. Learners are given a handout with an oral information-gap task based on the information dealt with so far, in which they have to talk to several peers and gather information, to, Teacher monitors learners’ work to help out and to try to minimize the use of Portuguese. 11, Learners are called on to share some of the date collected with the rest of the class. Grammar Focus 12, Teacher explains some of the grammar in the unit and asks them to do a written exercise (In the textbook) on that, either individually or in pairs. 13, Teacher corrects exercise orally. Reading and Writing Task 14, Teacher brainstorms following topic on the board, eliciting information from learners. 15, Teacher gives learners strips of paper with parts of an authentic reading excerpt related to the topic of the book unit and asks them to, in groups, put the pieces together. 16, Learners are then asked to devise comprehension questions about the reading to be assigned to other groups. Teacher monitors learners’ work to help out and to try to minimize the use of Portuguese. 17 Groups get the questions devised by the other groups and answer them. Questions are then returned to the groups that initially devised them for correction. 18, Teacher visits groups to check their corrections. Homework Assignment 19. Teacher assigns a piece of writing related to the work done in class.