Session 4Task-based Language Teaching

Overview of tasksThe use of tasks in language pedagogy has a long

tradition, particularly in the ‘communicative approach’ to language teaching.

The term ‘communicative activities’ has been gradually replaced by ‘tasks’ (Bygate et al, 2001).

The early research efforts focused on investigating the potential of the task as a unit of organisation in syllabus design or language instruction.

The interest in tasks then shifted to concentrate on the cognitive dimension of the task, and the identification of conditions that affect task performance, in order to inform pedagogy.

Task definitionsIn the literature, numerous definitions of tasks can be

found.These definitions vary according to the theoretical

basis on which they draw.Two main streams in approaching tasks can be defined:

The view of tasks from a pedagogical perspective, i.e. the task as a unit of analysis in syllabus design.

The other regards the task as a context for the activation of key processes in language learning, i.e. research-based tasks.

A brief summary of some of the definitions will be presented next:

Long (1985)Long defines a target task using its everyday nontechnical

meaning: “A piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or

for some reward. Thus, examples of tasks include painting a face, dressing a child, filling out a form, buying a pair of shoes, making an airline reservation, borrowing a library book, taking a driving test, typing a letter, weighing a patient, sorting letters, taking a hotel reservation, writing a check, finding a street destination and helping someone across a road. In other words, by ‘task’ is meant the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between. Tasks are the things people will tell you they do if you ask them and they are not applied linguists” (1985:89).

  In this definition, task is broadly defined in plain terms. A task

is not necessarily a language learning task for classroom use. For some tasks (e.g. painting a fence), one does not need to use language at all. The emphasis is on the task’s relationship to real-world activities.

Nunan 1989 Another approach to task definition from the perspective of

instructional design is Nunan's proposal of what he called 'communicative tasks' – tasks that involve communicative language use in which the user's attention is focused on meaning rather than linguistic structure. He defines a communicative task as: “A piece of classroom work which involves learners in

comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form” (1989: 10). He further argues that “the task should have a sense of completeness, being able to stand alone as a communicative act in its own right”.

  This definition of communicative task is method-driven, as appears

in the key words of the definition, such as comprehension, manipulation, production, interaction and attention to meaning rather than form (Kumaravadivelu, 1993). A key element of the communicative task is the primary focus on meaning, which is an essential characteristic of language learning and teaching tasks.

Willis 1996Willis defines a task as follows:

"Tasks are always activities where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome" (1996: 23).

 In this definition, the focus is on achieving an

outcome, with the emphasis on meaning, not language. There is also clear indication of the learner’s role in using the language in a meaningful way to reach an outcome.

Skehan 1998 There is another definition of the task in task-based approaches to language

teaching. Skehan (1998) gives a useful definition of tasks within task-based instruction:

"A task is an activity in which:- meaning is primary- there is some communication problem to solve- there is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities- task completion has some priority- the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome" (1998: 95).   This definition incorporates most of the task features included in other

definitions (Bygate et al., 2001). It emphasises meaning-oriented, problem-solving activities which have a real-world relationship. Learner performance is assessed in terms of task completion. This implies that the completeness of a task performed by the learner, not the quality of the learner's language per se, will be a major factor in assessing learner performance of a particular task.

By this definition, Skehan rules out 'an activity that focuses on language itself' such as a transformation drill, or the consciousness-raising tasks described by Ellis (1997), and many of the tasks in Nunan (1989, 1996) which fall within the categories of tasks that Skehan describes as 'structure-trapping' (Robinson 1998, 2000).

Bygate 1999From a research-based perspective, Bygate (1999)

offers a useful definition as he defines tasks as:"Bounded classroom activities in which learners use

language communicatively to achieve an outcome, with the overall purpose of learning language" (1999: 186).

 By ‘bounded’ is meant that the activities have a

starting point, which is the input and an end, which is the outcome. The 'outcome' can be interpreted here as the purpose of the task, which is using the language communicatively. It can also be interpreted as the goal of the task, in terms of either task completion or promoting learners' language development. This broad definition is inclusive of most task characteristics with an emphasis on language development.

Bygate, Skehan, and Swain 2001Bygate, Skehan, and Swain (2001) propose a

series of definitions of tasks with different emphases, which reflect the different uses of the task. They explain that "definitions of task will need to be different for the different purposes to which tasks are used" (Bygate et al., 2001: 11). They first offer a 'basic, all-purpose definition':"A task is an activity which requires learners to

use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective" (2001: 11).

Bygate, Skehan, and Swain 2001Then, using a framework which Bygate et al.

(2001) refer to as a "manner of working with tasks (pragmatic vs. research) and user groups and contexts (teachers, learners, assessment)," they provide six definitions to reflect the different purposes of tasks. For example, if the focus is on the learners and learning in the context of 'research', they suggest the following definition:"A task is a focused, well-defined activity, relatable

to learner choice or to learning processes, which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective, and which elicits data which may be the basis for research" (2001: 12).

Task featuresFrom the above definitions, a set of task

features can be identified as follows:Objective (Goal).Input Data.Procedures.Learner Role.Teacher Role.Setting.Real-World Relationship.

Task featuresObjectives or goals concern the intentions behind

performing any task. These goals might be learning goals, such as developing learners’ skills, or they might be learners' goals that vary in orientation between 'achievement orientation' and 'survival orientation', as Breen (1987c) has suggested. The objective may be interpreted as the task outcome; several definitions assert that tasks should have a clear outcome. The task outcome may also be interpreted as using the language. Task completion is considered to be a task objective according to Prabhu (1987). However, a distinction should be made between a task outcome and its goal. The goal of the task should address the pedagogical purpose of the task, e.g. development of speaking skills, whereas the outcome should address the specific result of a given task, e.g. describing the way to the library successfully.

Task featuresInput data concern materials used and

information given to be used as material. They can be given either in linguistic, oral or written, or non-linguistic form. Examples of input data are texts, newspaper extracts, photographs, and audio and video recordings.

Procedures concern the step-by-step procedures to be followed in order to complete a task. These include the way the input data are presented, the type of task, and task complexity.

Task featuresLearner role refers to the role of the learner implied

by the task, from being receptive to an active role where he makes decisions regarding his learning and learning activities. Approaches differ as to the roles that learners play in a task-based approach. The learners' role is closely related to the teacher’s role, as there is some exchange of roles between them.

Teacher role concerns the role of the teacher implied by the task, which differs according to the task orientation and goal, from full control of the learning process to only being an observer of this process. There might be an agreement among researchers that the teacher using a task-based approach needs to be more skilled than teachers using traditional approaches (Skehan, 1996).

Task featuresSetting concerns the environment in which the task is to

be implemented; this could be the classroom or somewhere outside it. It also concerns the nature of performance required for the task to be undertaken, such as individual work, group work and pair work.

Real-World relationship concerns the task’s resemblance to real-world activities outside the classroom. Some tasks, such as those of Long (1985) are real-world activities, e.g. painting a fence, giving a street direction, borrowing a library book. Other tasks, on the other hand, may not have such close relationship to real-world activities, but still have value as pedagogic tasks for classroom use, e.g. spot the difference, telling a story based on pictures, describing a picture for someone to draw, drawing a route on a map and others.

Task vs. ExerciseExercise Task

Orientation Linguistic skills viewed as pre-requisite for learning communicative abilities.

Linguistic skills are developed through engaging in communicative activity.

Focus Linguistic form and semantic meaning (‘focus on form’)

Propositional content and pragmatic communicative meaning (‘focus on meaning’)

Goal Manifestation of codes knowledge. Achievement of a communicative goal.

Outcome-evaluation Performance evaluated in terms of conformity to the code.

Performance evaluated in terms of whether the communicative goal has been achieved.

Real-world relationship Internalization of linguistic skills serves as an investment for future use.

There is a direct and obvious relationship between the activity that arises from the task and natural communicative activity.

Task-based InstructionAs an alternative to PPP, different approaches

to using tasks have been proposed in the literature.

Long and Crookes (1991) propose that what is important is that instruction (a) enables acquisitional processes to operate, particularly by allowing meaning to be negotiated, and (b) maintains a focus on meaning, as opposed to a focus on form.

Next, two approaches are described, those developed by Willis (1996) and Skehan (1998).

Principles of Task-based InstructionWILLIS 1996 SKEHAN 1998

1. THERE SHOULD BE EXPOSURE TO WORTHWHILE AND AUTHENTIC LANGUAGE.

1. CHOOSE A RANGE OF TARGET STRUCTURES.

2. THERE SHOULD BE USE OF LANGUAGE.

2. CHOOSE TASKS WHICH MEET THE UTILITY CRITERION IDENTIFIED BY LOCHKY AND BLEY-VROMAN (1993).

3. TASKS SHOULD MOTIVATE LEARNERS TO ENGAGE IN LANGUAGE USE.

3. SELECT AND SEQUENCE TASKS TO ACHIEVE BALANCED GOAL DEVELOPMENT.

4. THERE SHOULD BE A FOCUS ON LANGUAGE AT SOME POINTS IN A TASK CYCLE.

4. MAXIMISE THE CHANCES OF A FOCUS ON FORM THROUGH ATTENTIONAL MANIPULATION.

5. THE FOCUS ON LANGUAGE SHOULD BE MORE OR LESS PROMINENT AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

5. USE CYCLES OF ACCOUNTABILITY.

Task-based FrameworkTask-based approaches to language teaching all seem to

have proposed a model comprising three phases for implementing a task-based lesson, although they differ in the detailed procedures followed in each phase.

The first phase is the ‘pre-task’ phase, which concerns the activities carried out prior to the performance of the actual task, as an introductory or preparation phase.

The second is the ‘during-task’ phase, which concerns the actual performance of the task and may involve other procedures.

The third is the ‘post-task’ phase, which concerns the activities carried out after the completion of the task.

Next, I will present the procedures to be followed in each stage, as proposed by Willis (1996) and Skehan (1998).

Pre-task phaseTASK PHASE WILLIS 1996 SKEHAN 1998

PRE-TASK -EXPLORING THE TOPIC WITH THE STUDENTS TO RAISE THE SCHEMATIC KNOWLEDGE OF IT, AND TO PROVIDE A REASON FOR REAL COMMUNICATION.-PROVIDING A MODEL OF SIMILAR TASK TO MAKE THE LANGUAGE AVAILABLE SO NOTICING CAN OCCUR (SCHMIDT, 1990).-BRAINSTORMING AND MIND MAPS ACTIVITIES

USE OF PRE-TASK ACTIVITIES MAY INCLUDE PROVIDING A MODEL TO INTRODUCE, MOBILISE, RECYCLE LANGUAGE, TO EASE PROCESSING LOAD (CONTENT FOCUS), AND TO PUSH LEARNERS TO TRY NEW FORMS OF LANGUAGE (SATO, 1988; CHAFE, 1994).PLANNING: GUIDED WITH LANGUAGE OR CONTENT FOCUS, OR NO PLANNING (FOSTER AND SKEHAN, 1996; SKEHAN AND FOSTER, 1997).

During Task phaseTASK PHASE WILLIS 1996 SKEHAN 1998

DURING TASK CALLED ‘TASK CYCLE’ AND INCLUDES THREE STAGES:TASK: STUDENTS PERFORM THE TASK AND TEACHER MONITORS FROM A DISTANCE.PLANNING: STUDENTS PREPARE TO REPORT TO THE WHOLE CLASS HOW THE DID THE TASK (INCLUDES REHEARSAL OF PUBLIC PERFORMANCE). TEACHER HELPS WITH THE LANGUAGE.REPORT: SOME GROUPS REPORTS PUBLICLY TO WHOLE CLASS AND RESULTS ARE COMPARED.

A NUMBER OF OPTIONS, WHICH MAY INFLUENCE ATTENTIONAL AVAILABILITY:TIME PRESSURE: THE SPEED WITH WHICH A TASK NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED (TIME LIMIT OR NO TIME LIMIT) (YUAN AND ELLIS, 2003).SUPPORT: WHETHER TO ALLOW STUDENTS ACCESS TO THE INPUT DATA WHILE PERFORMING THE TASK (ROBINSON, 1995; BROWN ET AL, 1984; SKEHAN AND FOSTER, 1997) ‘STRUCTURED TASK’. SURPRISE: INTRODUCING SOME SURPRISE ELEMENT INTO THE TASK (FOSTER AND SKEHAN, 1997).CONTROL: GIVING LEARNERS OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE THE WAY THEY LIKE TO DO THE TASK (KUMARAVADIVELU, 1993; BREEN, 1987).

Post-Task phaseTASK PHASE WILLIS 1996 SKEHAN 1998POST-TASK CALLED ‘LANGUAGE

FOCUS’: INCLUDES CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING ACTIVITIES AND PRACTICE-ORIENTED WORK OF WORDS, STRUCTURES, FUNCTIONS REQUIRED FOR A COMMUNICATIVE PURPOSE AND RELEVANT TO LEARNERS.

ALTERING ATTENTIONAL BALANCE THROUGH POST-TASK ACTIVITIES SUCH AS PUBLIC PERFORMANCE (SAMUDA ET AL, 1996), ANALYSING TASK PERFORMANCE (LYNCH, 1998).REFLECTION AND CONSOLIDATION: TO ENCOURAGE LEARNERS TO RESTRUCTURE, AND TO USE THE TASK AND ITS PERFORMANCE AS INPUT TO HELP IN THE PROCESS OF ‘NOTICING THE GAP’ AND TO DEVELOP LANGUAGE(WILLIS AND WILLIS, 1996; JOHNS, 1991).CYCLES OF TASK-BASED ACTIVITIES: REPETITION (BYGATE, 1996, 1999; LYNCH AND MACLEAN, 2000, 2001).

Similarities1. The two frameworks seem to agree on the

importance of pre-task activities that provides learners with exposure to ‘actual language samples, so as to provide opportunities for a focus on form to be set in motion, and for noticing to occur’ (skehan, 1998: 127).

2. The second example of similarity of procedures between the two frameworks is the use of public performance after task completion and the language focus that underlies this option.

DifferencesThe two frameworks differ strikingly in the

way focus in form is allocatd.Skehan, from a psycholinguistic perspective,

tries to address the aim of a balanced focus on form and meaning in his model, to ensure a balanced development of fluency, accuracy and complexity and to ensure longer-term language development. It can be seen in his model that focus on form is seized throughout the three phases of the framework.

SummaryOverall then, the two frameworks share some

qualities but are different in the procedures followed. Willis’s framework is well structured, systematic and consistent, with some links to SLA research. The second framework (Skehan, 1998) is a framework well-informed by theory and empirical research findings and open to further options.

However, neither has been subject to systematic evaluative research.

ReferencesAl-Shumaimeri, Y. A. N. (2003). A study of

classroom exposure to oral pedagogic tasks in relation to the motivation and performance of Saudi secondary learners of English in a context of potential curriculum reform. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Leeds, Leeds.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: OUP.

Skehan, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: OUP.

Willis, J. (1996) A Framework for Task-based Learning. London: Longman.

AssignmentFind two students of the level you teach.

Select a task from the selection available at the course website appropriate to their English level. You should get them do the task once, and then a similar version of the same task a second time after two weeks. You will need to taperecord and transcribe the performances (5-7 minutes maximum).

30 credits for this assignment.