English Language Teaching_S6 Faculty of Letters & Humanities

English Studies Department A.C.

Dr. H. Rouijel Hassan II University
Casablanca

Task-based Language Teaching

Introduction
In 1976, Wilkins distinguished between two types of syllabi—synthetic syllabi and
analytic syllabi. Synthetic syllabi comprise linguistic units: grammar structures,
vocabulary items, functions, etc. The units are usually ordered logically, in a sequence from
linguistic simplicity to linguistic complexity. It is the learners’ responsibility to synthesize
the linguistic units for the purpose of communication. Analytic syllabi, on the other hand,
‘… are organised in terms of the purposes for which people are learning language and the
kinds of language performance that are necessary to meet those purposes’ (Wilkins 1976:
13). Content-based instruction, which we looked at in the previous chapter, employs an
analytic syllabus. Rather than learning language items one by one in a specific sequence,
learners work on relevant content texts and the language of the texts. Second language
acquisition (SLA) research supports the use of analytic syllabi because such research shows
that learners do not learn linguistic items one at a time. Instead, they induce linguistic
information from the language samples they work on, and they acquire language items only
when they are ready to do so. A task-based syllabus, which we take up in this chapter, falls
into the category of an analytic syllabus. The syllabus is composed of tasks, not a sequence
of linguistic items.
Tasks are meaningful, and in doing them, students need to communicate. Tasks have a
clear outcome so that the teacher and students know whether or not the communication has
been successful. An example of a task in a task-based syllabus is for students to plan an
itinerary for a trip. Students work in small groups with a train schedule. They are given
certain destinations to include, and they have to decide on the most direct route to travel
by train—the one that will take the least amount of travel time. As the students seek to
complete the task, they have to work to understand each other and to express their own
thoughts. By so doing, they have to check to see if they have comprehended correctly and,
at times, they have to seek clarification. This interaction and checking is thought to
facilitate language acquisition (Long 1996; Gass 1997). As Candlin and Murphy note:
The central purpose we are concerned with is language learning, and tasks present
this in the form of a problem-solving negotiation between knowledge that the
learner holds and new knowledge. (Candlin and Murphy 1987:1)
Task-based Language Teaching is another example of the ‘strong version’ of the
communicative approach, where language is acquired through use. In other words, students
acquire the language they need when they need it in order to accomplish the task that has
been set before them.

1
Before proceeding to the lesson, following Ellis (2009) we should point out that
there is a difference between task-based syllabi and task-based language teaching or
TBLT. Task-based syllabi have been criticized for the absence of grammatical items
(Sheen 2003; Swan 2005). While it may be true that task-based syllabi, being analytic
in nature, do not expressly feature grammar structures, task-based teaching or task
supported teaching (Ellis 2003), in the minds of some methodologists, does not exclude
it. For instance, Loschky and Bley-Vroman (1993) see value in engaging students in
structure-based communicative tasks, which are designed to have students automatize the
use of a structure that they have already internalized. A structure-based communicative
task might involve making inferences about the identity of someone whose briefcase has
been left in the back of a taxi (Riggenbach, Samuda, and Wisniewska 2007). Completing
such a task by identifying the owner is likely to necessitate the use of certain modal verbs
and/or adverbs of probability (‘It might be a woman.’ ‘She is probably a businesswoman.’).
Other methodologists claim that along with communicative tasks, there can be focused
tasks that do not call for speaking, but instead, are designed to raise learners’ consciousness
with regard to specific linguistic items (Ellis 2009). For instance, students might be asked
to trace a path on a map of a town, following directions given by the teacher. In this way,
students would receive comprehensible input involving imperatives, prepositions of
location and direction, and the names of different buildings. Other communicative tasks
can be designed in such a way that they encourage students to notice a particular target
language feature, possibly by means of input enhancement, such as using boldface type
for a particular structure in a reading passage or input flooding, which means using
particular vocabulary items or grammar structures with great frequency in the input. Such
input enhancement techniques are thought to work well for structures that are not easily
perceived, such as grammatical morphemes.
Then, too, Ellis (2003) suggests that there are a number of ways in which grammar can be
addressed as a follow-up to a communicative task, including direct explicit instruction and
traditional practice-type exercises. Willis (1996) has also proposed a variety of such
options for the post-task phase. Still others, while rejecting a role for such direct explicit
instruction, claim that even within communicative tasks, some attention should be paid to
linguistic form, through a focus on form, not a return to grammar drills and exercises,
which is termed a focus on forms (Long 1991). A focus on form might involve a teacher’s
reformulating or recasting a student’s error or providing a brief grammar explanation. It is
said that focusing student attention on grammatical form in these ways can have a positive
effect, provided that such attention is brief and reactive, in that it takes place when
problems of grammatical inaccuracy arise (Long 2009).
Samuda and Bygate (2008) reach back into history even further than SLA research to find
theoretical support for task-based language teaching. They do so citing the work of John
Dewey (1913), who emphasized the need for experience, relevance, and ‘intelligent effort’
for effective learning. Dewey is generally considered to be the founder of constructivism.

2
He rejected approaches that viewed learners as receptacles of the teacher’s knowledge and
favored ones where students are actively involved in constructing their own knowledge
through experience and problem solving. Let us see how this plays out in our lesson.
Experience
The following lesson is one that has been adapted and expanded from Prabhu (1987). It
takes place in southern India. The class consists of forty 10-year-old children, who are
advanced beginners in English. As we enter the classroom, the teacher is speaking:
‘We are going to do a lesson today on timetables. OK?’
The teacher draws the columns and rows of a class timetable on the whiteboard. At the
head of the first column, he writes 9:30-10:15. The students understand that the teacher has
written the duration of the first class period of the day.
‘What should I write here?’ asks the teacher, pointing to the head of the second column.
The students respond, ‘Ten fifteen.’ And then ‘Eleven o’clock,’ as the teacher moves his
finger across the top row. The teacher points in turn to the top of each column, and the
students chorus the time that each class period begins and ends.
Then the teacher asks: ‘Who will write the names for the days of the week here?’ Several
students raise their hands. The teacher calls on one. ‘Come,’ he says. The student he has
called on comes to the front of the room, takes the marker, and writes the names of each
weekday beside each row, Monday to Friday, correctly, as the rest of the class helps with
the spelling.
‘Is that correct?’ the teacher asks. ‘Correct!’ the students chorus back.
‘What about Saturday? Do we have school on Saturday?’
The students reply in unison, ‘No ... weekend.’
The teacher responds, ‘Yes. Saturday is on the weekend. Saturday’s a weekend day.’
Next, the teacher has the students copy the blank schedule from the board. As he talks,
each student fills in the schedule. He tells them, ‘On Monday, you study English during
the first period. How many of you like to study English?’ Most hands go up in response.
Then, he says, ‘I guess that English is your favorite period, second only to lunch.’ The
students laugh. The teacher goes on, ‘You also study English on Wednesday and Friday,
first period. During the second period on these days, you study math.’ The teacher
continues until the schedules are completed. Students check each other’s work.
The teacher then divides the class into eight groups of five students. Each student in a group
receives the schedule for one day of the school week. The students’ task is to complete the
week’s schedule by sharing the information on their cards with each other. There is much
discussion as each group works to draw up a full schedule.

3
As he circulates among the groups, the teacher hears students making errors. He does not
say anything, but he notes them and continues around the classroom. As he moves about
the room listening to the groups, the teacher reminds the students to speak in English.
The first group that is finished comes up to the board and writes up the schedule. After the
students have checked their work, the teacher collects each group’s schedule so he can read
it and return it to them the next day. He checks their schedules mainly to see that the content
is correct.
Next, still working in their groups, the students are told that they are to find a way to
determine their classmates’ favorite school subjects. They must find out from class
members which are the three most popular subjects and the three least popular. Each group
is to discuss ways it might gather the information. The group might design a survey, for
instance, or go around the room interviewing other students. After they have completed
their survey or interviews, the groups have to summarize and report the results. They have
to decide how to do this. For example, they may use percentages, a bar graph, a pie chart,
or some other visual display. Once again, much conversation takes place. Students are
busily talking about how they will obtain the information they need to complete the task
and later to report their findings.
These will have to wait for another day to report, though, because there is no time left
today. In the following period, the teacher will give them another task, where he will do
the talking and the students will listen and do something. The input task the teacher has
chosen takes into account what errors he has noted and written down in today’s class.

Reference:
Adams, R. 2009. ‘Recent publications on task-based language teaching: A review.’
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19/3: 339–55.
Andon, N. and J. Eckerth. 2009. ‘Chacun à son goût? Task-based L2 pedagogy from
the teacher’s point of view.’ International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19/3: 286–
310.
Breen, M. 1987. ‘Learner contributions to task design’ in C. Candlin and D. Murphy
(eds.). Language Learning Tasks, 23–46: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Candlin, C. and D. Murphy (eds.). 1987. Language Learning Tasks. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cohen, J. 2009. ‘Using student-generated surveys to enhance communication.’

4
 Essential Teacher 6/3–4: 42–4.
Dewey, J. 1913. Interest and Effort in Education. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Eckerth, J. and S. Siekmann. 2008. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching:
Theoretical, Methodological, and Pedagogical Perspectives. Frankfurt: Peter
Lang.
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
____. 2009. ‘Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings.’
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19/3: 221–46.
Fried-Booth, D. 2002. Project Work (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
García Mayo, M. (ed.). 2007. Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Gass, S. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Haines, S. 1989. Projects for the EFL Classroom. London: Nelson.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (Series Director) 2007. Grammar Dimensions: Form, Meaning,
and Use (4th edn.). Boston: Heinle/Cengage.
Long, M. 1991. ‘Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology’
in K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (eds.). Foreign Language Research in
Cross-cultural Perspective, 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
____. 1996. ‘The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition’ in
W. Ritchie, and T. Bahtia (eds.). Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 413–
68. New York: Academic Press.
____. 2009. ‘Methodological principles for language teaching’ in M. Long, and C.
Doughty (eds.). The Handbook of Language Teaching, 373–94. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.

5
_____. and G. Crookes. 1993. ‘Units of analysis in syllabus design: The case for task’ in
G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds.). Tasks in a Pedagogical Context, 9-54. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Loschky, L. and R. Bley-Vroman. 1993. ‘Grammar and task-based methodology’ in G.
Crookes and S. Gass (eds.). Tasks in Language Learning, 123-67. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Norris, J. 2009. ‘Task-based teaching and testing’ in M. Long and C. Doughty (eds.).
The Handbook of Language Teaching, 578-94. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nunan, D. 2004. Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Riggenbach, H., V. Samuda, and I. Wisniewska. 2007. Grammar Dimensions (Book 2,
4th edn.). Boston: Heinle/Cengage.
Rott, S. 2000. ‘Teaching German grammar through communicative tasks: Some
suggestions.’Die Unterrichtspraxis 33/2: 125-33.
Samuda, V. and M. Bygate. 2008. Tasks in Second Language Learning. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Sheen, R. 2003. ‘Focus-on-form: A myth in the making.’ ELT Journal 57: 225-33.
Skehan, P. 1998. ‘Task-based instruction.’ Annual Review of Applied Linguistics:
Foundations of Second Language Teaching 18.
Swan, M. 2005. ‘Legislating by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction.’ Applied
Linguistics 26/3: 376-401.
van den Branden, K. 2006. Task-based Language Teaching: From Theory to Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
_____. 2009. ‘Mediating between predetermined order and chaos: The role of the teacher
in task-based language education.’ International Journal of Applied Linguistics
19/3: 264-85.
-----, M. Bygate, and J. Norris. 2009. Task-based Language Teaching: A Reader.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wilkins, D. 1976. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, D. and J. Willis. 2007. Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-based Learning. London: Longman.