I «•

Current Communicative approaches

Strykeii S., and B. 'Leaver, 1993. Content-Based Jnstntction in Foreign Language, • Education, "Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Wcsche, M. 1993. Discipline-based approaches to Ianguage stud)-: Research is-sucs and outcomes. In M. Kruegcr and F. Ryan (eds.), Language and Con-tent. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. H¿ath. 80-95.

"Widdowson, H. 1978. Teaching Language as Cammunícation. Oxford: Oxford

Umversity Press."Widdowson, H. 1983. Learning Purpose and Learning Use. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Wu, S.-M, 1996. Content-based ESL at high school level: A case study. Prospect

11(1); 18-36. :1»

18 Task-Based Language Teaching

Background

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) refers to an approach based onthe use of tasks as the core unir of planning and instruction in languageteaching. Some of its proponents (e.g., Willis 1996) present it as a logicaldevelopment of Communicative Language Teaching since it draws onseveral principies that formed part of the communicati ve language teach-ing movement from the 1980s. For example:

- Activities that involve real communication are essential for languagelearning. " . .

- Activities in which ianguage is used for carrying out meaningful taskspromote learning.

- Language that is meariingful to the learner supports the learningpiocess.

Tasks are proposed as useful vehicles for applying diese principies. Twoearly applications of a task-based approach withiri a Communicativefrarnework for la.nguage teaching were the Malaysian CommunicationalSyllabus (1975) and the Bangalore Project (Beretta and Davies 1985;Prabhu 1987; Beretta 1990) both of which were relatively short-lived.

The role of tasks has received further support from some researchers insecond language acquisition, who are interested in developing pedagogi-cal applications of second language acquisition theory (e.g., Long andCrookes 1993). An interest in tasks as potential building blocks of secondlanguage instruction emerged when researchers turned to tasks as SLAresearch tools in the mid-1980s. -SLA research.has focused on the strat-egies and coghitive processes employed by second language learners. Thisresearch has suggested a reassessment of the role of formal grammarinstruction in language teaching. There is no evidence, it is argued, thatthe type of grammar-focused teaching activities used in many Janguágeclassrooms reflects the. cognitive learning processes employed ín natu-ralistic language Jearning situadons outside the classroom. Engaginglearners in task work provides a better context for the activation' oflearning processes than forin-focused activities, and henee ultimatelyprovides better oppprtunitíes for language learning to take place. Lan-guage learning is believed to depend on irnmersíng students not merely in

223

222

'

I,

Current communicative approeicbes

"c'omprehensible input" but in tásks thát require them to negotiate mean-;íng and engage in naturalisric and meaningful communication.

The key assumptioñs of task-based instruction are summarized by Feez •(1998: 17) as: ' „ .

- The focus is on process rather than product.- Basic elements are purposeful activities and tasks that emphasize com-

munication and meaning.- Learners learn language by interacting communicatively and pur-.

posefuüy while engaged in the activities and tasks.- Activities and tasks can be either:

those that learners might need to achieve in real life;tbose that have a pedagógica! purpose specific to the classroom,

- Activities and tasks of a task-based syllabus are sequenced according todiffkulty, . • .

- The difficulty of a task depends on a range of factors including theprevious experience of the learner, the complexity of the task, the

" language required to undertake the task, and the degree of support.1' available.

Because of its links to Communicative Language Teaching methodology 'and support from some prorninent SLA theorists, TBLT has gained con-siderable artention wíthin applied linguístics, though there have been fewlarge-scale practical applications of it and litde documentation concern-ing its implications or effectiveness as a basis for syllabus design, mate-rials developrnent, and classroom teaching.

Task-Based Language Teaching proposes the notion of "task" as acentral unit of planning and teaching. Although defínitions of task vary inTBLT, there is a commonsensical understanding that a task is an activityor goal that is carried out usíng language, such as fínding a solution to apuzzle, reading a map and giving directions, making a telephone cali,writing a letter, or reading a set of instructions and assembling a toy:

Tasks... are activities which have meaning as their primary focus. Success intasks ¡s evaluated in terms of achievement of an outcome, and tasks generallybear some resemblance to real-life language use. So task-based instructiontakes a fairly strong view of cofflrnunicatíve language teaching. (Skehan1996B: 20)

Nunan (1989:10) offers this jdefinition:

the communicative task [is] a piece-of classroom work which involves learnersin connprehending, manipulating,;pfoducing or interacting in the target lan-guage whíle theír attentíon is principally focussd on meaning rather thanform. The task should also have a sense of compieteness, beíng able to standalone as a communicative act in its own right.

224

Task-Based Language Teaching

Although advocates of TBLT have embraced the coneept of task withenthusiasm and convíction, the use of íasks as a unit in curriculum plan-ning has a much oJder history in education. It first appeared in the vpca-tional training ptactices of the 1950s. Task focus here fírst derived fromtraining design concerns of the military regarding new military tech-nologies and occupational speciakies of the period. Task analysis initiallyfocused on solo psychomotor tasks for which little communication orcollaboration was involved. In task analysis, on-the-job, largely manualtasks were translated into training tasks. The process is outlined bySrnith:

The operational system is analyzed from the human factors point of view, anda míssion profíle or flow chart is prepared to provide a basís for dcvelopingthe task inventory. The task inventory (an outline of the tnajor duties in chejob and the mote specific job tasks associated with each duty) is prepared,using appropriate methods of job analysis. Decísions are made regarding tasksto be taught and the level of proficiency to be artained by the students. Adetailed task description is prepared for those tasks to be taught. Each task isbroken down into the specific acts required for its performance. The specifícacts, or task clementSj are reviewcd to identify the knowledge and skill com-ponents involved in task performance. Knally, a hierarchy of objectives is or-ganized. (Smith 1971: 584) -

A similar process ís at the heart of the curriculum approach known asCompetency-Based Language Teaching (see Chapter 13). Task-basedtraining identified several-key áreas of concern.

1. analysis of real-world task-use situations2. the translation of these into teaching tasks descríptions3. the detailed design of instructional tasks4. the sequencing of instructional tasks in classroom training/teaching

These same issues remain centra! in current discussions of task-basedinstruction in language teaching. Although task analysis and instructionaldesign initially dealt with solo job performance on manual tasks, atten-tion then turaed to team tasks, for which communication is required.Four rnajor categories of team performance function were recognized:

1. orientarían functions (processes for generatíng and distributing infor-matioh necessary to task accorriplishment to team members)

2. organizaíional functions (processes necessary for members to coordí-nate actions necessary for task performance) '. '•

3. adaptation functions (processes occurring as team members adapttheir performance to'each other to complete the task)

223

Current communicative 'approaches

4. mbtivational toctíons (defining team' objectives and "energizing theprono" to complete thc task) • „.-,.•„ , 100¿»S (Nieva, Ftóshman, and Rieck [1978], ated in Crookes 1986}

Advocares of TBLT have máde similar attempts to define and valídate t thenature and functíon oí tasks in language ceachng. Although studÍK oí theS iust noted have íocused on the nature of occupational tasks, aca-Ec S have aiso been the focus of considerable attentiou in generaledSon since the early 197Qs. Doyle noted that in ekmentary educa-do" "the academic task is the mecharan. through which the curriculumisenacted fot students" (Doyle 1983: leí). Academic tasks are defined ashaving four important dimensions:

1 the products stndents are asked to produce2! the operations they are required to use in order to produce these

3, the cognitive operations required and the resources available '4*. the accountability system involved

All of the questions (and many of the proposed answers) that wereraised in these early investigations of tasks and their role ín trammg andeáchinS mirror similar discussions in relation to Task-Based Language

Teaching. In this chapter, we will outline the critical issues in Task-BasedLanguage Teaching and provide exampleí of what task-based teacmng IS

supposed to look like.

Approach

Theory of languageTBLT is motivated primarily by a theory of learning rather than a theoryof language, However, several assumptions about the nature of languagecan be said to underlie current approaches to TBLT. These are:

LANGUAGE IS PRlMARILY A MEANS OF MAKIN.G MEANING

In common with other realiza tions of communicative language teaching,TBLT emphasizes the central role of meaning in language use. Skehannotes that in task-based instruction (TBI), "meaning is primary . eassessment of the task is in terms of outcome" and thatstruction is «of "concerned with language display' (Skehan

the

MÚLTIPLE MODELS OF LANGUAGE INFORM TBI

Advócales of task-based instruction draw on structural, functional, andinteractionai models of language, as defined in Chapter 1. This seems to

226

Task-Based Language Teachmg

be more a matter of convenience than of ideology. For exarnple, struc-tural criteria are employed by Skehan in díscussing the criteria for deter-rnining the linguístic cornplexíry of tasks:

Language is simply seen as less-to-more complex in fairiy traditíonal ways,since linguistk complexity is interpretable as constrained by structural syllabusconsiderations. (Skehan 1998: 99)

Other researchers have proposed functional classifications of task types.For example, Berwicfc uses "task goals" as one of two-dístinctions inclassification of task types. He notes that task goals are principally "edu-cational goals which have olear didactic functíon" and "social (phatic)goals which require the use of language simply because of the activity inwhich the participants are engaged." (Berwick 1988, cited jn Sfcehan1998: 101). Foster and Skehan (1996) propose a three-way functionaldistinction of tasks - personal, narrative, and decision-making tasks.These and other such classifications of task type borrow categories oflanguage function frorn models proposed by Jakobson, ííalliday,Wilkins, and others.

Finally, task classifications proposed by those corning from the SLAresearch tradition of interaction studies focus on interactionai dimen-sions of tasks. For example, Pica (1994) distinguishes between interac-tionai activity and communicative goal.

TBI is therefore not ¡inked to a single model of language but.ratherdraws on ail three models of language theory.

LEXICAL UNITS ARE CENTRAL IN LANGUAGE OSE ANDLANGUAGE LEAHNING

In recent years, vocabulary has been considered to play a more centralrole in second language learning than was traditionally assumed. Vocabu-lary is here used to include the consideration of lexical phrases, sentencesterns, prefabricated routines, and coUocacions, and not only words assignificant units of linguistk lexical analysis and language pedagogy.Many task-based proposals incorpórate this perspective. Skehan, for ex-.ampie (1996b: 21-22), comments!

Although niuch of language teaching has operated under the assumpcíon thatJanguage is essenrially structural, with vocabulary eiements slotting ín to fillstructural patterns, rnany linguists and psycholinguists have argued that native

• language speech processing is very frequently lexical in nature. This meansthat speech processing js based dn the production and receptíon of wholephrase units larger thari the word (although analyzable by linguists íntowords) which do not require any interna! processing when th*y are 'reeledoff' Fluency concerns the learner's capacity to produce language in realtime without undue pausing for hesitación. It is likely to rely upon more lex-

•227

Cumnt cotntnunicative approaches

icalizcd modes of communication, as the pressures of real-time speech produe--,tioo met only by avoiding cxcessive rule-bascd cornputation.

"CONV¿¿SATION".IS.-T.HE CENTRAL FOCUS OF LANGUAGEANO THE KEYSTONE QF EANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Speaking and trying to communicate with others thiough the spokenlanguage drawing on the learner's available linguistic and cornmunicativeresources is considered the basis for second language acquisition in TBI;henee, the majority of tasks that are proposed within TBLT involve con-versation. We will consider further the role of conversation later in thischapter.

Theory of ¡earningTBI shares the general assumptíons about the nature of language learningunderlying Communicative Language Teaching (see Chapter 14). How-cvcr some addition'al learning principies play a central role in TBLT the-ory. These are:

TASKS PROV1DE BOTH THE INPUT AND OUTPUT PROCESSINGNÉCESSARY FOR LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Krashen has long insísted that comprehensible input is the one necessary{and sufficient) criterion for successful language acquisition (see Chapter15). Others have argued, however, that productive output and not merelyinput is also critica! for adequate second language development. Forcxample, in language ¡inmersión classrooms in Canadá, Swain (1985)showed that even after years of exposure to comprehensible input, thelanguage ability of immersion students still laggcd behínd native-speaking peers. She claimed that adequate opportunities for productiveuse of language are critica! for ful! language development. Tasks, it is said,providefull opportunides for both input and output requirements, whichare believed to be key processes in language learning. Other researchershave looked at "negotiation of meaning" as the necessary element insecond language acquisition. "It is rrieaning negotiation which focuses alearntr's attention on some part of an [the learner's) utterarice (pronun-ciaticm, grarnmar, lexicón, etc.) which requires modification. That is,negotiation can be viewed as the trigger íor acquisition" (Plough andGass 1993: 36).

Tasks are believed to foster processes of negotiation, modiíicatíon,rephrasing, and experimentadon that are at the heart of second languagelearning. This view is part of a more general'focus on the critica! impor-tance of conversation in language acquisition ¡e.g., Sato 1988). Drawingon $LA research on negotiation and interaction, TBLT proposes that the

228

ií-ÍE

¡IsTfisk-Based Language Teaching

task is the pivot point for stimulation of input-autput practice, negotia-tion of meaning, and transactionally focused conversation.

*TASK ACTIVITY AND ACHIEVEMENT ARE MOTIVATIONAL

Tasks are also said to improve learner motivation and therefore promotelearning. This is because they require the learners to use authentic ían-guage, they have well-défined dimensions and closure, they are varied informat and operatíon, they typically ínclude physical activity, they in-volve partnership and collaboratíon, they may cali on the learner's pastexperience, and they tolérate and cncourage a variety of communicationstyles. One teacher trainee, commeriting on an experience involving lis-tening tasks, noted that such tasks are "genuinely authentic, easy tounderstand because of natural repetition; students are motívated to listenbecause they have just done the saine task and want to compare how theydid it" (quoted in Willis 1996: 61-62). (Doubtless enthusiasts for ptherteachíng methods could cite similar "evidence" for their effectiveness.)

LEARNING DIFFICULTY CAN BE NEGOTIATED AND FINE-TUNED FOR PARTICULAR PEDACOGICAL PUKPOSES

Another claim for tasks is "that specifíc tasks can be designed to facilítatethe use and iearning of particular aspects of language. Long and Crookes(1991: 43) clairn that tasks

próvida a vehicle for the presentador! of appropriate target language samplesto learners - input which they will inevitably reshape via applicatíon of gen-eral cognitive processing capacities - and for the delivery of corhprehensionand production opportunities of negotiablc difficulty.

In mpre detailed support of this claim, Skehan suggests that in selectingor desígning tasks there is a tráde-off between cognitive processing andfocus on form. More difficult, cognitively demanding tasks reduce thearnount of attention the fearner can give to the formal features of mes-sages, something that is thought to be necessary for accuracy and gram-matical development. In other words if the task is too difficult, fluencymay develop at the expense of accuracy. He suggests that tasks can bedesigned along a cline of difficulty so thac ¡earners can work on tasks thatcnable 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 language:

Such chafmeled use rrüght be tawards some aspect of the discourse, or accu-racy, complcxity, fluency in general, or «ven occasionally, the use of particularsets of structures in the language. (Skehan 1998: 97-98)

229

11

;«

Current communicatíve approaches

Design -

Objeptíves . •There are few published ,{or perhaps, fully implemented) examplescomplete language prograrns that claim to be fully based on most rece|i¡íbrrnulations of TBLT. The literatute contains mainly deseriptions.;examples of task-based activities. However, as with oiher communicati:approachcs, goals in TBLT are ideally to be determined by the spect£jj|needs of particular learners. Selection of tasks, according to Long a^4'Crookes (1993), should be based on a careful analysis of the real-worjneeds of learners. An example of how this was done with a nationjEnglish curriculum is the English Language Syllabus in Schools Malay]sian (1975) - a national, task-based communicative syllabus. Á ver"broad goal for English use was determined by the Ministry of Educad^!at a time when Malay was systematically replacing English-medium ¡n,̂struction at all levéis of education. An attempt to define the role p|English, given the new role for national Malay language, led to the broa<j;fí|goal of giving all Malaysian secondary school leavers the abitity to conj-jf?|municate accurately and effeetiuely in the mosí common Eng¡isjj*3j$language activities they may be invalved in, Following this broad statt^liSiment, the syllabus development team.identified a variety of work situáis!!tíons in which English use was likely. The anticipated vocational (antfiloccasionally recreational) uses of English for npntertiary-bound, uppéí'sfgsecondary school leavers were stated as a list of general English use¡|!|objectives. The resulting twenty-four objectiyes then becarne the.framef^íwork witriin which a variety of related activities were proposed. The:"components of these activities were defined in the syllabus under the.,;headings of Situation, Stimulus, Product, Tasks, and Cognitive Process3An overview of The syllabus that resulted from this process is given in?5Chapter 14. :5

The syllabus ' "••:

The differences between a conventional language syllabus and a task-:;based one are discussed below. A conventional syllabus typicaliy specifies:the content of a course from among these categories: • '-':

- language structures ^" functions :-'- topics and themes- macro-skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking) ;- competencies . ;- text types :';- vocabulary targets :g

230 - .'I

Tosk-Based Language Teaching

The syllabus specifies content and learning outcomes and is a documentthat can be used as a basis for classroom teaching and the design ofteachíng materiaJs. Although proponents of TBLT do not preclude -aninterest in learners' development of any of these categories, they are moreconcerned with the process dimensions of Jearning than with the specifíccontent and skills that might be acquired through the use of these pro-cesses. A TBLT sylíabus, therefore, specifies the tasks that should becarried out by learners within a program,

Nunan (1989) suggests that a syllabus might specify two types of tasks:

1. real-world tasks, which are designed to practice or rabearse thosetasks that are found to be important in a needs analysis and tura out tobe important and useful in the real world

2. pedagógica! tasks, which have a psycholinguistic basis in SLA theoryand research but do not necessarily reflect real-world tasks

Using the telephone would be an example oí the former, and aninformation-gap task would be an example of the latter. (It should benoted that a focus on Type 1 tasks, their identificarion through needsanalysis, and the use of such information as the basis for the planning anddelivery of teaching are identical with procedures used ín Competcncy-Based Instrucdon; see Chapter 13.)

In the Bangalore Project (a task-based design for primary age learnersof English), both types of tasks were used, as is seen from the followinglist of the first ten task types:

Task type1, Diagrams and fonnations

2. Drawing

3. Clqck faces

4, Monthly calendar

5. Maps

6, School timetables

7, Prograrns and itineraries

ExampleNaming parts of a diagran) with nurn-

bers and letters of the alphabet asinstructed.. • .

Drawing geométrica! figures/forniations from sets of verbal in-structions.

Positioning hands on a clock co showa given time

Calculating duration in days andweeks in the context of travel,leave, and so on

Cons'tructing a floor plan'of a housefrom a descriptíon .

Constructing timetables for teachersof particular subjects • '• • •

Constrnctíng itineraries frorn descrtp-tions of travel

Í3Í

'

Current communicative approacbes

9. Age and year of birtb,10, Money

8, Traintimetables : Selecting trains appropriate to givenneeds .

. Working out year of birth from ageDeciding on quantities to be bought

'• • given the money available(Adapted from Prabhu and cited in Nunan 1989:42-44)

Noras, Brown, Hudson, and Yoshioka (1998) provide examples of rep-resentative real-world tasks grouped according to themes. For example:

Tbeme: pknning a vacation

Tasks- decide where you can .go based on the "advantage miles"- booking a flíght- choosing a hotel ' ...- booking a room . .

Theme: appiication to a university

Tasks- applying to the university- corresponding with the department chair- inquiring about financial support- selecting the courses you want and are eligible to take, using advice

from your adviser- registering by phone- calculating and paying your fees

It ís hard to see that this classification offers much beyond the intuitive¡mpressions of the writers of Situational Language Teaching materials ofthe 196Qs or the data-free taxonomies that are seen in Munby's Com-municative Syllabus Design (1978). Ñor have subsequent atternpts atdescribing task dimensíons and task difficulty gone much beyond spec-ulation (see Skehan 1998: 98-99),

In addition to selecting tasks as the basís for a TBLT syllabus, theordering of tasks also has to be decermined. We saw that the intrinsicdifficulty of tasks has bcen proposed as a basis for the sequencing oftasks, but task difficulty is itself a concept that is not easy to determine.Honeyfield (1993: 129) offers the following considerations:

1. Procedures, or what the iearners have to do to derive output frominput

2. Input text3. Output required

a) Language ítems: vocabulary, structures, discourse structures, pro-cessability, and so on

232

SI

Task-Based Language Teaching

b) Skills, both macro-skills and subskillsc) World knowledge or "tcpic'content"d) Text handling or conversation strategies

4. Amount and type of help given5. Role of teachers and Iearners6. Time allowed " •' .7. Motivación8. Confidencc9. Learning styles

This list illustrates the difficulty of operationalizing the notioiti of taskdifficulty: One could add almost anything to it, such as time of day, roomtemperatura, or the aftereffects of brcakfast! • .

Types ofleamíng andteaching activitíes • \e have seen that there are many different views as to what constitutes a

task. Consequently, there are many competing descriptions of basic tasktypes in TBLT and of appropriate classroorn activities. Breen gives a verybroad descriptkm of a.task (1987: 26):

A language learnmg task can be regardcd as a springboard for iearmng work.In a broad sense, it is a structured plan for the provisión of opportunitíes forthe refinemem of knowíedge and capafailitíes entailed ¡n a new language andits use during comrnunication. Such a work plan will have its own particularobjective, appropriate content which is to be worfced upon, and a workingp.rocedure. ... A' simple and bricf excrcisc ¡s a task, and so also are morecomplex and comprehensive work plans which require spontaneous com-municarion of meaning or the solving of problems in iearníng and com-municating. Any language test can be included within this spectrum of tasks.All materials designed for language teaching - through their particular organi-zation of content and the working procsdures they assume or propose for thelearning of content - can be seen as compendia of tasfcs.

For Prabhu, a task is "an activity which requires Iearners to arrive át anoutcorne from given information through some process of thought, andwhich allows teachers to control and regúlate that process" (Prabhu1987:17). Reading train timetables and deciding which train. one shóuld _take to get to a certain destinación on a given day ,is an appropriateclassroom task according to this definition. Crookes defines a task as "apiece of work or an activity, usualiy with a specified objective, under-. •tak'en as part of an educatíonal course, at work, or used to elicit data forresearch" (Crookes 1986: 1). This definition would lead to a verydifferent set of "tasfcs" from those idcntified by Prahbu, since it cáuld _ •'include not only summaries, essays, and class notes, but presumabty, iti

233 ' •

Current cornmunicative approaches

some language classrooms; drílls, dialogue readings; and any of the other"tasks" that teachers use to artain their teaching objectives.

In the literature on TBLT, severa! attempts have been made to grouptasks into categories, as a basis for task design and description. Willis(1996) proposes six task types biíilt'on more or less tradirional knowl-edgc hierarchies. She labels her task examples as follows:

1. listing2. ordering and sorting3. comparing4. problern solving5. sharing personal experíences •6. creative tasks

Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993) classify tasks accordíng to the type ofinteracrion that occurs in task accomplishment and give the followingclassificatkm:

1. Jigsaw tasks: These involve iearners cornbining different pieces ofinformation to form a whole (e.g., chrcc individuáis or groups rnayhave three different parts of a story and have to piece the storytogether).

2. Informatíon-gap tasks; One student or group of students has one setof information and another student or group has a complementar" setof information. They rnust negotiate and find out what the otherparty's information is in order to complete an activity.

3. Probletn-solving tasks: Students are given a problem and a set ofinformation, They must arrive at a solution to the problem. There isgeneraily a single resolution of the outcome.

4. Decision-making íasks: Students are given a problem for which thereare a number of possibk outcomes and they must choose one throughnego'tiation and discussion.

í. Opinión exchange tasks: Learners engage in discussion and exchangeof ideas. They do not need to reach agreement.

Other characteristics of tasks have also been described, "such as thefollowing:

1. one-way or two-way: whether the task ínvolves a one-way exchangeof information or a two-way exchange

2. convergent or divergent: whether the students achieve a common goalor several different goals

3. collaborative or cornpetitive: whether the students collaborate to carryout a task or compete with each other on a task

234

-fifi

Task-Based Language Teaching

4. single or múltiple outcomes: whether there is a single outcome orrnany different outcomes are possible

5. concrete or abstract language; whether the task involves the use ofconcrete language or abstract language

6. simple or complex processing: whether the task requires relativelysimple or complex cognitive processing

7. simple pr complex language: whether the'linguistic demands of thetask 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

Leamer'roles

A number of specific roles for learners are assumed in current proposalsfor TBL Some of these overlap with the general roles assumed for learnersin Communicative Language Teaching while others are created by the'focus on task completion as a central learning activity. Primary roles thatare implied by task work are:

GROUP PARTICIPANT

Many tasks will be done in pairs or small groups. For students moreaccustorned to whole-class and/or individual work, chis may requiresome adaptation.

MONITOR "I

In TBLT, tasks are not érhployed for their own sake but as a means offacilitating learning. Class actívities have to be designcd so that studentshave 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 íbrm in which such messages typically come pacfced.A number of learner-initiated techniques to support learner reflection ontask characteristics, including language' form, are proposed in Bell andBurnaby (1984).

RISK-TAKER AND INNOVATOR

Many tasks will requke leamers to créate and interpret messages forwhich they lack full linguistic resources and prior experience. In fact, thisis said to be the point of such .tasks. Practice in restating, paraphrasing,using paralinguistíc signáis (where appropriate), and so on, will often baneeded. The skills of guessing from liaguistic and cpntextual clues, asking .for clarificación, and consuítirig with other learners may also need to bedeveloped.

235

'

Current commumcative approaches

.Teacher roles • . •

Additional roles are also assumed íor reachers in TBI, including:'

SELECTOR AND SEQUENCER OF TASKS

A central role of the teachet is in selectíng, adapting, and/or creating thetasks themselves and then forming these into an instructional sequence inkeeping with learner needs, interests, and language skill level.

PREPARING LEARNERS FOR TASKS

Most TBLT proponents suggest thar learners should not go into newtasks "cojd" and that sorne sort of pretask preparation or cuing is impor-tant, Such activities might include topic introduction, clarífying task in-structions, helping students learn or recail useful words and phrases tofacilítate task accomplishment, and providing partía! demonstration oftask procedures. 'Such cuing may be inductive and implicit or deductivoand explicit.

CONSCIOUSNESS-KAISING

Current visws of TBLT hold that if learners are to acquire languagethrough participating in tasks they need to attend to or notice criticalfea tures of the language they use and hear. This is referred to as "Focus onForm." TBLT proponents stress that this does not mean doing a grammarlesson before students take on a task. ít does mean cmploying a variety ofform-focusing techniques, including artention-focusing pretask activities,text exploration, guided exposure to parallel tasks, and use o/highlightedmaterial.

The role of Instructional materials

PEDAGOG1C MATERIALS

Instructional materials p!ay an important role in TBLT because ¡t is de-pendent on a.suffícient supply of appropriate ciassroom tasks, some ofwhich may require considerable time, ingenuity, and resources todevelop, Materials that can be exploired for instruction in TBLT arelimited only by the imagination of the task designen Many contemporarylanguage teaching texts cite a "task focus" or "task-based activities"among thcir credentials, though most of the tasks that appear in suchbooks are familiar ciassroom activities for teachers who employ col-laborative iearning, Cornmunicative Language Teaching, or small-groupactivities. Several teacher resource books are available that contain repre-sentative sets of satnple task activities {e.g., Willis 1996) that can be

236

Task-Based Language Teaching

adapted for a variety of situations. A number of task collections have alsobeen put into textbook form for students use. Sorne of these are in moreor less traditional^ext format (e.g,, Think Tu/ice, Hover 1986), some aremultimedia {e.g., Challenge*, Candlín and Edelhoff 1982), and some arepublished as task cards (e.g., Malaysian Upper Secondary Communica-tional Syllabus Resource Kit, 1979). A wide variety of realia can also beused as a resource for TBI.

TBI proponents favor the use of authentíc tasks supported by authenticmaterials wherever possible. Popular media obviously provide rich re-sources for such materials. The following are some of the task types thatcan be built around such media products.

News papers- 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 classifíed

section.- Students prepare their weekend entertamment plan using the entertain-

ment section,

Televisión— Students take notes during the weather report and prepare a map with

weather symbols showing ükély wcather for the predicted period.- In watching an infomercial, students identify and list "hype" words

and then try to construct a parallel ad following the sequence of thehype words.

- After watching an episode of an unknown soap opera, students list thecharacters (with known or made-up ñames) and their possible relation-ship to other characters in the episode.

Internet- Given a book title to be acquired, students conduct a comparative

shopping analysis of three Interaet booksellers, listing prices, mailingtimes, and shipping charges, and choose a vendorj justifying theirchpice.

- Seeking to find an inexpensive hotel in Tokyo, students search withthree different search engines (e.g., Yahoo, Netscape, Snap), comparingsearch times and analyzing the fkst ten hits to determine most usefulsearch engine for their parpóse.

- Students initiate.a "chat" in a chat room, índicating a current interestin their life and developing an answer to the first three people torespond. They then start a diary with these text-sets, ranking theresponses.

237

Current communicative approaches

ProcedureThe way in which task acrivitics are designad into an instructional bloccan be seen from the following example from Richards (1985). Theexample comes from a language grogram that contained a core compo-nent buik «round tasks. The program was an intensive conversationcourse for Japancse college students studying on a summer program inthe United States. Needs analysis identified target tasks the studentsneeded to be able to carry out in EngÜsh, including:

- basic social sarvival transactións- face-to-face informal conversations- telephone conversations- interviews on the campüs- service encounters

A set of role-play activities was then developed focusing on situationsstudents would encounter in the community and transacrions they wouidhave to carry out in English. The following forrnat was developed foreach role-play task:

Pretask activitíes1. Learners first take part in a preliminary actívity that introduces the

topic, the situation, and the "script" that will subsequently appcar inthe role-play task. Such acrivities are of various kinds, including brain-stormíng, ranking exercises, and problern-solving tasks. The focus ison thinidng about a topic, generating vocabulary and related lan-guage, and developing expectations about tb,C .topic. This activitytherefore prepares learners for the role-'play task by establíshing sche-mata of different kinds.

2. Learners then read a dialogue on a related topic. This serves both tomodel the kind of transaction the learner will have to perform in therole-play task and to provide examples of the kind of language thatcould be used to carry out such a transaction.

Task activity3. Learners perform a role p!ay. Students work in pairs with a task and '

cues needed to negotiate the task.

Posttask actívities4. Learners then listen to recordings of native speakers performing the

same role-play task they have just practiced and compare differencesbetween the way they expressed particular functions and meaningsand the way native speakers performed.

Willis (1996: 56-57) recommends a similar sequence of acrivities:

238

Task-Based Language Teaching

Pretask

Introduction to topic and task- T helps Ss to understand the theme and objectives of the task, for

example, brainstorming ideas with the class, using pictures, mime, orpersonal experience to introduce the topic.

- Ss may do a pretask, for example, topíc-based odd-word-out games.- T may highlíght useful words and phrases, but would not preteach new

structures.- Ss can be given preparationtime to think about how to do the task.- Ss can hear a recording of á 'parallel task being done (so long as this

. does not give away the splution to the profalem).- If the task is based on a text, Ss read part of it.

The task cycle

Task- The task is done by Ss (in pairs or groups) and gives Ss a chance to use

whatever language they already have to express themselves and saywhatever they want to say. This may be in response to reading a text orhearing a recording.

- T walks round and monitors, encouraging in a suppordve way every-one's attempts at communication in the target language.

- T helps Ss to formúlate what they want to say, but will not intervene tocorrect errors of form.

- The erhphasis is on spontaneous, exploratory talk and confídencefauilding, within the privacy of the smali group.

- Success ín achieving the goals of the task helps Ss' rnotivation.

Planning .,- Planning prepares for the next stage, when Ss are asked to report

briefly to the whole class how they did the task and what the outcomewas.

- Ss draft and rehearse what they .want to say or write,- T goes round to advise students pn language, suggésting phrases and

helping Ss to polish and correct their language.- If the reports are ¡n writing, T .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 spe-

cific language ítems. •

Report- T asks some pairs to report briefly to che whole class so everyone can

compare findings, or begín a survey. (NB: There must be a purpose for

239

'

'

Current cotnmunicátíve approaches .

othérs to -listen.) Sometimes only one or rwo groups report inothers comment and add extra points. The class may take notes.

— T chairs, comments on the contení of ttieir reporta, rephrasesbut gives no overt public corrección.

Posttask listening. ::;|- Ss listen to a recording of fluent speakers doing the same task, and":;,

compare the ways in which they did the task themselves.

The language focus • v:

Analysis~ T sets some language-focüsed tasks, based on the texts students have.;.

read or on the transcripta of the recordings they have heard. '•.',— Examples include the following: :;•'. Find words and phrases relaced to the title of the topic or text. :

Rcad the transcript, find .words ending in s or 's, and say what the smeans.

• -• • Find all the verbs in the simple past form. Say which refer to past timeand which do not.Underline and classify the questions in the transcript.

- T starts Ss off, then Ss continué, often in pairs,- T goes round to help; Ss can ask individual questions.

,.-• In plenary, T then reviews the analysis, possibly writing relevant lan-guage up on the board in list form; Ss may make notes.

Practice~ T conducís practice acrivities as needed, based on the language analysis

work already on the board, or using examples from the text ortranscript.

- Practice activities can include:choral repetition of the phrases identified and classifiedmemory challenge garnes based on partially erased examples or usinglists already on blackboard for progressive deletionsentence completion (set by one team for another)rnatching the past-tense verbs (jumbled) with the subject or objectsthey had in the textKim's game (in teams) with new words and phrasesdictionary reference words from text or transcript

ConclusiónFew would question the pedagogical valué of employing tasks as a vehiclefor promoting communication and authentic language use in second lan-guage classrooms, and depending on one's definition of a task, tasks have

240

Él

Task-Based Language Teaching

long been parí of the mainstream repertoire of language teaching tech-niques for teachers of rnariy different methodological persuasions. TBLT,howev.fr, offers a different rationale for the use of tasks as well asdifferent criteria for the design and use of tasfcs. It is the dependence ontasks as the primary source of pedagogical input in teaching and theabsence oía systematicgrammaticalor other type of syllabus thatcharac-terizes current versions of TBLT, and that distinguishes it from the use oftasks in Competency-Based Language Teaching, another task-based ap-proach but one that is nót wedded to the theoretical framework andassumptíons of TBLT. Many aspects of TBLThave yet to be justified, suchas proposed schemes for tasfc types, task sequencing, and evaluation oftask performance. And the basic assumprion of Task-Based LanguageTeaching - that it provides for a more effective basis for teaching thanother language teaching approaches - remains in the domain of ideojogyrather than fact.

BIbliography and further readingBell,)., and B. Burnaby. 1984. A Handbook forESL Literacy. Toronto: Ontario

Institute for Studies in Educación.Beretta, A. 1990. Implementation of the Bangalore Project. Applied Linguistícs

11(4): 321-337.Berecca, A., and A, Davies. 1985. Evaluation of the Bangalore Project. Bnglish

Language Teaching Journal 30(2) 121-127.Breen, M. 1987. Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin and D.

Murphy (eds.), Language Learning Tasks. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall. 23-46.

Brown, G., and G. Yule. 1983. Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge:Cambridge Universicy Press.

Bygate, M. 1988. Units of oral expression and language learning in ¿malí groupinteteactton. Applied Linguistics 9: 59-82.

Bygate, M., P. Skehan, and M. Swa'm. (eds.) 2000. Task-Based Learning: Lan-gaage Teaching, Learning, and Assessmgnt. Harlow, Essex: Pearson.

Candlin, C. 1987. Towards task-based language learnmg. In C. Candlin and D.Murphy (eds.), Language Learning Tasks. Enjjlewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall. 5-21.

Candlin, C., and C. Edelhoff. 1982. Challenges: A Multi-media Project forLeamers ofEnglish. Harlow, Essex:' Longman.

Crookes, G. 19SS. Task Classificatian: A Crass-Dtsciplinary Review. TechnicalReport No. 4. Honolulú: Center for Second Language Classroom Research.

•.Crookes, G., and S. Gass (eds.). 1993.Taifa in a Pedagogical Context, Clcvedon,- •Philadeíphia, and Adelaíde: Muktlingual Matters.

Day, R. (ed.). 198é. Tatking to Learn. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Doyle, W. 1983. Academic work. Review of Educacional Research 53(2): 159-

199.Ellis, R. 1992. Second Language Aequisition and Language Pedagogy. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

241