DOI: 10.1002/tesj.

534

E M P I R I CA L F E AT U R E A RT I C L E

Can task-based language teaching be “authentic”

in foreign language contexts? Exploring the case of
China

Matt Kessler1   | Ian Solheim2  | Mengfei Zhao3

1
University of South Florida
2
Abstract
Woodrow Wilson High School,
Washington, D.C. This article explores a long-standing criticism of the task-
3
Anhui University of Technology based language teaching (TBLT) approach regarding the
applicability of TBLT to curricula in English as a foreign
Correspondence
language (EFL) settings and, specifically, whether authentic
Matt Kessler, University of South Florida.
Email: [email protected] tasks can be designed for EFL learners. To further inves-
tigate this issue, the authors explored the EFL context of
China and examined students enrolled at two universities
in different provinces. Data include (1) focus groups, (2)
questionnaires (N = 555) surveying students’ second lan-
guage (L2) English use outside of the classroom for non-
academic purposes, and (3) semistructured interviews (N
= 7) examining teachers’ perspectives regarding their stu-
dents’ L2 English use outside of class. The results show
that a large majority of the students did engage in numer-
ous L2 English tasks and activities outside of the classroom
for nonacademic purposes. Despite this widespread use by
students, the teachers themselves appeared largely unaware
of students’ engagement in such activities. The implications
of these findings are discussed in relation to criticisms of
TBLT regarding task authenticity and in relation to the de-
sign of curricula in similar EFL settings.

TESOL Journal. 2020;00:e534. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tesj |

© 2020 TESOL International    1 of 16
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.534 Association
2 of 16 
|     KESSLER et al.

1  |   IN T RO D U C T ION
Ever since it originated from communicative language teaching (CLT) in the late 1970s and early
1980s, task-based language teaching (TBLT) has increasingly been implemented by administrators
and educators in both English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL)
contexts (Butler, Kang, Kim, & Liu, 2018; Ellis, 2017). As an approach, the use of tasks and TBLT
has been widely studied, garnering support from second language acquisition theories such as inter-
actionist approaches (see Gass & Mackey, 2015) and related empirical research (e.g., Abrams, 2019;
Broszkiewicz, 2011; Shintani, 2011, 2015; Skehan, 2014). Despite this, as Ellis (2009b) and others
have noted, TBLT’s use and implementation in the second language (L2) classroom are not without
criticism. In particular, one criticism that has been raised by multiple scholars relates to the applica-
bility of TBLT in foreign language settings due to what has been deemed as an issue surrounding task
authenticity (e.g., Bruton, 2005; Swan, 2005; Widdowson, 2003; see Ellis, 2017, for a comprehensive
review).
Over the years, many researchers, such as González-Lloret and Ortega (2014), have stated that
authenticity is a central component and consideration for tasks in TBLT. Because of this, scholars
such as Widdowson (2003) and others have argued that, when implementing TBLT, the tasks that
teachers use should be authentic in the sense that they should resemble those tasks that the L2 learner
population is likely to encounter in their everyday lives. In ESL contexts, implementing authentic
tasks for learners is typically a non-issue for most educators. However, in EFL contexts, it has been
argued that selecting and designing authentic tasks pose a much more considerable issue, because
many researchers and teachers assume that a majority of their L2 English learners do not use English
beyond the classroom walls. In this article, we explore this long-standing and continued criticism of
the TBLT approach and, specifically, whether it is possible to design authentic tasks for L2 learners
in an EFL setting. To explore this important issue further, we examine the EFL context of Mainland
China by investigating learners’ use of L2 English beyond the classroom for nonacademic purposes at
two universities in different provinces. In the sections that follow, we discuss the related background
literature, the methodology, and our findings, and we interpret them in relation to their implications
for the adoption of TBLT in EFL settings.

2  |  L IT E R AT U R E R E V IE W

2.1  |  TBLT and task authenticity

TBLT has been a popular approach in L2 education and pedagogy since its formation in the late 1970s
and is an approach that is increasingly being used across the globe (Butler et al., 2018). In a TBLT
approach, curriculum and syllabi are not organized around a language’s grammatical principles or
concepts and then explicitly taught, as may be the case in many foreign language classrooms. Rather,
in TBLT, language teachers attempt to have their L2 learners engage with and interact in natural
language use; in order to accomplish this, learners must perform various communicative tasks that
allow them to experience the L2 in action (Ellis, 2017). Central to the TBLT approach is the concept
of a task. According to Ellis and Shintani (2014), in order to be considered as a task, the activity must
comprise four central criteria: (1) It should be meaning-focused in terms of requiring learners to de-
code and/or encode information, (2) a gap should exist that enables learners to express and/or infer
meaning, (3) learners should attempt to use their own linguistic (or nonlinguistic) resources, and (4)
there should be some outcome or goal in performing the task.
KESSLER et al.    
|  3 of 16

Numerous studies have shown that integrating tasks and/or a TBLT approach can be effective for
multiple facets related to L2 acquisition (e.g., Abrams, 2019; Ellis, 2009a; Hawkes, 2011; Shintani,
2011, 2015). However, it is important to note that there are differing versions and perspectives of
TBLT (e.g., Ellis, 2017; Long, 2015; Skehan, 1996); it is not an approach that has a uniform, one-
size-fits-all template that can easily be adopted by language educators. The minutiae of these multiple
perspectives are beyond the scope of this article, but Ellis (2017) points out that what all of the various
approaches have in common is that they stress the importance of students’ use of natural language.
Ellis further explains that what is integral is that “TBLT aims to promote language learning by means
of tasks that create interactionally authentic contexts for the use of language” (p. 113). Yet this tenet of
authenticity that Ellis describes has been a point of contention and considerable debate over the years,
especially as it relates to the promotion and/or adoption of TBLT for teaching English in EFL contexts.
Numerous scholars have stated that authenticity should be a central component of tasks in a TBLT
approach (e.g., Bruton, 2005; González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014; Swan, 2005; Widdowson, 2003), and
the tasks themselves should be authentic in the sense that they should resemble tasks that the L2 learn-
ers are likely to encounter in their everyday lives. If we take English as the L2 under consideration,
in ESL contexts implementing authentic tasks for English learners is likely not a considerable chal-
lenge for most language educators due to the prevalence of English spoken outside of the classroom.
However, in EFL contexts where the L2 is not the primary language spoken beyond the classroom, it
has been argued that because learners are not exposed to and do not use the L2 outside of class there
is an inherent issue with task authenticity. Thus, this has led scholars such as Widdowson (2003),
Swan (2005), and others to argue that TBLT is ill suited for foreign language environments and in-
stead should only be used in acquisition-rich environments. In reference to how this authenticity issue
has been interpreted by those implementing TBLT in different countries and/or EFL contexts, Butler
(2011) has further explained that “the concept of [task] authenticity is ambiguously understood. …
What is perceived to be authentic often means materials and activities that accurately reflect the ac-
tual use of language … in English-speaking countries” (p. 41). Thus, even though some tasks may
routinely be carried out in acquisition-rich ESL contexts, when those same tasks are employed in EFL
contexts, they may become inauthentic and appear relatively superficial to L2 learners.

2.2  |  Issues surrounding the adoption of TBLT in EFL contexts and

in China

In terms of implementing TBLT in EFL contexts, Wang (2014) has noted that both language teach-
ing theory and pedagogy developed in the West are increasingly being integrated into Asian coun-
tries. However, as they have been integrated, the applicability or suitability of such theories and
practices has come under increasing scrutiny by researchers and practitioners alike (e.g., Bax, 2003;
Holliday, 2006, 2009; Kumaravadivelu, 2012; Pennycook, 1989, 2007; Smith, 1999). For instance,
Kumaravadivelu (2012) has noted that over the years applied linguistics scholars and TESOL pro-
fessionals have advocated for the adoption of Western-based approaches such as CLT and TBLT
through numerous outlets, including “Western universities, textbooks published by Western publish-
ing houses, research agendas set by [Western]-based scholars, professional journals edited and pub-
lished from [Western] countries” and much more (p. 15). However, critics such as Bax (2003) have
long argued that many champions of CLT and TBLT view the approaches as “not only ‘modern’
… [but] in fact the only way to learn a language properly” (p. 279), and thus proponents of CLT/
TBLT ignore not only the vital role that context plays in the teaching and acquisition of an L2, but
also various other critical issues. Such issues include (but are not limited to) scholars’ assertions (1)
4 of 16 
|     KESSLER et al.

that the process of research itself is inherently political and one that is socially bound to a particular
context (e.g., Pennycook, 2007; Smith, 1999); (2) that imbued within CLT and TBLT are transparent
undertones of “native-speakerism” and colonialism—as Holliday (2006) further remarks, an under-
lying theme is “the ‘othering’ of students and colleagues from outside the English-speaking West”
(p. 385); and (3) that such idealizing of the “native speaker” and Western-developed approaches has
serious (often negative) implications for the identity development of both teachers and students in
EFL contexts (see, e.g., Holliday, 2006, 2009; Kumaravadivelu, 2012). Clearly, there are a number of
significant objections and criticisms to such Western-developed approaches and the promotion and/or
adoption of those approaches in different contexts.
Beyond the aforementioned issues, specifically there has been considerable interest in the issue of
the applicability of TBLT in Asian EFL contexts; a number of studies have explored different facets
related to task authenticity, particularly throughout China (e.g., Carless, 2007; J. C.-C. Chen, 2012; Q.
Chen & Wright, 2017; Lin & Wu, 2012). Carless (2007), for instance, explored the suitability of TBLT
for secondary schools in Hong Kong. He conducted semistructured interviews with 11 teachers and
10 teacher educators to better understand practitioners’ viewpoints of designing and using tasks in the
EFL classroom. In his findings, Carless highlighted that many of the teachers whom he interviewed
found TBLT tasks both time-consuming and difficult to design for their students. Relatedly, Chen and
Wright (2017) examined teachers’ beliefs regarding TBLT in China. Using a case study design that
consisted primarily of teacher observations, the authors reported on how multiple teachers understood
and conceptualized tasks in a TBLT approach in their curriculum. Their findings show that, although
the teachers generally had positive perceptions of TBLT as an approach, they also felt the EFL context
significantly inhibited their abilities to design and implement tasks involving authentic situations and
language.
When taken together, the findings of these studies point toward the potential issue of task authen-
ticity that was raised earlier by many critics of TBLT. Because of this, Batstone (2012), for one, has
called for future TBLT research to pay more attention to the specific classroom and instructional con-
text(s) in which TBLT is employed. Methodologically speaking as well, Q. Chen and Wright (2017)
have noted that both theirs and previous studies have tended to prioritize teachers’ or educators’ per-
spectives, stating that future research should attempt to integrate students’ perceptions as well. This
integration of teachers’ and students’ viewpoints regarding TBLT, tasks, and/or other pedagogical
practices can be vital, given that some studies have shown that teachers’ and students’ perceptions
do not always uniformly align regarding issues surrounding task effectiveness, enjoyment, and/or
additional areas involving classroom instruction (e.g., Ahmadian, Mansouri, & Ghominejad, 2017;
Murphy, 2003).
Whereas previous smaller scale studies involving the sole use of teachers’ perspectives have
pointed to the issue of task authenticity in EFL contexts, to date the issue itself has still remained
largely unaddressed, especially by studies that employ larger sample sizes, mixed methods, and/or the
integration of both teachers’ and students’ vantage points. Additionally, although many researchers
and teachers have long assumed that most of their students do not use the L2 outside the classroom in
foreign language contexts, it is important to note that research has not corroborated such assumptions,
which might simply be addressed by asking foreign language learners whether (and/or when) they
use their L2 outside of the classroom. Many of the criticisms surrounding TBLT and task authenticity
originated in the early 2000s (e.g., Swan, 2005; Widdowson, 2003), yet it is possible that due to the
proliferation of and access to new technologies around the globe since then, this may have an impact
on how learners engage with their L2s (Arnold & Ducate, 2019). Gaining insights into language
learners’ habits beyond the classroom is vital, not only for validating or refuting claims of task (in)
authenticity, but pedagogically speaking as well, because students’ responses have the potential to
KESSLER et al.    
|  5 of 16

inform the subsequent design and development of tasks and other activities in EFL contexts (Kessler,
2020; Reinders & Benson, 2017).

2.3  |  The current study

In order to address this long-standing issue of task authenticity in TBLT, the current study attempted
to discover if, whether, and when L2 English learners use English beyond the classroom in an EFL
context. Using a mixed-methods design, we integrated students’ and teachers’ perspectives, exploring
uses of L2 English by students from two universities in different provinces in Mainland China. The
study was guided by the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1: Do university-level Chinese EFL students use L2 English outside of the classroom
for nonacademic-related purposes? If so, when do they use it and for what purpose(s)?

RQ2: What are teachers’ perspectives regarding their EFL students’ outside-of-class
English use? Do teachers’ perspectives align with students’ self-reports?

3  |   M ET H OD
3.1  |  Context and participants

We collected data from two universities in Mainland China: a large agricultural university in a
city in Hubei province called Hubei-Ag and a midsized technology university in a smaller city in
Anhui province called Anhui-Tech (both pseudonyms). Two universities with different locations
and educational specialties and foci were selected for two primary reasons: (1) their different
student populations and instructional contexts might help to broaden the scope of the study so
that the findings would hold greater generalizability throughout the Asian EFL context of China,
and (2) including two locales would help us understand any potential similarities and/or differ-
ences in L2 English use among the locales. In total, 555 students and 7 teachers participated in
the study. Students varied in their L2 English proficiencies within and across the universities,
ranging from intermediate to advanced. Table 1 presents information regarding the student par-
ticipants from each university.
In addition to the students, four female Chinese L2 English teachers from Hubei-Ag and three
Chinese L2 English teachers from Anhui-Tech participated in individual semistructured interviews.
The Hubei-Ag teachers—Alicia, Ann, Fay, and Lucy (all pseudonyms)—had taught English for an
average of 17.25 years (SD = 4.92). Three of the teachers held a master’s degree in English and
American literature; Fay held a bachelor’s degree in English. At Hubei-Ag, the teachers taught a vari-
ety of English language courses, including Scientific Translation and Oral English as well as College
English, which integrated all four skills of reading, writing, speaking, and listening for academic pur-
poses. The three Anhui-Tech teachers—Coco, Louise, and Mia (all pseudonyms)—had taught English
for an average of 9.67 years (SD = 0.58). Louise held a master’s degree in English, and Coco and Mia
each held a bachelor’s degree. Together, the Anhui-Tech teachers taught numerous English language
courses, including English Public Speaking and Debate, English Literature, English Reading, English
Listening, Integrated English, and College English.
6 of 16 
|     KESSLER et al.

T A B L E 1   Descriptive statistics for student participants

Hubei-Ag Anhui-Tech
Participants n = 360 n = 195
Females n = 267 n = 116
Males n = 93 n = 79
Age M = 18.98 (SD = 1.06) M = 19.12 (SD = 1.21)
English study M = 10.48 (SD = 2.03) M = 9.71 (SD = 2.28)
(years)
Top reasons for (94.2%) (94.9%)
studying English My future job may require English My future job may require English
(86.9%) (91.2%)
I need to pass an important English test I need to pass an important English test
(69.7%) (83.1%)
I want to travel to an English-speaking Learning English is a school requirement
country in the future
(67.5%) (57.4%)
Learning English is a school requirement I want to travel to an English-speaking
country in the future
(58.1%) (40.0%)
I am interested in the culture of an English- I am interested in the culture of an
speaking country English-speaking country
Top five majors (9.4%) economics (20%) English
(6.7%) plant science (9.2%) international business
(6.7%) food science (7.7%) accounting
(5.6%) biology (5.6%) automation
(4.2%) business (5.1%) electrical engineering

3.2  |  Materials and procedure

This study employed a mixed-methods design (e.g., Riazi & Candlin, 2014) consisting of both quan-
titative and qualitative methods. Data were derived from student focus groups, a questionnaire, and
semistructured interviews. Each source of data is described next.

3.2.1  |  Focus groups

In the summer of 2018, the first two authors conducted focus groups with intact classes of L2 English
learners enrolled in an intensive summer English program at Hubei-Ag. Simultaneously, in two sepa-
rate classes (n = 21, n = 20), we gave students an activity designed to brainstorm if and when those
students used L2 English (for nonacademic-related purposes) outside the classroom for the purposes
of reading, writing, speaking, and/or listening. Within each class, students were divided into small
groups of three to four brainstorm; these small groups then converged as a class, and students col-
lectively created a comprehensive list of their uses for L2 English. The results and lists from the two
separate focus groups were then compiled by the first two authors and developed into a single ques-
tionnaire (described below) for wider distribution across both universities.
KESSLER et al.    
|  7 of 16

3.2.2  | Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of two sections: (1) a section with items inquiring about students’ back-
grounds, L2 learning motivations, and experiences; and (2) a section adapted from the focus group
sessions in which students had previously indicated when they used L2 English outside of the class-
room. Specifically, for the second section, students were provided with a question stem and multiple
corresponding situations. For example, in the section involving the use of L2 English for writing
purposes, the prompt first reminded students that the survey was “for purposes unrelated to school.”
The question stem read: Outside of school, do you ever write …. This stem was followed by multiple
options such as “to email or text with foreigners in English,” “a journal or diary in English,” and vari-
ous other options (see Table 2 for the complete list). Students were asked to check the corresponding
box next to each item indicating either yes or no as to whether they ever used English outside of class
for that particular purpose. This same question format extended to other items on the survey, which,
in addition to writing, also included sections for reading, listening, and speaking.
The questionnaire was first drafted in English and then translated into Chinese before being admin-
istered to the students. Given that students varied in L2 English proficiency, ranging from intermedi-
ate to advanced, the translation from English to Chinese occurred in order to ensure that all students
could adequately comprehend and complete the items. The questionnaire was first administered to
numerous English classrooms at Hubei-Ag before subsequently being administered at Anhui-Tech a
few months later.

3.2.3  |  Semistructured interviews

In addition to the questionnaire, we conducted semistructured interviews with multiple teachers at

each university. Interviews at Hubei-Ag (n = 4) were conducted by the first two authors, and those
at Anhui-Tech (n = 3) were completed by the third author. Interviews were designed to understand
teachers’ perceptions regarding their Chinese EFL learners’ potential uses of L2 English beyond the
classroom both as current students and in students’ future careers, if any. Each interview was audio-
recorded and lasted approximately 15–20 minutes.

3.3  |  Data analysis

Prior to analysis, all questionnaire item responses were screened by all three of the authors. Responses
were included in the final data analysis only if a student had completed all of the questionnaire items
(i.e., if one or more items were left blank, an individual’s questionnaire was discarded). The ques-
tionnaire was originally administered to 588 participants, but 33 surveys were discarded due to in-
complete data. Because the goal of RQ1 was to understand whether EFL students used their L2 of
English outside the classroom for nonacademic purposes (and, if so, for what purpose[s]), quantitative
questionnaire items were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Regarding RQ2, which involved understanding teachers’ perspectives on students’ L2 English use,
the semistructured interviews were first audio-recorded and later transcribed. Once transcribed, the
transcripts were analyzed inductively (e.g., Polio & Friedman, 2017) using a two-cycle approach
(Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). In this two-cycle coding approach, we first assigned codes
based on various themes that emerged from the interview data; then those themes were subsequently
grouped and analyzed in the second stage. For instance, in the interviews, a specific set of questions
8 of 16 
|     KESSLER et al.

T A B L E 2   Students’ reported uses of L2 English outside of class (for nonschool/academic purposes)

Hubei-Ag Anhui-Tech
Outside of school, do you ever read… Outside of school, do you ever read…
when translating 91.2% when playing video/computer games 91.8%
when playing video/ 89.2% when translating 86.2%
computer games
advertisements 80.8% advertisements 78.5%
when buying foreign 70.6% when buying foreign products online 71.3%
products online
when using social 60.8% when using social media 66.7%
media
instructions for 57.8% news online 64.6%
computer programs
news online 55.6% instructions for computer programs 57.9%
novels 54.4% novels 55.9%
instruction manuals 48.3% magazine articles 48.7%
magazine articles 48.1% instruction manuals 42.5%
information on 43.1% information on Wikipedia 35.4%
Wikipedia
Outside of school, do you ever write… Outside of school, do you ever write…
to code/use 44.7% when translating 49.2%
computer software
when translating 38.9% to code/use computer software 47.7%
postcards 23.6% a journal or diary 27.2%
to email or text with 22.5% to email or text with foreigners 22.6%
foreigners
a journal or diary 16.1% postcards 22.1%
a resume/CV 7.8% a resume/CV 10.3%
Outside of school, do you ever listen to… Outside of school, do you ever listen to…
music 97.8% music 95.9%
movies or TV shows 96.1% movies or TV shows 95.4%
when playing video/ 87.2% when playing video/computer games 89.7%
computer games
while 80.2% news 69.2%
communicating
with foreigners
news 66.8% while communicating with foreigners 67.7%
TED Talks 62.3% TED Talks 49.2%
Voice of America 44.1% Voice of America (VOA) 47.2%
(VOA)
radio stations 37.4% radio stations 38.9%
Outside of school, do you ever speak… Outside of school, do you ever speak…
to help foreigners 81.8% English phrases with your Chinese friends 67.7%

(Continues)
KESSLER et al.    
|  9 of 16

T A B L E 2   (Continued)

Hubei-Ag Anhui-Tech
English phrases 70.9% to help foreigners 58.9%
with your Chinese
friends
when using social 37.7% when using social media 38.5%
media
in English clubs 36.6% in English clubs 32.3%

was asked to all seven interviewees (e.g., “Do you ever see students using English outside of the class-
room? If so, what do you see them using English for?”). In the first round of coding, inductive coding
was used to label teachers’ responses to such questions. For example, in response to the aforemen-
tioned questions, three teachers provided these responses: (1) “I see many students reading English
aloud in the morning; they practice reading a lot”; (2) “I would say … [if] they run into a foreigner
or a foreign teacher”; and (3) “very, very rarely. Sometimes when I go to class, I see a lot of students
reading outside of the building. They are reading English texts.” These three strings of interview text
were coded with the phrases of reading aloud outside (for examples 1 and 3) and talking with foreign-
ers (for example 2). Once such codes were inductively assigned to each string of text during the first
round of coding, we grouped the codes into similar themes during the second round of coding (e.g.,
the two instances of reading aloud outside were grouped together and the one instance of talking with
foreigners was placed into a different theme grouping).

4  |   R E S U LTS
4.1  | RQ1

Regarding RQ1 on the topic of Chinese EFL students’ reported uses of L2 English outside the
classroom, Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for each of the two universities. Students at
both Hubei-Ag and Anhui-Tech reported using L2 English for a variety of activities and/or tasks,
which in total amounted to 29 activities in the four skill categories of reading, writing, listening,
and speaking. For instance, when using English outside of class for nonacademic-related purposes,
students reported using English primarily for reading, listening, and speaking, and for writing most
infrequently.
Despite the data being collected from two universities in two provinces, there was minimal vari-
ation in the use of L2 English for the reported tasks or activities in the receptive skill categories of
reading and listening. However, in terms of the production categories, there were some subtle differ-
ences. For example, at Anhui-Tech 27.2% of the participants reported using English to write a journal
or diary, compared with only 16.1% of the participants at Hubei-Ag. Additionally, 58.9% of Anhui-
Tech students reported using oral L2 English to help foreigners (e.g., providing people with directions,
assisting individuals with shopping, various other tasks), compared with 81.8% of Hubei-Ag students
reported doing likewise.
Beyond the collective results of the students at each university, we also examined students’ uses of
L2 English at the individual level. At Hubei-Ag, in terms of the 29 situations for the skill categories
listed on the questionnaire, students reported using English for over half of them (M = 0.56, SD =
0.17). At Anhui-Tech, students similarly reported using English for all of the situations listed (M =
10 of 16 
|     KESSLER et al.

0.56, SD = 0.19). Further examination of the individual responses using participants’ SDs revealed
that no students reported using English for all of the 29 situations; conversely, only one of the 555 total
participants revealed an SD of 0.0, ultimately indicating that this learner reported never using English
outside the classroom for nonacademic purposes.

4.2  | RQ2

In terms of RQ2 regarding teachers’ perspectives and knowledge of their students’ outside-of-
class L2 English use, one of the first questions we asked each of the seven teachers was whether
they ever witnessed students using L2 English outside of the classroom. Teachers’ responses to
this question yielded only two main themes: (1) seeing students reciting English aloud for aca-
demic purposes only and (2) seeing students assisting foreigners with various tasks and activities,
mainly on campus. Five of the seven teachers mentioned either one or both of these situations. For
example,

Alicia (Hubei-Ag): “I see many students reading English aloud in the morning. They
practice reading a lot. … I [also] see some students on campus when they are accompa-
nying foreigners.”

Ann (Hubei-Ag): “Very, very rarely. Sometimes when I go to class, I see a lot of students
reading outside of the building. They are reading English texts, especially before the ex-
amination. … If you mean practical use of English, sometimes when I walk on the street,
I could find some students; they may walk with some foreigners.”

Coco (Anhui-Tech): “For some of the students, they will do some speech rehearsal …
but not very naturally.”

Meanwhile, two other teachers had slightly different perspectives. Mia, from Anhui-Tech, stated that
she rarely ever saw L2 English use by her students or any other students at her university:

“I seldom see them use English outside of the classroom for daily communication. I think
most of the time, they use English just to finish the assignments.”

Likewise, Fay from Hubei-Ag expressed a similar perspective:

“Outside of school? [laughs] … If they got some foreign friends, they need English to
communicate with each other. What else? No. I cannot think. Many students hate English
’cause they think it is irrelevant to their daily life.”

In addition to asking the teachers whether they ever witnessed students using English outside of the
classroom for nonacademic purposes, we asked the teachers if they had any students who went on to have
careers in which they either needed or used English. Only one of the seven teachers could not think of any
former students who used English for their careers; the other six teachers said they could think of only
a small handful of students. Relatedly, we asked if the teachers could think of any tasks or situations in
which their current students might need to use English outside of class. Alicia and Lucy from Hubei-Ag,
in particular, each projected that perhaps as little as 5% or 10% (at most) of their students would go on
KESSLER et al.    
|  11 of 16

to careers that required some English use. Others could only think of careers involving academia or very
specific scenarios involving individual students:

Coco (Anhui-Tech): “For non-English majors, basically no. For English majors, of
course. … For some postgraduate students, they will use English to do some academic
learning.”

Alicia (Hubei-Ag): “I have some students in animal husbandry … and then after gradua-
tion, she decided to be an interpreter.”

Louise (Anhui-Tech): “There was one student of mine a couple years ago. … He’s now
a pilot.”

Apart from these few specific instances, however, the teachers did not generalize or provide any addi-
tional examples.
In terms of whether the teachers could think of any tasks of situations in which their current stu-
dents might need to use English outside of the classroom, five of the seven teachers again could only
think of one specific instance, which was when students interacted with foreigners, mainly on campus:

Mia (Anhui-Tech): “I can only think of the situations that they meet international stu-
dents. Because XXX is a small city, they seldom meet foreigners.”

Lucy (Hubei-Ag): “Maybe being asked directions by a foreigner? But that is not every-
day life.”

Apart from this specific example, Louise (Anhui-Tech) stated that she could not think of any particular
situation in which her current students might need to use English: “Maybe not, not really. I think right now
the students seldom like to use English.”

5  |   D IS C U S SION
First and foremost, we wish to acknowledge that we are acutely aware of the extensive continuing
debates and discussions regarding the applicability of Western-based methods such as CLT and TBLT
for foreign language settings based on numerous criticisms related to politics, identity, colonialism,
and much more (e.g., Bax, 2003; Holliday, 2006, 2009; Kumaravadivelu, 2012; Pennycook, 1989,
2007; Smith, 1999). However, this study explored one specific long-standing and major criticism
of the applicability of TBLT for FL settings: whether students in EFL settings actually use their
L2 English outside of the classroom for nonacademic-related tasks and activities. In particular, be-
cause researchers have stated that task authenticity should be a central component for TBLT (e.g.,
González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014), many scholars have suggested that there is an issue in creating
authentic tasks for foreign language contexts because many have assumed that most L2 learners ei-
ther are not exposed to or do not engage in L2 use outside the classroom (e.g., Bruton, 2005; Swan,
2005; Widdowson, 2003). To further examine the validity of this criticism, our research explored this
issue in the Asian EFL context of China. Additionally, following the recommendations of previous
researchers (e.g., Q. Chen & Wright, 2017), we integrated the perceptions of both students and teach-
ers through two research questions in a mixed-methods design.
12 of 16 
|     KESSLER et al.

RQ1 incorporated students’ perspectives following the use of two focus groups and questionnaires,
and it explored if, whether, and when students use their L2 English outside of the classroom for non-
academic purposes. This questionnaire, which was distributed to two universities in different prov-
inces in China, yielded surprising results. Of all of the students who were surveyed, only one (of
555 students, or 0.18%) reported never using L2 English outside of class for nonacademic purposes.
Importantly, the average student at each university used the L2 for approximately 56% of the 29 tasks
and situations listed in the questionnaire when separated into the specific skill categories of reading,
writing, listening, and speaking.
RQ2, meanwhile, examined teachers’ vantage points regarding students’ uses of English outside
of class. Interestingly, the results portray a large gap between students’ actual self-reported practices
(in RQ1) and what their teachers consciously knew regarding those practices. Students reported using
English for a variety of activities and tasks, yet the semistructured interviews with the teachers re-
vealed that five of the seven teachers were aware of only one activity of students’ uses of L2 English
outside of class, which was related to students’ interactions with foreigners (generally on their respec-
tive campuses for the purposes of providing directions, assisting individuals with shopping-related
tasks, etc.). Additionally, a couple of the teachers could not think of any instances or reasons why stu-
dents might engage in L2 English use. Given that previous studies surrounding the suitability of TBLT
in China surveyed teachers’ perspectives only (e.g., Carless, 2007), the current study’s results high-
light the dangers of relying solely on teachers’ or instructors’ vantage points. By surveying only one
stakeholder group, potentially important findings may be obscured. Other researchers have pointed to
this issue as well (e.g., Ahmadian et al., 2017), revealing that students’ realities may not always align
with the perceptions of their instructors.
Beyond the differences in students’ reported practices and their teachers’ lack of awareness of
those practices, another potential point of interest involves the specific types of tasks and/or activities
that the students reported engaging in outside of class. After examining the list of items created for the
questionnaire by the two student focus groups, it is important to note that most of the tasks or activities
involved the use of technology such as cell phones and/or computers. Students reported engaging in
L2 English use for many practices involving these technologies, including things like playing video/
computer games, buying foreign products online, using social media, or coding/using computer soft-
ware. As Arnold and Ducate (2019) have suggested, this possibly speaks to the increasing access to
new technologies around the world. This access and growing digital literacy may subsequently be
impacting how many foreign language and EFL learners are engaging with their L2s—as seems clear
in the current study—unbeknownst to their language teachers.
In terms of our study’s design, undeniably one of the central limitations is that we focused on only
one particular EFL context in Asia, which involved university-level EFL students in two Chinese prov-
inces. Therefore, we do not claim that our results suggest that EFL learners across China are engaging
in such high levels of L2 English use, because this may not be the case for L2 learners in other prov-
inces and/or in primary or secondary school settings. Likewise, we do not claim that our results imply
that EFL learners in other countries or contexts are equally engaged in English use for nonacademic
purposes—it is entirely possible that such engagement is specific to the adult, university-level popula-
tion sampled in our study. One further limitation we note is that some of the items listed on the ques-
tionnaire are not traditionally labeled as tasks as defined by the criteria set forth by Ellis and Shintani
(2014). For example, the item Outside of school, do you ever speak in English clubs? would likely not
be considered a task. However, because the focus groups indicated that they engaged in L2 English use
for this particular purpose, ultimately we felt that it was important to include it in our survey.
Despite these limitations, many of the items included in the survey may be defined as tasks based
on Ellis and Shintani’s (2014) criteria. Pedagogically speaking, the results of the present study have
KESSLER et al.    
|  13 of 16

broad implications on many fronts, especially related to areas involving EFL curriculum and syllabus
design and the critical nature of needs analyses in foreign language classroom contexts. In terms of
EFL curriculum and syllabus design, the findings resulting from RQ1 have the potential to inform
both teachers’ and administrators’ planning. At the teachers’ level involving individual course syl-
labi, if teachers currently adopt a grammatical or theme-focused language syllabus, those teachers
might try to integrate and/or supplement existing units with tasks or activities that are currently being
performed by their students. For example, a large number of students in this study stated that they
used L2 English when shopping for and purchasing foreign products online. An EFL instructor in a
similar university context could attempt to design an activity or task(s) around this authentic use of
L2 English by students. Such related activities might involve the instructor having students research,
read, and discuss product information; read and write customer product reviews; and engage in com-
puter-mediated synchronous text chats with customer support service representatives as students pose
questions about the specific product(s) they are interested in. Integrating these types of authentic tasks
and activities into existing course syllabi has the added potential of increasing L2 learners’ motivation
(e.g., Gilmore, 2007; Peacock, 1997).
At the administrative level, data obtained from students conceivably have great potential to inform
university-level curriculum planning and course offerings. If, for instance, a large number of students
are found to engage in L2 English use for a specific set of tasks, this may be something that admin-
istrators want to seriously consider integrating into their existing curricula. In the current study, EFL
students at both Hubei-Ag and Anhui-Tech indicated that they often wrote in their L2 English for the
purposes of coding/using computer software (44.7% and 47.7%, respectively). Important questions
arise from these findings: Why are such large percentages of students using English for this particular
purpose? Is it for pleasure? Is it for their future careers? The answers to these questions are vital in that
students’ existing practices might reflect specific demands of L2 use that are the result of phenomena
such as globalization—especially, for instance, if students are engaging in L2 English use because
they view it as instrumental in engaging with particular professional communities they hope to be a
part of in their future careers. The answers to such questions may prompt administrators to develop
more specialized English for specific purposes courses such as English for Computer Science and
Programming and/or related courses so that curricula are up to date with both students’ practices and
worldwide industry trends.
Relatedly, these aforementioned considerations may force administrators to critically consider
course offerings and curricula in relation to current course goals and testing practices. For example,
the present study shows a large disconnect between students’ practices and teachers’ and administra-
tors’ views. Thus, it is quite possible that current in-house and standardized testing practices (e.g.,
China’s College English Test) may not reflect language learners’ current needs and uses of their L2.
If this is the case, administrators may need to reevaluate their curricula in relation to their testing
practices as well (for a comprehensive review of issues related to L2 learner needs and assessment,
see Fulcher & Davidson, 2012).
Lastly, the results of this study highlight the importance of EFL (and all language) teachers per-
forming needs analyses in their classrooms. Although this idea is by no means novel, as mentioned
earlier, teachers’ perspectives regarding students’ L2 practices may not always be accurate (e.g.,
Ahmadian et al., 2017; Murphy, 2003); this was especially prevalent in the current study. Therefore,
performing needs analyses can better help teachers understand their students’ needs and what kinds
of activities and tasks those teachers might be able to incorporate into their classrooms. Even in the
current study, though students at Hubei-Ag and Anhui-Tech often exhibited similar patterns of L2
English use, there were subtle differences between the two groups. These differences, too, may be
even more pronounced in individual EFL classrooms and/or across different proficiency levels, class
14 of 16 
|     KESSLER et al.

ranks (first-year students, second-year students, etc.), or other groups. Thus, although some teachers
may be experienced educators, they should not forgo these integral needs analyses and assume that
they already fully grasp the extent of their L2 learners’ existing practices and needs.

6  |   CO NC LUSION
Although some researchers have posed necessary and important questions regarding whether theory
and pedagogy developed in the West can be contextually relevant in Asian contexts, the results of
the current study shed serious doubt on some previous researchers’ criticisms of task authenticity
for the use of TBLT in EFL settings such as China. The results obtained from students in the current
study suggest that the criticism of task authenticity cannot be a valid blanket criticism of the TBLT
approach. As Batstone (2012) has suggested, the specific classroom and geographical context(s) of
TBLT are highly important. Equally important, too, as discussed by both Kessler (2020) and Reinders
and Benson (2017), is that teachers need to take time out of their schedules to truly understand their
learners’ motivations, needs, and habits in terms of learning beyond the classroom. As the current
study shows, by surveying and understanding their students, teachers may discover that their learners
are actually engaging with their L2s in multiple unexpected ways. Finally, understanding students’
existing practices may better help facilitate the planning and development of tasks and other activities
for the classroom.

7  |  T H E AU T HOR S

Matt Kessler is an assistant professor in the Department of World Languages at the University of
South Florida. His research focuses on issues related to L2 literacy and writing development, along
with computer-assisted language learning. His research has appeared in Computers and Composition,
TESOL Journal, and other media.
Ian Solheim is an ESL teacher at Woodrow Wilson High School, located in Washington, D.C. Ian
received his master’s degree in TESOL from Michigan State University.
Mengfei Zhao is a lecturer at the Anhui University of Technology, in Ma’anshan, Anhui, China.
She received her master’s degree in applied linguistics from Ohio University.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the numerous students and teachers who volunteered to participate in
and facilitate various aspects of this study. Additionally, thank you to Spencer for his helpful feedback
and translation services with our questionnaire instrument. Finally, a special thank you to Dr. Shawn
Loewen for his support on this project.

ORCID
Matt Kessler  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5264-0059

R E F E R E NC E S
Abrams, Z. I. (2019). The effects of integrated writing on linguistic complexity in L2 writing and task-complexity.
System, 81, 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.01.009
Ahmadian, M. J., Mansouri, S. A., & Ghominejad, S. (2017). Language learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of task
repetition. ELT Journal, 71, 467–477. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx011
KESSLER et al.    
|  15 of 16

Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2019). Engaging language learners through CALL. Bristol, CT: Equinox.
Batstone, R. (2012). Language form, task-based language teaching, and the classroom context. ELT Journal, 66, 459–
467. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs058
Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57, 278–287. https://doi.
org/10.1093/elt/57.3.278
Broszkiewicz, A. (2011). The effect of focused communication tasks on instructed acquisition of English past coun-
terfactual conditionals. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 335–363. https://doi.org/10.14746​/
ssllt.2011.1.3.3
Bruton, A. (2005). Task-based language teaching: For the state secondary FL classroom? Language Learning Journal,
31(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571​73058​5200091
Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific re-
gion. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267​19051​1000122
Butler, Y. G., Kang, K. I., Kim, H., & Liu, Y. (2018). “Tasks” appearing in primary school textbooks. ELT Journal, 72,
285–295. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx056
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong.
System, 35, 595–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.09.003
Chen, J. C.-C. (2012). Designing a computer-mediated task-based syllabus: A case study in a Taiwanese EFL tertiary
class. Asian EFL Journal, 14(3), 63–98.
Chen, Q., & Wright, C. (2017). Contextualization and authenticity in TBLT: Voices from Chinese classrooms. Language
Teaching Research, 21, 517–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621​68816​639985
Ellis, R. (2009a). The differential effects of three types of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral
production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/appli​n/amp042
Ellis, R. (2009b). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 19, 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x
Ellis, R. (2017). Task-based language teaching. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed
second language acquisition (pp. 108–125). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. London,
England: Routledge.
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2012). The Routledge handbook of language testing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten
& J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 180–206). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40, 97–118.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261​44480​7004144
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Hawkes, M. L. (2011). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal, 66, 327–336.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr059
Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60, 385–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl030
Holliday, A. (2009). The role of culture in English language education: Key challenges. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 9(3), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708​47090​2748814
Kessler, M. (2020). Technology-mediated writing: Exploring incoming graduate students’ L2 writing strategies with
activity theory. Computers and Composition, 55, Article 102542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compc​om.2020.102542
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Individual identity, cultural globalization, and teaching English as an international lan-
guage. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu, & W. A. Ranandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English
as an international language (pp. 9–27). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lin, T.-B., & Wu, C.-W. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching in English classrooms in
Taiwanese junior high schools. TESOL Journal, 3, 586–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.35
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York, NY: Wiley.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Murphy, J. (2003). Task-based learning: The interaction between tasks and learners. ELT Journal, 57, 352–360. https://
doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.4.352
16 of 16 
|     KESSLER et al.

Peacock, M. (1997). The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners. ELT Journal, 51, 144–156.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/51.2.144
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 23, 589–618. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587534
Pennycook, A. (2007). ELT and colonialism. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English
language teaching (pp. 13–24). New York, NY: Springer.
Polio, C., & Friedman, D. A. (2017). Understanding, evaluating, and conducting second language writing research.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Reinders, H., & Benson, P. (2017). Research agenda: Language learning beyond the classroom. Language Teaching, 50,
561–578. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261​44481​7000192
Riazi, A. M., & Candlin, C. N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues
and challenges. Language Teaching, 47, 135–173. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261​44481​3000505
Shintani, N. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabu-
lary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15, 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621​
68810​388692
Shintani, N. (2015). The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young
beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.166
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.
https://doi.org/10.1093/appli​n/17.1.38
Skehan, P. (Ed.). (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous people. London, England: Zed Books.
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26, 376–401.
https://doi.org/10.1093/appli​n/ami013
Wang, Y. (2014). Eastern vs Western: Undertaking Asian ELT under a framework of relevance. Asian Englishes, 14(2),
40–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488​678.2011.10801306
Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

How to cite this article: Kessler M, Solheim I, Zhao M. Can task-based language teaching be
“authentic” in foreign language contexts? Exploring the case of China. TESOL J.
2020;00:e534. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.534