Task-based Instruction

Historical Background

Task-based instruction (TBI) developed partly because of a growing body of research demonstrating a disconnect between traditional grammar-oriented instruction and the ways in which students actually learn languages. As a result, beginning in the 1970s, language learning theorists and practitioners began searching for alternatives to grammar-based syllabi. One alternative that was proposed was the structuring of language courses around tasks. Long and Crookes (1993) characterize tasks as a more useful "unit of syllabus design" than structure, notion/function, situation/topic, or word. They explain their rationale as follows:

There is no suggestion that learners acquire a new language one task at a time, any more than they do (say) one structure at a time. It is claimed, rather, that (pedagogic) tasks provide a vehicle for the presentation of appropriate target language samples to learners . . . and for the delivery of comprehension and production opportunities of negotiable difficulty. (p. 39).

Long and Crookes review early examples of task-based instruction, which include the 1975 Malaysian Communicative Syllabus (Rodgers, 1979), based on 24 general task objectives such as "follow and understand a talk on specific topics," and the Bangalore/Madras Communicative Teaching Project (Prabhu, 1984, 1987), which included tasks such as interpreting tabular information, working out distances between places, comprehending stories, and opinion gap and information gap activities.

In the 1980s and 1990s, TBI attracted increasing attention from a number of authors, including Candlin (1987) and Nunan (1989, 1993, 1999), who wrote extensively about the design, implementation, and assessment of task-based programs. Other authors have also published major works on TBI in the past decade (e.g., Ellis, 2003; Leaver & Willis, 2004). Task-based instruction has been implemented in language courses throughout the world (Willis, 2004), especially in language-for-special-purposes programs such as those for government personnel (Stevick, 1984), real estate and health care professionals (Mac'as, 2004), engineers (Hager & Lyman-Hager, 2004), and missionaries (Bateman, 1994).

Theory of Language Learning

Task-based instruction shares its theoretical roots with the broader Communicative Language Teaching movement. Three theories of language learning are commonly cited as the basis for TBI. According to TBI advocates, the approach meets the requirements of Krashen's Input Hypothesis by providing authentic input in the form of oral or written texts related to specific tasks; it addresses Swain's Output Hypothesis by providing opportunities for learners to produce meaning-focused output; and it satisfies the terms of Long's Interaction Hypothesis by fostering negotiation of meaning among learners. (These theories are explained in more detail in the segment on Communicative Language Teaching on this DVD.) Ellis (2003) also finds support for TBI in Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development theory, asserting that when learners interact with a teacher, a native speaker, or a more advanced peer, they can perform tasks that they would be unable to perform on their own, expanding their linguistic competence in the process.

Much of the literature on task-based instruction has been devoted to discussing how "tasks" should be defined. At least a dozen definitions have been proposed, most of which share a common emphasis on two elements: (a) a process of working toward a goal or outcome, and (b) a focus on meaning rather than form. Bygate, Skehan, and Swain (2001), for example, define a task as "an activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective" (quoted in Ellis, 2003, p. 5). There is some disagreement, however, as to whether tasks should be selected so as to foster processes of language acquisition in the classroom, or to prepare learners for activities that they may potentially do outside the classroom. Nunan (1993) and Long and Crookes (1993) refer to the former as "pedagogic tasks" and the latter as "target tasks" or "real-world tasks."

Advocates of pedagogic tasks have written extensively about what types of tasks are most likely to promote language acquisition. Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993) suggest that the most useful tasks are those in which:

1. Each interactant holds a different portion of information which must be exchanged and manipulated in order to reach the task outcome.
2. Both interactants are required to request and supply this information to each other.
3. Interactants have the same or convergent goals.
4. Only one acceptable outcome is possible from their attempts to meet the goal. (p.17)

Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun review research on five types of pedagogic tasks: (a) jigsaw (e.g., students pool clues with others in order to solve a mystery); (b) information gap activities (e.g., students replicate their partners' pictures); (c) problem solving (e.g., students identify differences between their picture and their partner's); (d) decision making (e.g., students decide which of several hospital patients deserves to receive the only heart available for transplant); and (e) opinion gap (e.g., students discuss the legalization of drugs). The authors conclude that of these task types, jigsaw and information gap tasks are the most effective in promoting language learning, whereas opinion gap tasks are the least effective.

Advocates of real-world tasks take a different approach to the selection of tasks, arguing that tasks should be chosen according to students' communicative needs outside the classroom. Examples of such tasks might include purchasing a train ticket, renting an apartment, ordering a meal in a restaurant, making a telephone call, or understanding a weather forecast. Classroom tasks are then designed so as to increasingly approximate the real-world tasks (Long & Crookes, 1993; Nunan, 2004).

Recent works on task-based instruction such as Leaver and Willis (2004) tend to blur the distinction between pedagogic and real-world tasks. Willis (2004), for example, argues that "any task interaction (whether spontaneous or planned) will contain features of language that are useful in real-life and so the need for this distinction is less obvious" (p. 27). As examples of tasks, she cites activities in which students of Japanese prepare a video of their hometown to send to their host families in Japan, or students of Spanish read the Spanish press and then write a piece for a local Spanish paper. This broad conceptualization of "tasks" tends to render TBI virtually indistinguishable from Communicative Language Teaching (CLT); in fact, some authors seem to use the two terms as synonyms. Although this usage may be perfectly valid, it seems to us that the single feature distinguishing TBI as a separate branch of CLT is the focus in some TBI programs on preparing learners for the type of real-world tasks that they would be likely to perform independently of any language course.

Classroom Activities

Classroom activities vary somewhat among different task-based programs, depending partly on whether they focus on pedagogic or real-life/target tasks. The latter type of program tends to incorporate role-play activities. Richards (1985, cited in Richards & Rodgers, 2001) describes a target task-based program for Japanese college students in a Summer program in the U.S. A needs analysis identified tasks that students needed to be able to carry out in English, including social survival transactions, informal face-to-face and telephone conversations, and service encounters. A set of role-play activities was developed focusing on these tasks, which are summarized below.

Pretask Activities

• Learners discuss the topic, brainstorm related vocabulary, and develop expectations about the task.
• Learners read a dialogue illustrating the task.

Task Activity

• Learners role play the task in pairs.

Posttask Activities

• Learners listen to recordings of native speakers performing the task and compare their language use with that of the natives.

Willis (2004) outlines a similar sequence of activities for programs with a broader focus that is not limited to real-world/target tasks. An important difference, however, is the absence of role plays, since the focus is not on rehearsal but rather on interacting and possibly producing a final product. Following is a brief summary of these activities.

Pretask Options

• Learners rehearse the task or listen to a video or audio recording of it.
• Learners plan how to perform the task.

Main Task Options

• Learners perform the task, with the teacher either interacting closely with them or allowing them to work independently.
• To ensure target language use and/or increase attention to accuracy of forms, task interactions may be recorded and played back to the class.

Posttask Options

• Learners produce and present a final product, such as a brochure, short story, or news broadcast.
• Learners listen to a recording of native speakers performing the same task.
• Learners repeat the same or a similar task later with different partners.
• Learners evaluate the task outcome, either individually or in pairs or groups.

Notes on the Video

The lesson in the video features an intermediate ESL class focusing on the target task of giving and accepting invitations, taught by Rossana Camacho of the English Language Center at Brigham Young University. The lesson begins with a lead-in activity in which students draw from a box slips of paper containing phrases for inviting someone to a Valentine's Day dance. Next, the class discusses the steps involved in extending an invitation and phrases that may be used, as well as the pragmatics of accepting or rejecting an invitation. After playing a game to practice invitation phrases and listening to several recordings of invitations, the students role-play inviting each other to the dance.

References and Additional Resources

Bateman, B. E. (1994). Evaluation of a target task-based L2 syllabus for LDS missionaries. Unpublished manuscript, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.

Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow, England: Longman.

Candlin, C. N. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. N. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (Lancaster Practical Papers in English Language Education, Vol. 7, pp. 5-22). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hager, W. R., & Lyman-Hager, M. A. (2004). Bridging the gap between the sciences and the humanities: French for engineers and other technical professions. In B. L. Leaver & J. R. Willis (Eds.), Task-based instruction in foreign language education: Practices and programs (pp. 161-180). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Leaver, B. L., & Willis, J. R. (Eds.). (2004). Task-based instruction in foreign language education: Practices and programs. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Long, M. H.,& Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27-56.

Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus design The case for task. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-68). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Mac'as, C. (2004). Task-based instruction for teaching Spanish to professionals. In B. L. Leaver & J. R. Willis (Eds.), Task-based instruction in foreign language education: Practices and programs (pp. 142-160). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1993). Task-based syllabus design: Selecting, grading and sequencing tasks. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 55-68). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communicative tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-54). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Prabhu, N. S. (1984). Procedural syllabuses. In T. E. Read (Ed.), Trends in language syllabus design (pp. 272-280). Singapore: Singapore University Press/RELC.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richards, J. C. (1985). Conversational competence through role-play activities. RELC Journal 16(1), 82-100.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2^nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rodgers, T. (1979). The Malaysian Communicative Syllabus: A developer's reflections. The English Newsletter (Hong Kong), 7, 3, 19-25.

Stevick, E. W. (1984). Curriculum development at the Foreign Service Institute. In T. V. Higgs (Ed.), Teaching for proficiency, the organizing principle (ACTFL Foreign Language Education Series, pp. 85-112). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.

Willis, J. R. (2004). Perspectives on task-based instruction: Understanding our practices, acknowledging different practitioners. In B. L. Leaver & J. R. Willis (Eds.), Task-based instruction in foreign language education: Practices and programs (pp. 3-44). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.