of the task, but could be avoided through the use of alternative structures or perhaps through the use of communication strategies (Skehan, 1998: 122)’).
3. Select and sequence tasks to achieve balanced goal development.
4. Maximize the chances of focus on form through attentional manip-ulation.
5. Use cycles of accountability (‘draw learners into consciously engag-ing in cycles of evaluation’; Skehan, 1998: 122).
TBL: Theories and Applications 23
Skehan argues that these principles meet criteria that relate to both effec-tive communication (fluency and accuracy) and to facilitating progress and development of the L2 (complexity): ‘These [principles] … offer some prospects for the systematic development of underlying inter-language and effective communicative performance’ (Skehan 1998: 129).
Several papers in this volume have explored how task-based instruction can promote fluency, accuracy and complexity in learners. For example, Loumpourdi (Chapter 2) found that task-based grammar activities seemed to promote both fluency and accuracy; Muller (Chapter 6), Pullin Stark (Chapter 3), and Coulson (Chapter 11) suggest ways of promoting complexity and the quality of learner output; whereas Djapora (Chapter 17) and Birch (Chapter 18) found that planning time and task-type, respectively, can have a positive effect on fluency, accuracy and complexity of learner language. Johnston (Chapter 15) concludes that planning time and the report phase not only promote accuracy and complexity, but can also fight fossilization.
The socio-cultural perspective
Unlike the perspectives illustrated above, socio-cultural theory proposes that learners collaboratively construct knowledge as a joint activity.
Activities that learners engage in are co-constructed according to the learners’ socio-cultural history and the locally determined goals of these activities. It has been argued that such co-construction of knowledge engages learners in cognitive processes that are implicated in L2 learning (Lantolf, 1996).
This perspective, originally inspired by the works of Vygotsky (1987), looks at how tasks are jointly accomplished by learners, and how the process of accomplishing a task can contribute to L2 learning. According to Vygotsky, dialogic interaction is an important trigger for language learning. Vygotsky argues that external, social activities in which the learner participates are the main source of mental/cognitive activities.
When individuals interact with other people, their cognitive processes awaken. These processes, which occur on the inter-psychological (or social) plane, are believed to include both cognitive development and language development. Vygotsky further argues that this language development moves from the social plane to the individual’s internal mental plane on the assumption that what originates in the social (inter-psychological) sphere will eventually be represented internally, or
‘intrapsychologically’, that is, within the individual. In other words, individual learners ultimately internalize language by participating in dialogue with others, and one way to achieve this in the language classroom is through the joint completion of tasks.
24 Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching
Research into dialogic interaction has shown that this enables learners jointly to perform tasks and solve linguistic problems that lie beyond their individual abilities. For example, Donato (1994) demonstrated that learners were able to produce jointly a particular grammatical construction which was beyond their individual abilities. He also provided evidence to suggest that language learning was actually taking place during these dialogic interactions. Similarly, Swain (1997) found that learners in collaborative dialogues, which aimed at solving a certain linguistic point, were able to achieve what none of them was able to achieve individually, and that (as reported above) the solutions students reached during such dialogues were retained in their interlanguage system.
Hence, it is assumed that social interaction mediates learning, as explained by Ellis (2000: 209): ‘learners first succeed in performing a new function with the assistance of another person and then internalise this function so that they can perform it unassisted,’ a process often referred to as scaffolding. As explained above, research has indeed shown that there is a strong tendency for learners to ‘stick with’ the knowledge they had constructed collaboratively (jointly) on previous occasions (LaPierre 1994; Swain 1998; see also Pullin Stark, Chapter 3).
The socio-cultural position looks at how learners approach and perform the task rather than at the inherent properties of the individ-ual tasks. This is because research has shown that the same task can be performed differently by different learners (and sometimes by the same learners but on different occasions), depending on the learners’ inter-pretation of and approach to the task (Coughlan and Duff 1994; Swain and Lapkin 1998). Learners set their own goals, procedures and the way they collaborate in performing a certain task or activity. So tasks here are considered to be internally rather than externally defined because learners to a large extent construct for themselves the activity they are engaged in (see Cox, Chapter 14).
Several papers in this volume have explored how collaborative tasks can be implemented in a classroom context (Muller, Chapter 6; Pullin Stark, Chapter 3; Coulson, Chapter 11; Poupore, Chapter 19). For instance, Muller and Coulson have found that jointly performed tasks enabled students to correct each other’s ill-formed utterances and solve linguistic problems that lay beyond their individual abilities.
Task-based learning and language instruction
How do we implement the principles underlying the various perspec-tives on task-based learning in a classroom context? Scholars have pro-posed different models for task-based instruction (eg Nunan, 1989a;
TBL: Theories and Applications 25
Skehan, 1998; Willis and Willis, 1987). Willis’s (more fully described in Willis, J., 1996b), being quite practical and straightforward, is the model most commonly cited and employed by classroom teachers and teacher-researchers. Willis’s framework, reproduced here, falls into three main parts: pre-task, the task cycle, and language focus. (Note: T stands for Teacher, Ss for students.)
The pre-task phase provides the necessary background, knowledge and procedure, introduces students to – and familiarizes them with – the topic and the task to be performed. In the task phase, learners carry out a meaning-focused activity. It does not matter if the task is achieved 26 Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching
NB: Some time after this final phase, students may like to repeat the same or a similar task with a different partner.
Overview of the TBL framework reproduced from page 155 of A Framework for Task-based Learning, J. Willis, 1996, reproduced with the permission of Addison Wesley Longman (Pearson Education) Ltd.
through the use of language which is far from the target in terms of accuracy and complexity. They are more likely to concentrate on flu-ency, producing forms of the language that come readily to them. In the report phase, on the other hand, learners are required to present the results of their task phase work to the whole class. Willis and Willis (1987) argue that in this public performance learners will be motivated to produce not only fluent but also accurate language – a more ‘prestige’
variety. Thus, the report stage ensures ‘a smooth transition from private to more public interaction’ (Willis, J., 1996b: 56). To enable this transi-tion to happen, learners are given a planning phase between task and report. During the planning phase, learners will attend to form in prepa-ration for the report phase based on the assumption that when given planning time, learners will focus on form and try to produce more complex language. As such, this framework provides opportunities for fluency, accuracy and complexity to develop.
As mentioned earlier, several papers in this volume have employed J. Willis’s (1996b) framework, singly or in combination with other frameworks – notably Skehan’s (1998), in a variety of teaching contexts and techniques. For instance, Johnston (Chapter 15) shows that plan-ning and report stages help combat fossilization and promote accuracy and complexity in learner output/production. Essig (Chapter 16) shows that planning time, task repetition and public performance all have notable effects on learner fluency and accuracy (see also Pinter, Chapter 10 for effect of task repetition on the language of younger learners).
Djapora (Chapter 17) demonstrates that pre-task planning time results in better quality output with regard to fluency, accuracy and complex-ity. Hobbs (Chapter 12) and Baigent (Chapter 13), applying the model to teaching multi-word chunks of language and lexical phrases, find that learners’ fluency was promoted at both the lexical level and dis-course level. By the same token, task repetition and watching native speakers do the same task was shown to have a positive effect on learner output (Leedham, Chapter 8). Moreover, the model seems to be effec-tive when used not just in general EFL courses, but also in ESP (English for Specific Purposes) courses (Pullin Stark, Chapter 3; Sheehan, Chapter 4; Kiernan, Chapter 5).
The future for task-based learning
The persistence of grammar-based instruction in many teaching contexts in the world, despite its relative failure to produce effective language users, is partly due to the fact that it creates conditions where TBL: Theories and Applications 27
teachers feel secure as they can predict the language that will be needed and they feel comfortable in their roles as knowers. This goes for teacher training, too. According to Skehan (1998: 94) grammar-based instruc-tion ‘has had an excellent relainstruc-tionship with teacher training and teach-ers’ feelings of professionalism. It is comforting and places the teacher firmly in the proceedings’ It also ‘lends itself to accountability, since it generates clear tangible goals, precise syllabuses, and a comfortingly itemizable basis for the evaluation of effectiveness’ (ibid). The difficulty in abandoning grammar-based instruction is also in part due to the lack of a clear alternative framework, ‘a framework which will translate into classroom organization, teacher training, and accountability and assessment’ (Skehan 1998: 94).
Armed with insights from SLA research findings and cognitive psy-chology, nevertheless, attempts are being made at effecting a transition from grammar-based to task-based instruction not just by researchers (eg Bygate, Skehan and Swain 2001, Ellis 2000, 2003; Skehan 1998, 2003), but also by language teachers and practitioners (see, in particular, Loumpourdi, Chapter 2; Muller, Chapter 6). For instance, Loumpourdi, adopting J. Willis’s (1996b) framework for a task-based grammar activ-ity, illustrates ways in which the transition from grammar-based instruc-tion to task-based instrucinstruc-tion can be smooth, enjoyable and rewarding for both teachers and learners.
A half-way step would be what Ellis 2003 terms ‘task-supported learn-ing’, where tasks are used alongside other more conventional methods, for example to supplement the text book, as described by Muller in Chapter 6. The text book Cutting Edge (Cunningham and Moore) is a good example of this, having a task-based strand, with an emphasis on lexis, alongside, but separate from, a grammar and skills syllabus.
Attempts are also being made to develop task-based frameworks into a fully-fledged approach to language teaching. Ellis (2003) describes var-ious ways this can be done, and proposes a modular syllabus: beginners start with a purely task-based module, consisting of a range of tasks (lin-guistically unfocused) to help them acquire naturally as much lexis and grammar as possible; later a separate code-based module is gradually introduced, using focused tasks and explicit grammar teaching, to draw attention to grammar and lexical refinements that learners may not have noticed or acquired earlier.
While the contributors to this volume have focused mainly on indi-vidual lessons or short series of lessons, other researchers and practi-tioners are looking into how to construct complete syllabuses and 28 Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching
design task-based language courses. Although this development still has some way to go, some progress has been made. Robinson (2001: 287) argues that sequencing of tasks for syllabus design purposes should be based on the cognitive demands of the tasks (see earlier in this chapter for an outline of his proposed framework). D. Willis (2003) shows how a focus on language can be subsumed within a task-based approach, and on a more practical level, Leaver and Willis (forthcoming 2004) contains around ten case-studies of highly successful foreign language pro-grammes in the USA and South America that have been based on task-based instruction (TBI). In addition, there is work going on exploring task-based assessment and testing, and evaluating task-based pedagogy.
See Bygate, Skehan and Swain, 2001 and Ellis, 2003 for illustrations of these.
Several papers in this volume point to the need for further research into task-based language learning and teaching (see, eg, Sheehan, Chapter 4; Essig, Chapter 16; Poupore, Chapter 19). This sentiment is reflected by the debate on tasks in a recent international conference (the IATEFL Conference in Brighton, UK, in April 2003). The debate – still continuing online at the time of writing – brought together researchers, researcher-teachers and professionals in a discussion of the role of tasks in language teaching and learning. Some of the issues addressed include the following:
● In what way are tasks different from exercises?
● Can you learn a language in a ‘holistic’ way?
● Where does the learning come from in tasks?
● Can we use tasks with learners at all levels?
● Is deeper restructuring of knowledge really taking place with task-based learning? To what degree?
● How do we design task-based language courses?
● What is the methodology of task-based teaching?
● How are learners tested in a task-based language learning/teaching context?
● How do we assess task-based language learning and teaching?
The significance of this debate is that it not only points to the need for more research into this important area in the field of second/foreign language learning and teaching (as do several papers in this volume), but also, like this volume too, it brings researchers and language teachers closer together than ever.
TBL: Theories and Applications 29
Notes
1 See Prabhu 1987 for a full report of this project.
2 See Leaver and Kaplan forthcoming (2004) for descriptions of TBI on Slavic language programmes.
3 See Lopes (forthcoming 2004), and Passos de Oliveira (ibid.).
30 Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching