Download WebCEF Project

Grant Agreement N° 2006-2411 / 001 – 001
Project Number 228522-CP-1-2006-1-BE-MINERVA-M
WebCEF Project
Work Package 3: Task-Based Language Teaching (2.11.2008)
Partner 6, University of Helsinki
Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)
Advanced Information
In the following excerpt, Harjanne and Tella (submitted) discuss certain elements of TaskBased Language Teaching (TBLT).
Reference: Harjanne, P., & Tella, S. (submitted). One interpretation of task-based language
teaching: from theory to practice.
One interpretation of Task-Based Language Teaching:
From Theory to Practice
Pirjo Harjanne & Seppo Tella
Research Center for Foreign Language Education (ReFLEct)
Department of Applied Sciences of Education
University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/sokla/reflect
Abstract
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) represents one of the current variations of
communicative language teaching (CLT). TBLT emphasizes learning by doing,
learner-centeredness, and direct focus-on-meaning communication. Via TBLT, foreign language teaching methodology may profit from two different but complementary approaches: cognitive-constructivist or psycholinguistic and socio-cultural. Our
interpretation of TBLT partly represents the cognitive-constructivist or psycholinguistic approach, although we also emphasize the socio-cultural approach. We see TBLT
within the framework of the pedagogic teaching–studying/practice–learning process
(TSPL), providing language teachers and learners with new opportunities to modernize language teaching and learning.
Keywords: task-based language teaching (TBLT); communicative language teaching
(CLT); communicative task; psycholinguistic/cognitive-constructivist approach; sociocultural approach; pedagogic teaching–studying/practice–learning process (TSPL).
Introduction
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is one of the current variations of
communicative language teaching (CLT). Communicative language teaching
as a methodological approach covers many variations (Figure 1), which share
the same basic principles, but which contain different philosophical details or
teaching practices (Rodgers, 2001). With these different variations—inter–
pretations and applications—of communicative language teaching, TBLT
shares the idea of learning by doing, learner-centeredness, and direct focuson-meaning communication (e.g., Richards & Rodgers, 2001, pp. 155–158).
Figure 1. Different approaches and variations of communicative language teaching.
TBLT is not any unified variation of CLT; rather, it includes several interpretations, which Edmondson (2005, pp. 53–54) divides into three schools as follows: (i) the procedural syllabus approach, initiated by Prabhu (e.g., 1987),
(ii) the British school of “task-based instruction” (e.g., Skehan, 1998b), and
(iii) the “focus on form” paradigm, centered around the work of Long (1985;
Long & Norris, 2000). Our interpretation of TBLT is partly related to Long’s,
which represents the cognitive-constructivist or psycholinguistic approach,
although we also emphasize the socio-cultural approach. But, in addition, we
also see TBLT within the framework of the pedagogic teaching–study–
ing/practice–learning process (TSLP; Harjanne & Tella, 2007; Figure 2),
which, we believe, will give TBLT a much broader pedagogical context to lean
on. In fact, we argue that TBLT can, within the framework of TSLP, be regarded as a holistic pedagogy, in which the communicative task plays a very
important role.
Through this pedagogic framework, it is understood that in TBLT, intentional
teaching guides learners’ active and intentional studying and practice, which
then leads to foreign language learning.
Figure 2. TBLT within the framework of the pedagogic foreign language teaching–studying /
practice–learning process (TSPL; Harjanne & Tella, 2007; based on Harjanne, 2006, pp. 52–
58).
In the following, we first discuss TBLT through certain views on foreign language learning. Then we point out a few salient features relating to teaching,
and finally we analyze what a communicative task is. Through these three
steps, we aim at demonstrating a number of challenges, on the one hand, and
novel opportunities, on the other, that TBLT can make available to foreign
language teachers and learners.
TBLT—a holistic view on foreign language learning
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is primarily based on the theory of language learning, more than on the theory of language (Richards & Rodgers,
2001, p. 226). Within TBLT, a current belief is that learners learn a foreign
language by using it creatively for communication and that both trials and errors are essential parts of this learning process (Rodgers, 2001). TBLT can
thus be seen as a representative of the strong version of communicative language teaching, whereby the use of a foreign language means learning it
(Howatt, 1984, p. 279).
The basis of TBLT, as that of communicative language teaching (CLT) in
general, is the conception of foreign language learning as an interactive, cooperative, experiential and context-bound process (e.g., Ellis, 2003). Richards
and Rodgers (2001, p. 161, p. 228) suggest that TBLT shares with communicative language teaching the principles of communication, task and meaningfulness. The communication principle refers to genuine communication enhancing language learning. The task principle underscores the fact that the
activities in which language is used for meaningful purposes promote learning. Finally, according to the meaningfulness principle, learning is enhanced
by the language that is meaningful to the learner.
There are different approaches of language learning that can be used when
implementing TBLT (Figure 1). It is a current belief that reflecting on learning
merely through one single approach is not sufficient to describe the whole
phenomenon (e.g., Swain, 2000, p. 103; Säljö, 2001, p. 109). From the language pedagogic perspective, humanistic-experiential, cognitive-constructivist, socio-constructivist and socio-cultural approaches do not thus compete or
rule out each other within TBLT, but are complementary. Together they inform
TBLT, leading to a holistic view on language learning. In the following, we will
consider two different approaches of TBLT: the cognitive-constructivist or
psycholinguistic and the socio-cultural.
In TBLT that is linked to the cognitive-constructivist, psycholinguistic approach
of learning, a foreign language is understood as an individual’s internal construction of knowledge and as a skill including input processing (input hypothesis; Krashen, 1985) and output processing (output hypothesis; Swain, 1985,
2000). Learning a foreign language requires that learners participate in communication, whereby focus on meaning is crucial (Ellis, 2003, p. 319). However, it is not enough that learners only participate in communication. They must
also occasionally focus on form, although the main focus in a communicative
task is on meaning. This double stance is most likely to promote learning a
foreign language (e.g., Skehan, 1998a, p. 131; Ellis, 2003, pp. 207–209).
Learning a foreign language equally requires noticing and paying attention to
the salient features of the language (noticing hypothesis; Schmidt, 1990) and
negotiation of meaning (interaction hypothesis; Long, 1996), when using the
language. According to Long’s interaction hypothesis, it is in negotiation of
meaning that attention to the salient features of the language takes place.
Nevertheless, if learners focus on form repeatedly, the primary focus on
meaning may be threatened and, consequently, the ‘taskness’ of a task may
be destroyed, as Ellis (2003, p. 171) cautions.
In TBLT that relates to the socio-cultural approach of learning, an emphasis is
laid on participation and social factors. Learning takes place as participation in
communication, social interaction and collaborative activity. Interaction and
communication are, in fact, regarded as crucial in the learning of a foreign
language. To put it in another way: foreign language learning is seen as occurring in interactive communication and manifesting itself as interactive
communication. (e.g., Sfard, 1998; Donato, 2000.) In the socio-cultural approach, several other concepts, such as private speech, orientation, intersubjectivity and scaffolding, are coupled with TBLT (Ellis, 2003, pp. 187–199).
Private speech refers to speech that is audible to other people, but meant to
the speaker her/himself. It is actually speech that guides mental activity expected to lead to self-directedness (e.g., Antón & DiCamilla, 1999, p. 235).
Orientation implies the learners’ ways of interpreting a task and its aims and
also the learners’ ways of performing it (e.g., Roebuck, 2000, p. 84). Intersubjectivity refers to the learners’ shared understanding of the task, its aims and
its performance (e.g., Wertsch, 1985, p. 59).
Scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) refers to “handing a ladder” to the
learner at the right moment by an expert in those parts of the task that are beyond the novice’s reach regarding his or her level of proficiency. Dialogic interaction is a prerequisite to scaffolding. Furthermore, the core of the concept
of scaffolding is the function of teaching and withdrawal of the scaffolding,
when the novice can have control of the task and cope with it autonomously
(e.g., Wells, 1999, p. 249). Scaffolding refers not only to the cognitive aspects
of language learning, but also to the social dimension of the development of a
new skill. It involves both the cognitive demands of the task and the affective
state of the person who performs the task. (Ellis, 2003, p. 181.) It is to be noted that successful scaffolding does not necessarily require an actual expert;
rather, it can equally arise from the dialogic interaction between the learners
(e.g., Ohta, 1995, p. 109).
Scaffolding can, according to van Lier (2007, p. 59), be seen as a practical
pedagogical tool, which is supportive as well as autonomy-supporting. van
Lier (2007, p. 60) describes pedagogical scaffolding as consisting of continuity
(task repetition, connections, variation), contextual support (a safe, supportive
environment), intersubjectivity (mutual engagement, encouragement), contingency (task procedures, the teacher’s actions depending on the learners’ actions), handover/takeover (a growing role for the learner, attending to emergent skills and knowledge) and flow (skills and challenges are in balance, participants are in “tune” with each other). Thus, pedagogical scaffolding covers a
wide field of the pedagogic foreign language teaching– studying/practice–
learning process.
According to the socio-cultural approach of TBLT, as well as according to the
psycholinguistic approach, it is crucial that learners focus on meaning, when
performing a communicative task, but occasionally also focus on form. According to the socio-cultural approach, paying attention to linguistic features is
understood to take place through social interaction, scaffolding and private
speech (e.g., Lantolf, 2000).
As we see it, the two approaches presented above—the cognitiveconstructivist or psycholinguistic approach and the socio-cultural approach—
represent a holistic view on foreign language learning. The socio-cultural approach emphasizes social factors, but sees that the social and mental activities are linked with each other (Ellis, 2000, p. 216). Even according to the latest cognitive research, the origin of cognition lies in social interaction, and
emotion is closely linked to cognition (e.g., Watson-Gegeo, 2004). In this light,
it is natural for us to argue that the foreign language teacher has to take into
account both approaches: cognitive-constructivist or psycholinguistic and socio-cultural. These approaches are complementary, not contradictory. We argue that in order to implement TBLT within the framework of the pedagogic
teaching– studying/practice–learning process, the teacher has to take into account the holistic view on language learning and teaching as well as communicative tasks. The holistic view on learning a foreign language requires that
when planning and implementing TBLT, attention must be paid to the cognitive, social and affective dimensions of language learning, which intertwine
with each other and are all crucial. A foreign language cannot be taught, studied, practiced or learnt as units detached from the context. Learning a language requires that learners both understand, elaborate, enrich and generate
language autonomously and apply it to context-based communication in social
interaction (see Harjanne, 2006).
Now, let us analyze what principles of communicative language teaching
TBLT is based on.
TBLT—a holistic variation of communicative language teaching
TBLT is based on certain principles of language teaching that are partly characteristic of TBLT in particular and partly common to other approaches of
communicative language teaching (CLT) as well (e.g., Ellis, 2003). One of
these common principles is learner-centeredness, which is crucial in most
CLT variations.
Learner-centeredness essentially means that in all FL classroom activities,
learners are in the center of the teaching–studying–learning process. To
Nunan (1989, p. 19), learner-centeredness means that learners are also allowed to choose content and methods and to participate in evaluation. Learner-centeredness means that classroom activity allows learners to interact actively and to use the foreign language for communication (e.g., Legutke &
Thomas, 1991, pp. 4–5). According to Brown (2001, pp. 46–47), learnercentered instruction takes into account learners’ needs and goals, learners’
creativity, and also gives control to the learners while enhancing their selfworth and sense of competence.
The main objective of TBLT is to develop the learners’ ability to express
meanings and use a foreign language for communication in social interaction
(Brown, 2001, p. 166), in other words, to develop communicative language
proficiency. Therefore the learners are encouraged to communicate in the target language and to interact with each other in FL classrooms. In TBLT,
Johnson and Johnson’s (1998) five core principles of communicative methodology manifest themselves very distinctly: situation-specific use of language,
focus on meaning, psycholinguistic processing, risk-taking, and an integrated
practice of the four subskills. This last principle is in line with holistic views on
language, the social character of language and meaning-focused, authentic
use of language. (E.g., Brown, 2001, pp. 48–49, p. 267.) TBLT aims at authentic, genuine and meaningful communication based on authentic and contentwise meaningful materials and tasks in such communication situations
that learners are likely to meet out of school (e.g., Richards & Rodgers, 2001,
pp. 168–170, p. 237).
In TBLT, teachers’ and learners’ various roles play an important part. Richards and Rodgers (2001) see the learner as a participator in a group, a monitor, a risk-taker and a creative language user. The teacher is to choose the
appropriate tasks and to sequence them according to the level of difficulty,
and to prepare the learners to carry out the tasks. The teacher’s responsibilities also include enhancing awareness, as language learning requires paying
adequate attention to the critical features of language (focus on form) in focus-on-meaning communication. (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, pp. 235–236.) It
is, however, important to bear in mind that in TBLT, the teacher is not expected nor should she/he control all use of language by the learners, because
she/he is expected to be a mentor to the learners.
In Table 1, we present our interpretation of some key principles and emphases of TBLT based on several researchers (Nunan, 1989, pp. 194–195;
Brown, 2001, pp. 42–44, p. 69; Richards & Rodgers, 2001, pp. 158–173, pp.
226–228; Ellis, 2003, p. 253, pp. 276–278).
Table 1. An interpretation of some key principles of TBLT (also see Harjanne, 2006, p. 80).
Language
Teaching
Learning
Aims
Communication
Teacher
Learner
Material
Functional, interactional and structural.
Expression of meaning, interaction, and communication.
Conversation: focus of language and basis for language learning.
Vocabulary: central in using and learning a foreign language.
Learner-centered, task-based, focused on meaningful communication, scaffolding.
Interaction, communication, trial and error, scaffolding, focus on meaning, focus on form.
Communicative language proficiency.
Primary focus on meaning, secondary focus on form.
Genuine direct communication.
Interaction, sharing information, negotiating of meaning, risk-taking.
Practicing the four language subskills (listening, reading, speaking, writing)
in an integrated way.
Mentor, needs’ analyst, task organizer.
Participator in interactive communication, co-operative negotiator.
Authentic, meaningful tasks supporting communicative language use.
In summation, TBLT can be seen as a holistic variation of communicative language teaching in the framework of the pedagogic teaching–studying/practice–learning process (TSPL). This kind of holistic view is in harmony
with our attempt (Tella & Harjanne, 2004) of combining communicative language teaching with a deeper understanding of other people and cultures, together with critical and methodological eclecticity in language teaching.
In order to achieve most or all of the above-mentioned aims of TBLT, we need
to look more closely to a crucial element of TBLT: the communicative task.
<this part of the article is under the title Communicative Task>
(…)
Conclusions
Is task-based language teaching (TBLT) a real and major step onwards—a
quantum leap—within communicative language teaching (CLT)? In our opinion, it is one current variation of looking into CLT. At the same time, we would
like to firmly argue that TBLT, while offering us new kinds of challenges to
face, provides us with novel opportunities for communicative interaction in
language classrooms. These challenges encourage the language teacher to
implement TBLT flexibly, creatively and true to life with the learner’s needs,
aims and interests as a starting point. These challenges also urge the teachers to take a holistic view of the learner and include the development of
his/her self-confidence, self-worth, and attitudes as well as co-operational, social, intercultural and study skills in the practice of communicative language
proficiency. They also encourage the language teacher to create a language
learning environment in the classroom, which offers the learner abundant social and linguistic affordances and encourages and supports the learner to actively, intentionally and responsibly participate in social interaction and communication in the language classroom and outside it.
TBLT represents the strong version of communicative language teaching,
based on the direct communicative practice of the foreign language, but presupposing that attention be paid to the critical features of the language as
well. It is reasonable to doubt that the mere practice of a conversation is sufficient or appropriate at least when the learners study a foreign language only
two or three lessons a week for a few years.
Implementing TBLT along the lines of the strong version of communicative
language teaching requires that the learning materials and the communicative
tasks of FL textbooks correspond better to the widened conceptions of the
foreign language, communicative language proficiency, foreign language
learning, and communicative language teaching. However, communicative
language use cannot be limited to any textbook or to the language classroom.
The learners need a lot of authentic communication situations and opportunities for live contacts outside the classroom. One challenge to TBLT is exactly
there: how to incorporate it into language learning—or more broadly, into the
pedagogic teaching–studying–learning process—as an empowering component of a communicative multi-faceted language proficiency and as a lifelong
and lifewide challenge and opportunity for the language learner and user.
TBLT, as one current variation of communicative language teaching, is a challenge for many present-day language teachers, but, at the same time, a real
opportunity for them to modernize language teaching.
References
Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83, 233–
247.
Brown, D. H. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. 2nd edition. San Francisco, CA: State University.
CEFR (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment (2001). Council for Cultural Cooperation. Education Committee. Modern Languages Division, Strasbourg. Council of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign
and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–50). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Edmondson, W. (2005). Learning from different tasks: The Dr. Pangloss perspective. In A. Müller-Hartmann & M. Schocker-v. Ditfurth (Hrsg.),
Aufgabenorientierung im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Task-Based
Language Learning and Teaching. Festschrift für Michael K. Legutke
(pp. 53–66). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language
Teaching Research 4(3), 193–220.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston:
MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Harjanne, P. (2006). ‘Mut ei tää oo hei midsommarista!’ – ruotsin kielen
viestinnällinen suullinen harjoittelu yhteistoiminnallisten skeema- ja
elaborointitehtävien avulla. [‘But hey, this ain’t ‘bout Midsummer!’—
Communicative oral practice in Swedish through collaborative schemabased and elaboration tasks]. University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Research Report 273.
http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/kay/sovel/vk/harjanne/
Harjanne, P., & Tella, S. (2007). Foreign language didactics: Foreign language teaching and transdisciplinary affordances. In A. Koskensalo, J.
Smeds, P. Kaikkonen, & V. Kohonen (Eds.), Foreign languages and multicultural perspectives in the European context; Fremdsprachen und multikulturelle Perspektiven im europäischen Kontext (pp. 197–225).
Dichtung – Wahrheit – Sprache. Berlin: LIT-Verlag.
Howatt, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (1998). Communicative methodology. In K. Johnson & H. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics
(pp. 68–73). Oxford: Blackwell.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79–96.
Legutke, M., & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and experience in the language
classroom. New York: Longman.
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Taskbased language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.),
Modelling and assessing second language acquisition, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.
Long, M. H., & Norris, J. M. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In
M. Byram (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language teaching (pp. 597–603). London: Routledge.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner–learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal
development. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 93–121.
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition
of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Platt, E., & Brooks, F. (2002). Task engagement: A turning point in foreign
language development. Language Learning, 52(2), 365–400.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language
teaching. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rodgers, T. (2001). Language teaching methodology. Retrieved September
17, 2003, from http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/rodgers.html
Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in
a psycholinguistic task. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and
second language learning (pp. 79–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing
just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13.
Skehan, P. (1998a). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998b). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 18, 268–286.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C.
Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235–253).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition
through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Socio-cultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Säljö, R. (2001). The individual in social practices—Comments to Ference
Marton´s
"The practice of learning". Nordisk Pedagogik, 21, 108–116.
Tella, S., & Harjanne, P. (2004). Vieraiden kielten didaktiikka, opetus–
opiskelu–oppimisprosessi ja kieltenopetus. [Foreign language education:
The teaching–studying–learning process and foreign language teaching].
In S. Ahonen, & A. Siikaniva, A. (Eds.). Eurooppalainen ulottuvuus.
Ainedidaktinen symposiumi Helsingissä 6.2.2004 [European Dimension:
Proceedings of a Subject-Didactic Symposium in Helsinki on Feb. 6,
2005] (pp. 444–463). University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Research Report 252.
Tella, S., & Harjanne, P. (2007). Can We Afford Any More Affordances?
Foreign Language Education Specific Reflections. In K. Merenluoto, A.
Virta, & P. Carpelan (Eds.), Opettajankoulutuksen muuttuvat rakenteet.
Ainedidaktinen symposiumi Turussa 9.2.2007. [The changing structures
of teacher education: Proceedings of a Subject-Didactic Symposium in
Turku on Feb. 9, 2007] (pp. 500–506). University of Turku Faculty of Educational Sciences Publications B 77.
van Lier, L. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation
in language teaching and learning, 1(1), 16–65.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a
language socialization paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 88(iii), 331–350.
Wells, G. (1999). Using L1 to master L2: A response to Antón and DiCamilla’s
“Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom”. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 248–254.
Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1985). Culture, communication and cognition; Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problemsolving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.