Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:18:10.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2017

Rod Ellis
Rod Ellis*
Affiliation:
Curtin University, Perth, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The advocacy of task-based language teaching (TBLT) has met with resistance. The critiques of TBLT and the misconceptions that underlie them have already been addressed in Ellis (2009) and Long (2016). The purpose of this article is to move forward by examining a number of real problems that TBLT faces – such as how a ‘task’ should be defined, the nature and timing of the ‘focus-on-form’ required, how to determine task complexity and sequence tasks, the role of explicit instruction, the timing of focus on form and the teacher training needed to ensure effective uptake of TBLT – and to also consider what solutions are possible. Disagreements exist regarding the relative merits of task-based and task-supported language teaching. I will propose that a hybrid/modular syllabus that allows for a balance between an object-oriented and a tool-oriented view of language teaching offers the most promising way forward.

Type
First Person Singular
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , October 2017 , pp. 507 - 526
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29–51.Google Scholar
Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 543–574.Google Scholar
Aston, G. (1982). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier. Applied Linguistics 7, 128–143.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing 19, 453–476.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baleghizadeh, S. & Derakhshesh, A. (2012). The effect of task repetition and noticing on EFL learners’ oral output. International Journal of Instruction 5, 141–152.Google Scholar
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S. & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 25, 243–272.Google Scholar
Bruton, A. (2002). From tasking purposes to purposing tasks. ELT Journal 56, 280–288.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 36–57.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers' reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly 38.4, 639–662.Google Scholar
Dale, E. & Chall, J. (1948). A formula for predicting readability: Instructions. Educational Research Bulletin 27, 37–54.Google Scholar
Day, E. & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning 41, 25–58.Google Scholar
De la Fuente, M. J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research 10. 3, 263–295.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42–63.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 114–138.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1991). Grammar teaching – practice or consciousness-raising. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Second language acquisition and second language pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 232–241.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 141–172.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19, 221–246.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning 51, 281–318.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 339–368.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2016). I'm still not sure what a task is: Teachers designing language tasks. Language Teaching Research 20, 279–299.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 299–324.Google Scholar
Goo, J. M. & Mackey, A. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 379–452.Google Scholar
Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35.1, 127–165.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics 19, 331–359.Google Scholar
Hawkes, M. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal 66.3, 327–336.Google Scholar
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jobard, G., Vigneau, M., Mazoyer, B. & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2007). Impact of modality and linguistic complexity during reading and listening tasks. Neuroimage 34, 784–800.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on forms in second-language vocabulary learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review 63, 149–166.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, S. & Ellis, R. (forthcoming). The influence of pre-task grammar instruction on task performance and L2 learning in task-supported language instruction: A process-product study.Google Scholar
Li, S., Zhu, Y. & Ellis, R. (2016). Task-based versus task-supported language instruction: An experimental study. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 205–229.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 361–386.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 77–100.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press, 413–168.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2005). Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In Long, M. (ed.), Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19–76.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2016). In defence of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 5–33.Google Scholar
Long, M. & Ross, S. (1993). Modifications that preserve language and content. In Tickoo, M. (ed.), Simplification: Theory and application. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, 29–52.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning 51 (Suppl. 1), 265–301.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26.3, 399–432.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19.1, 37–66.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (2013). The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34, 591–626.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching 46.1, 1–40.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 557–587.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production and linguistic development. Language Learning 56.4, 693–720.Google Scholar
Mochizuki, N. & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research 12, 11–37.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2016). Current issues for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 230–244.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pitler, E. and Nenkova, A. (2008). Revisiting readability: A unified framework for predicting text quality. Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Honolulu: Association for Computational Linguistics, 86–195.Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M. & Gilabert, R. (2016). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000339 Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 285–318.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3–38.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman, 119–140.Google Scholar
Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of task complexity. The Modern Language Journal 100.1, 231–254.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–32.Google Scholar
Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning teaching: A guidebook for English language teachers. Oxford: MacMillan Education.Google Scholar
Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of the missing ‘no’: The relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Language Learning 47, 547–583.Google Scholar
Sheen, R. (1994). A critical analysis of the advocacy of the task-based syllabus. TESOL Quarterly 28, 127–157.Google Scholar
Sheen, R. (2006). Focus on forms as a means of improving accurate oral production. In Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 271–310.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. & Ellis, R. (2014). Tracking learning behaviours in the incidental acquisition of two dimensional adjectives by beginner learners of L2 English. Language Teaching Research 18, 521–542.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 17, 38–62.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2016). Tasks versus conditions: Two perspectives on task research and their implications for language pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 34–49.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y. & DeKeyser, R. (2015). Comparing elicited imitation and word monitoring as measures of implicit knowledge. Language Learning 65, 860–895.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235–253.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus-on-form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 64–81.Google Scholar
Swan, M. (2005). Legislating by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 26, 376–401.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (ed.) (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics 24, 1–27.Google Scholar