Rod Ellis Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics University of Auckland

TBLT is an approach to teaching a second/foreign language that seeks to engage learners in interactionally authentic language use by having them perform a series of tasks.

It aims to both enable learners (1) to acquire new linguistic knowledge and (2) to proceduralize their existing knowledge by treating language as a tool for making meaning rather than as an object to study.

1. Task-based language teaching involves ‘focus on form’ (i.e. attention to form occurs within the context of performing the task) = a strong form of communicative language teaching.

2. Task-supported language teaching involves ‘focus-on-forms’ (i.e. specific forms are pre-taught and tasks are used to provide ‘free practice’) = a weak form of communicative language teaching.

Characteristic Long (1996) Skehan (1998) Ellis (2003)

Natural language use Yes

Yes

Yes

Learner-centredness Yes

Yes

Not necessarily

Focus on form Yes – through corrective feedback

Yes – mainly through pre-task

Yes – in all phases of a TBLT lesson

Tasks Yes – unfocused and focused

Yes- unfocused Yes – unfocused and focused

Rejection of traditional approaches

Yes Yes No

1. Seedhouse (e.g. 1999; 2005) 2. Sheen (e.g. 1994; 2003) 3. Swan (e.g. 2005a; 2005b) 4. Widdowson (2003) 5. Carless (2005) 6. Littlewood (2007)

1. A ‘task’ cannot be clearly distinguished from an ‘exercise’ 2. It is not possible to predict the ‘activity’ that results from a

‘task’. 3. The sole aim of TBLT is to develop communicative fluency 4. There is no room for focusing on form in TBLT. 5. TBLT only focuses on oral skills, especially speaking. 6. TBLT requires group work. 7. The teacher’s role is simply to manage students’ performance

of tasks. 8. TBLT requires teachers and students to use English all the time. 9. TBLT is only suitable for ESL contexts. 10. TBLT provides learners with very little input

Widdowson (2003) argued that ‘the criteria that are proposed as defining features of tasks are . . . so loosely formulated . . . that they do not distinguish tasks from other more traditional classroom activities’ (p. 126).

1. The primary focus is on ‘meaning’. 2. There is some kind of gap. 3. Learners need to use their own linguistic

and non-linguistic resources. 4. There is an outcome other than the

display of language.

Look at Mary's shopping list. Then look at the list of items in Abdullah's store. Mary's Shopping List 1. oranges 4. powdered milk 2. eggs 5. biscuits 3. flour 6. jam Abdullah's Store 1. bread 7. mealie meal flour 2. salt 8. sugar 3. apples 9. curry powder 4. tins of fish 10. biscuits 5. coca cola 11. powdered milk 6. flour 12. dried beans Work with a partner. One person is Mary and the other person is Mr. Abdullah. Make

conversations using ‘any’ and ‘some’. Mary: Good morning. Do you have any flour? Abdullah: Yes, I have some.

Student A: You are going shopping at Student B’s store. Here is your shopping list.

Find out which items on your list you can buy. 1. oranges 4. powdered milk 2. eggs 5. biscuits 3. flour 6. jam

Student B: You own a store. Here is a list of items for sale in your store. Find the

items that Student A asks for that you do not stock. 1. bread 7. mealie meal flour 2. salt 8. sugar 3. apples 9. curry powder 4. tins of fish 10. biscuits 5. coca cola 11. powdered milk 6. flour 12. dried beans

‘Task-as-workplan’ has weak construct validity because the interaction that transpires when learners perform a task (i.e. the ‘task-as-process’) frequently does not match that intended by designers of the task.

But, in fact, there is substantial evidence to suggest that it is possible to design tasks that are predictive of language use. Skehan has shown that tasks can be

designed that will lead to learners prioritizing one aspect of language (e.g. fluency) over other aspects (e.g. complexity).

TBLT aims to develop communicative fluency by providing students with opportunities to struggle to communicate in the same conditions they will experience in real life.

But TBLT also seeks to provide a context where students can acquire new vocabulary and new grammatical structures by fostering incidental acquisition.

Transfer appropriate learning

TBLT requires that any treatment of grammar take the form of quick corrective feedback allowing for minimal interruption of the task activity.

It can be achieved in a number of ways:

Through pre-task and on-line planning Through corrective feedback Through post-task activities of a traditional

nature

Speaking tasks are difficult for learners of

low proficiency and may result in ‘minimal demands on linguistic competence’

Tasks do not always require speaking -although most research has investigated speaking tasks.

Tasks can be input- based or output-based and can involve all four skills.

For beginner level learners input-based tasks (e.g. Listen-and-do tasks) are most appropriate.

Carless reported that primary school teachers in Hong Kong experienced difficulty with group-based TBLT: Students used L1 Too much noise

TBLT need not always involve group-work: input-based tasks Information gap tasks performed in a

whole class participatory structure Tasks performed individually by students

(Prabhu)

‘The thrust of TBLT is to cast the teacher in the role of manager and facilitator of communicative activity rather than an important source of new language’.

TBLT requires the teacher to perform a

variety of roles including those of ‘manager’ and ‘facilitator of communication’ but also including more the traditional roles of ‘corrector’ and ‘provider of new language’.

TBLT requires teachers and students to

use the L2 all the time.

Overuse of the L1 can be a problem in group work but TBLT does not prohibit the use of the L1:

Sociocultural theory views the L1 as a useful cognitive tool for scaffolding L2 learner production and facilitating private speech (see, for example, Anton and DiCamilla, 1998).

Learners make effective use of the L1 to establish the goals for a task and the procedures to be followed in tackling it.

TBLT is only suited to ‘acquisition-rich’ environments (i.e. ESL contexts) and is not suited to ‘acquisition-poor’ environments (i.e. EFL contexts) where a more structured approach is required to ensure the grammatical resources needed for communicating.

TBLT puts the emphasis on output. ‘It remains true that TBLT provides learners with substantially less new language than “traditional” approaches.’ ‘In the tiny corpus of a year’s task-based input, even some basic structures may not occur often, much core vocabulary is likely to be absent, and many other lexical items will appear only once or twice’.

This is the most fundamental misunderstanding of TBLT because it assumes that tasks must inevitably involve spoken interaction and production. But, in fact, tasks can also be ‘input-based’ (i.e. involve listening or reading).

Extensive reading activities can be viewed as tasks.

Arguably, a task-based course is capable of providing much greater exposure to the target language than a traditional course.

Both Sheen and Swan argue that there is no empirical evidence to support either the hypotheses that construct the theoretical rationale for TBLT or to demonstrate that TBLT is superior to traditional focus-on-forms’ approaches.

Neither Sheen nor Swan make any reference to Prabhu (1987) and Beretta and Davies’ (1985) evaluation of this TBLT project in India.

The conclusions of this evaluation were:

In the tests favouring the ‘traditional group, this group did best

In the tests favouring the TBLT group, this group did best

In the neutral tests (e.g. a contextualized grammar test; dictation; listening/reading comprehension), the TBLT group did best.

But there are problems with conducting such evaluations and also with the kind of comparative method studies that Sheen constantly asks for.

This study compared the effects of TBLT (using input-based tasks) and PPP on the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar by 6 yr old Japanese children who were complete beginners. Key findings: the interactions in the two classroom were fundamentally different (IRF vs. student-initiated discourse) The TBLT group acquired more new words The TBLT group demonstrated better incidental acquisition of plural-s

1. Grading tasks according to difficulty 2. Problems with teachers and students 3. Problems involving structural problems

in educational systems

Littlewood (2007) proposes that TBLT be adapted by inducting learners into performing tasks through a series of activities that lead them from traditional form-focused exercises to tasks.

But this subverts the fundamental principle of TBLT as it constitutes a return to a traditional methodology of the present-practise-produce (PPP) kind. It is a ‘rejection’ of TBLT not an ‘adaptation’.

TBLT has been promoted largely by researchers and (by and large) resisted by text-book writers and by teachers wedded to traditional approaches.

There is no task-based course available for use in mainstream language education (e.g. in Asia) and it remains difficult to persuade teachers to accept TBLT and therefore publishers resist publishing a TBLT course.