II. THE DESIGN OF A TASK -BASED APPROACH [623618]

II. THE DESIGN OF A TASK -BASED APPROACH

2.1. OBJECTIVES
Goals in TBL are ideally to be determined by the specific needs of particular learners. The
selection of tasks, according to Long and Crookes (1993), should be based on a careful analysis of
the real world needs of the learners.
• to facilitate students ’ language learning by engaging them in a variety of tasks that have a
clear outcome. (Larsen -Freeman, 2001: 156)
• to give learners confidence in trying out whatever language they know,
• to give learners experience of spontaneous interaction,
• to give learners the chance to benefit from noticing how others express similar meanings,
to give learners chances for negotiating turns to speak ,
• to engage learners in using language purposefully and cooper atively ,
• to make learners participate in a complete interaction, not just one -off sentences ,
• to give learners chances to try out communication strategies ,
• to develop learners ’ confidence that they can achieve communicative goals. (Willis, 1996:
35–6).
2.2. A CURRICULAR CONSIDERATION
‘Curriculum’ is a large and complex concept, and the term itself is used in a number of
different ways. In some contexts, it is used to refer to a particular program of study, as in ‘the
science curriculum’ or ‘the mathematics curriculum’. In other contexts, it is synonymous with
‘syllabus’. Over fifty years ago, Ralph Tyler, the ‘father’ of the modern curriculum study, proposed
a ‘rational’ curriculum model (which is not necessarily more rational than previous curr icular
proposals) that is developed by firstly identifying goals and objectives (syllabus), then listing,
organizing and grading learning experiences (methodology), and finally finding means for
determining whether the goals and objectives have been achiev ed (assessment and evaluation)
(Tyler 1949). Another perspective was presented in the mid -1970s by Lawrence Stenhouse who
argued that at the very minimum a curriculum should offer the following:

A. In planning
1. Principles for the selection of content – what is to be learned and taught.
2. Principles for the development of a teaching strategy – how it is to be learned and taught.
3. Principles for the making of decisions about sequence.
4. Principles on which to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of in dividual students and
differentiate the general principles 1, 2 and 3 above to meet individual cases.
B. In empirical study
1. Principles on which to study and evaluate the progress of students.
2. Principles on which to study and evaluate the progress of teachers.
3. Guidance as to the feasibility of implementing the curriculum in varying school contexts, pupil
contexts, environments and peer group situations.
4. Information about the variability of effects in differing contexts and on different pupils and an
understanding of the causes of the variations.
C. In relation to justification
A formulation of the intention or aim of the curriculum which is accessible to critical
scrutiny. (Stenhouse 1975: 5) Stenhouse’s perspective provided a refreshing antidote to the rather
mechanistic ‘rational’ curriculum model because it emphasized process as well as product,
elevated the teacher as an important agent of curriculum development and change, and highlighted
the importance of seeing the curriculum in action. The focus on process and action make it an
interesting model for those interested in task -based curriculum proposals. A broad distinction
could be drawn between the curriculum as plan, the curriculum as action, and the curriculum as
outcome. The curriculum as plan refers to the processes and products that are drawn up prior to
the instructional process. These will include plans and syllabuses, textbook, and other resources,
as well as assessment instruments. The curriculum as action refers to the moment -by-mome nt
realities of the classroom as the planned curriculum is enacted. The curriculum as outcome relates
to what students actually learn as a result of the instructional process. The curriculum as plan
consists of three elements: syllabus design, which is con cerned with selecting, sequencing and

justifying content; methodology, which is concerned with selecting, sequencing and justifying,
learning experiences; and assessment/evaluation, which is concerned with the selection of
assessment and evaluation instrum ents and procedures.
This three -parts division works well enough in traditional approaches to curriculum.
However, after the emergence of communicative language teaching (CLT), the distinction between
syllabus design and methodology becomes more difficult to sustain. At the initial design stage,
one needs to specify both the content (the ends of learning) and the tasks and learning procedures
(the means to those ends) in an integrated way. This suggests a broad approach to curriculum in
which concurrent con sideration is given to content, procedure, and evaluation. In the next chapter,
I will set out a framework for doing this. In one of his publications, David Wilkins suggested a
basic distinction between what he called ‘synthetic’ approaches to syllabus des ign and ‘analytical’
approaches. All syllabuses, he suggested, fitted one or other of these approaches. In ‘synthetic’
approaches, ‘Different parts of the language are taught separately and step by step so that
acquisition is a process of gradual accumulat ion of parts until the whole structure of language has
been built up’ (Wilkins 1976: 2).
Such approaches represent the ‘traditional’ way of organizing the syllabus, and reflect the
common -sense belief that the central role of instruction is to simplify th e learning challenge for
the student. One way to simplify learning is to break the content down into its constituent parts,
and introduce each part separately and step by step. A related concept that was popular in the 1960s
was that of mastery learning. H aving broken the subject matter down and sequenced it from easy
to difficult, each item of content was introduced to the learner in a serial fashion, and a new item
was not supposed to be introduced until the current item had been thoroughly mastered (thus the
label ‘mastery learning’). In the case of second language acquisition, however, it seemed that
learners did not acquire one item perfectly one at a time. Rather they learned numerous items
imperfectly, and often almost simultaneously. In addition, the learning was unstable. An item that
appeared to have been acquired at one point in time seemed to have been ‘unlearned’ at a
subsequent point in time (Ellis 1994).
Research into processes of second language acquisition would appear to offer support for
the alternative offered by Wilkins to synthetic syllabuses. These are known as ‘analytical’
approaches because the learner is presented with holistic ‘chunks’ of language and is required to
analyze

them, or break them down into their constituent parts:
“Prio r analysis of the total language system into a set of discrete pieces of language that is
a necessary precondition for the adoption of a synthetic approach is largely superfluous. . . [Such
approaches] are organized in terms of the purposes for which peopl e are learning language and the
kinds of language that are necessary to meet these purposes”. (Wilkins 1976: 13)
All syllabus proposals that do not depend on a prior analysis of the language belong to this
second category. In addition to task -based syllabu ses, we have project -based, content -based,
thematic, and text -based syllabuses. Despite their differences, they all have one thing in common
– they do not rely on prior analysis of the language into its discrete points. Of course, one needs to
exercise jud gement when introducing learners to texts and tasks containing a wide range of
language structures. This is particularly true in the early stages of the learning process.
In a program based on a synthetic syllabus (whether this may be a grammatical or
functional syllabus), the learner, typically, will only get one or two ‘shots’ at the item in question.
Synthetic syllabuses, sharing as they do ‘a static target language product orientation’, have other
problems as
well.
“Syllabus content is ultimately based on an analysis of the language to be learned, whether
this be overt, as in the case of structure, word, notion or function, or covert, as has usually been
the case with situation and topic. . . it is assumed that the unit, or teaching point, which is pres ented
will be what is learned and that it is efficient to organize and present material in an isolating
fashion. Second Language research offers no evidence to suggest that any of these synthetic units
are meaningful acquisition units, that they are (or ev en can be) acquired separately, singly, in linear
fashion, or that they can be learned prior to and separate from language use. In fact, the same
literature provides overwhelming evidence against all those tacit assumptions.” (Long and Crookes
1993: 26 –7)
In contrast with synthetic syllabuses, a task -based syllabus allows for a great deal of
naturalistic recycling. In a task -based syllabus, grammatical and functional items will reappear
numerous times in a diverse range of contexts. This would appear to be healthy for second
language acquisition because it allows learners to ‘restructure’ and develop an elaborated
understanding of the item in question. It is therefore consistent with an ‘organic’ view of
acquisition in which numerous items are acquired simul taneously, albeit imperfectly. From

research, we know that if we test a learner’s ability to use a particular grammatical form several
times over a period of time their accuracy rates will vary. Their mastery of the structure will not
increase in a linear fashion from zero to native -like mastery. Some times their ability will stabilize.
Other times they will appear to get worse, not better. That is because, as Long and Crookes have
pointed out, linguistic items are not isolated entities. Rather, any given i tem is affected by, and
will affect, numerous others. As Rutherford (1987) has argued, language acquisition is an organic
process and, in acquiring a language, learners go through a kind of linguistic metamorphosis. Task –
based learning exploits this proces s and allows the learner to ‘grow’ into the language. (Nunan
1999).

2.3. OUTLINE OF THE TASK -BASED SYLLABUS
A task -based syllabus is, briefly, a syllabus which uses tasks as the unit of syllabus analysis
(Long & Crookes 1992:41). However, it is necessary to further define what is meant by tasks and
task-based language teaching. Tasks can be defined in a variety of ways, as, for example: activities
where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to
achieve an out come. (Willis 1996a:23) Or 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. (Nunan 1989:10)
Task -based approaches are often contrasted with traditional methods such as a
Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP) models which introduce a small number of set language
forms before allowing learners to practice in controlled conditions then encouraging them to use
the forms spontaneously (Willis & Willis 2007: 4). In contrast, task -based learning aims to provide
the conditions for learners’ language abilities to develop naturally (Foster 1999:69). The task –
based syllabus offers a refreshing alternative to t raditional linguistic syllabuses.
Many teachers experience frustration with the PPP model (Willis 1996b:52), which has
failed to achieve acceptable levels of L2 competence (Skehan 1996a:18) as ‘learners do not simply
acquire the language to which they are exposed, however carefully that exposure may be
orchestrated by the teacher’. In other words, learners are unlikely to learn the specific language
forms presented to them during the course of a lesson. This was certainly something I have
experienced in my own language teaching, therefore I believe that task -based learning gives

teachers the opportunity to help learners develop their language abilities naturally through
communication and interaction with others.
The centrality of meaning is common across muc h of the TBLT literature (Nunan 1989:12;
Nunan 2004:6; Willis & Willis 2007:6). While previous approaches viewed language as a list of
forms to be mastered (Willis & Willis 2001:173), TBLT highlights the importance of meaning and
communicative use in langu age learning. TBLT therefore, lies on the belief that language is more
than a system of rules, it is a ‘dynamic resource for the creation of meaning’ (Nunan 1989:12).
Previous methods are further criticised for presenting unnatural, simplistic, sentence -level forms
of the target language (Long & Crookes 1992:30) and teaching explicit knowledge of grammatical
rules rather than fostering the ability to use language (Prabhu 1987:13). In addition, the lexical
nature of language is also gaining increasing recogn ition within TBLT (Willis & Willis 2007;
Skehan 1996). Language in a task -based syllabus can therefore be seen as a means for
communication (Nunan 2004:7), enabling speakers to fulfil various functions while focussing on
meaning.
Task -based syllabuses, whi ch fall under White’s classification of ‘Type B’ syllabuses,
represent a move away from traditional ‘Type A’ syllabuses. As shown in table 1 (below), type A
syllabuses can generally be regarded as specifying what is to be learnt, whereas type B syllabuses
primarily concern how it is learnt (White 1988:44 -5):
Table 1: Language Syllabuses: Types A and B
Type A What is to be learnt? Type B How is it to be learnt?

Interventionalist

External to the learner Internal to the learner

Other directed Inner directed or self fulfilling

Determined by authority Learner and teacher as joint decision makers

Content=what the subject is to the expert
Content=what the subject is to the learner

Content=a gift to the learner from the teacher
or knower
Content=what the learner brings or wants

Objectives defined in advance Objectives described afterwards

Subject emphasis Process Emphasis

Assessment by achievement or mastery Assessment in relationship to learners’
criteria for success

Doing things to the learner Doing things for or with the learner

Syllabuses which specify lists of structures or linguistic it ems to be taught separately can
also be classified as s ynthetic language teaching strategies, in contrast with analytic syllabuses for
which content is not an organising factor and language is not pre -selected (Wilkins 1976:2).
Proponents of task -based syllabuses argue that synthetic, type A syllabuses are ineffectual as they
‘assume a model of language acquisition unsupported by research find ings on language learning’
(Long & Crookes 1992:30). Research into SLA has shown that learners do not learn isolated
linguistic items in an additive manner in an order specified by the teacher, thus casting doubt on
the validity of synthetic syllabuses (Fo ster 1999:69; Shehadeh 2005:16; Long & Crookes 1992:31).
Task -based approaches recognise that learning is controlled by internal processes (Skehan
1996a:18), and that learners do not move from being unable to use a syntactic form to mastery in
one step, bu t pass through developmental stages of nontargetlike use (Long & Crookes 1992:31).
Therefore, drawing on a wide variety of research from SLA such as work by Krashen (1985), task –
based approaches aim not to pre -select and teach language in a pre -specified o rder, but to best
create the conditions necessary for acquisition to take place (Prabhu 1987:1; Richards & Rodgers
2001:223). Tasks provide exposure to rich input, as well as opportunities for creative output and
negotiation of meaning, believed to be ke y factors in second language acquisition (ibid.:228).
Previous approaches have been further criticised for explicitly teaching grammatical rules,

which is argued to lead to knowledge about language, but not necessarily the ability to use it
(Prabhu 1987:13 ). Furthermore, Prabhu argues that internal grammatical systems are too complex
to be incorporated into a language syllabus (ibid.:17). In addition, grammatical systems are
believed to operate unconsciously, thus Prabhu argues that knowledge which operates at an
unconscious level is best developed subconsciously, and that by consciously attending to meaning
learners can develop their grammatical competence (ibid.:15 -6). However, while focus on
grammar was initially criticised by proponents of TBLT, it is no w widely recognised that some
focus of form is necessary to aid acquisition (Long & Crookes 1992:43).
Finally, it is argued that learners learn by actively using language (Skehan 1996a:20;
Nunan 2004:12). Learners are given the opportunity to experiment an d form their own ideas about
language and produce new meanings as they practise (Hedge 2000:359 -60; Beglar & Hunt
2002:97). Rather than specifying forms for learners to use, task -based approaches allow learners
to use their own language to accomplish non -linguistic task goals. Task -based learning offers
learners opportunities to use language as a communicative tool in social interaction, as well as
creating the context for form -focused activity after the task cycle has been completed.
2.3.1. Strengths and W eaknesses of a Task -Based Syllabus
This section outlines the positive and negative aspects of a task -based syllabus, to gain a
better understanding of where its strengths and weaknesses lie.
Strengths of a task -based syllabus
One of the most specific claims made by proponents of task -based syllabuses is that they
have a sound base in theories of language learning. Crookes and Long (1993:37), for example,
argue that task -based syllabuses are based on second language learning research, second language
classroom research, and principles of course design. As SLA research has shown, language is not
learned sequentially in an additive manner, it is therefore argued that synthetic syllabuses are
inadequate as they rely on specifying and sequentially teaching l inguistic items. This gives support
to analytic syllabuses such as the task -based syllabus which aim to activate the internal processes
which lead to acquisition (Nunan 2004:11; Beglar & Hunt 2002:97).
A danger of task -based interaction is that if used alo ne it may sufficiently foster fluency,
but not lead to language growth (Skehan 1996a:22). Both Willis (1996b) and Skehan (1996b) argue
that focus on form is therefore a necessary component of task -based instruction. Focus on form
allows not only the introd uction of potentially useful language for learners to experiment with, but

also increases the saliency of features of the target language to facilitate noticing, thus speeds up
the process of input becoming intake (Long & Crookes 1992:42). Learner attentio n can be further
directed to form through repeat performances of tasks, which enables closer focus on language
form (Hawkes:2012). This supports an important principle of TBLT, which aims to recycle
language use in order to maximise learning opportunities (Nunan 2004:36).
A further benefit of TBLT is that it advocates a learner -centred approach to language
learning. While TBLT may not be as strongly learner -centred as a process syllabus, in that the
teacher is responsible for selecting tasks to be used, lea rners are free to use whatever language
resources they have available and are not constrained to fixed structures. During the pre -task and
task stages learner error is also not explicitly corrected allowing learners to focus on meaning
rather than concentrate on trying to conform to linguistic norms. A task -based syllabus therefore
offers learners a sense of ‘freedom and responsibility’ (Van den Branden 2006:10), which seems
likely to also increase student motivation. Further to this, Nunan argues, learners learn best through
active use of language, therefore the majority of class time should be devoted to using the language
(Nunan 2004:36).
Through exposure to authentic materials and rich samples of listening and reading texts
TBLT aims to provide l earners with ‘optimal learning opportunities’ (Nunan 2004:49; Willis
1996a:147). Relating language to the real world is in fact a key factor of TBLT (Van den Branden
2006:6). Nunan (2004:19 -22) highlights the difference between target tasks, the real world uses
learners may be expected to engage in, and pedagogical tasks, activities for practice of language
within the classroom which do not relate to a specific real -world use situation. The recognition of
real-world language use is further exemplified in th e support of needs analysis within TBLT. Long
and Crookes (1992:44; 1993:40) propose that a task -based syllabus should begin by identifying
relevant target tasks before classifying these tasks into task types and finally deriving pedagogic
tasks for classr oom use.
Through meaning -focused activity, interaction and a removal of teacher dominance, tasks
can facilitate increased fluency and natural acquisition (Willis 1996a:18). This can be seen as a
major strength of task -based approaches. Through negotiation of meaning learners become more
adept at conveying meaning, while frequent practice and experimentation with language forms
will lead to the ability to deploy existing knowledge more efficiently in conversation. Willis

(1996a:14) further argues that succes s and satisfaction in using language to achieve task goals will
lead to increased motivation, a strong factor in language learning success.
Finally, as task -based approaches to syllabus design do not specify the type of language to
be taught they offer bot h versatility and flexibility. Task -based approaches can be adapted to a
wide variety of teaching contexts, such as English for specific purposes, teaching young learners,
beginners, as well as helping experienced learners improve fluency and accuracy.
Wea knesses of a task -based syllabus
This part outlines the weaknesses inherent in task -based syllabuses, many of which are
highlighted by proponents of TBLT.
Strong criticism of task -based instruction comes from Swan (2005:379 -381), who casts
doubt on the the ories that underlie TBLT. Firstly, in criticising dependenc e on the on -line
hypothesis that learning only takes place during communication, Swan gives the example of
adding the particle か (ka) to form questions in Japanese, claiming that with this knowledg e one
should be able to form questions without acquiring it naturalistically. However, explicit knowledge
does not necessarily translate to the ability to use language. He further criticises the noticing
hypothesis for being controversial and originating f rom informal analysis, and teachability
hypothesis for lacking empirical evidence. Task -based interaction is further criticised by
Seedhouse (1999), claiming that it only produces a restricted kind of communication. It is unclear
however, if he includes fo cus on form in TBLT as part of his analysis.
Opponents to task -based syllabuses also criticise claims made regarding the benefits of
focus on form. Sheen (2003) proposes that focus on form is a myth perpetuated by proponents of
TBLT to support new teaching methods. Swan makes further claim that focus on form s is
necessary, as skill -building and practice of discrete items leads to automatized knowledge, stating
‘one would not wish to travel on a plane whose pilot had been left to acquire the skill of landing
naturalistically’ (2005:383). This analogy would thus suggest it reasonable to refuse to converse
with a non -native speaker on the grounds that they had not yet practised, for example, English past
tense. Finally, Swan criticises TBLT for being excessivel y concerned with acquisition of syntax.
However, as task -based approaches develop we are beginning to see more experimentation, for
example, development of vocabulary (Hobbs:2005) and teacher talk (Moser, Harris & Carle:2011).
While naturalistic, task -based approaches may excel at developing increasing fluency, they
do this, Swan argues, at the expense of teaching new language (2005:378). While this may lead to

more efficient use of pre -existing knowledge, it does not sufficiently stretch learners’
interlan guage or encourage processing new forms of language. However, this criticism is also
recognised by proponents of task -based learning. Skehan (1996a) recognises that nativespeakers
operate a dual -mode system, allowing them to switch between the need to be p recise and a need
to communicate quickly through lexicalised forms. Skehan proposes three goals for task -based
approaches: accuracy, complexity and fluency. Through careful structuring and the inclusion of
pre- and post -task stages he argues teachers can i mprove not only fluency but also encourage
accuracy and experimentation with new language. Likewise, Willis (1996b) includes language
focus and practice in the post -task stage to facilitate acquisition of new language.
A final problem for the task -based sy llabus lies with the design and implementation, or
‘how to put together a series of tasks to form a coherent programme’ (Hedge 2000:360). Numerous
proposals have been suggested for the selection and grading of tasks into a course of study. For
example, Nun an, (2004:113 -25) identifies three factors that affect task difficulty:
Factors of input
Learner factors
Procedural factors
Careful consideration of these factors can help teachers assess task difficulty and produce
an appropriate sequence of tasks. It is also worth noting that the problem of sequencing is not
exclusive to TBLT and presents difficulty for all kinds of language instruction (Long & Crookes
1992:42). Finally, task -based syllabuses are often claimed to be incompatible with traditional
testing methods. While it is true that synthetic syllabuses lend themselves easily to testing, Nunan
suggests that performance can be measured via criterion -referenced testing (2004:146 -147).
Although task -based syllabuses may contain difficulties yet to b e overcome, they provide
an attractive alternative to synthetic syllabuses that have been labelled in some contexts
ineffectual. The next section examines more closely possible contexts which are best served
by a task -based syllabus, and outlines arguments for choosing a task -based approach.
2.3.2. Practical Applications of a Task -Based Syllabus
Following the above discussion, the most appropriate contexts for use of a task -based syllabus
and the arguments for its adoption in language teaching are now outlined.
One context likely to benefit from a task -based syllabus is English for specific purposes
(ESP). Designing pedagogic tasks based on needs analyses for use in the classroom, along with

the inclusion of authentic materials seem particularly suited to ESP. Learners could, for example,
work on drafting a reply to a business letter, or practice language for making a presentation at
meetings. Seedhouse (1999:155), while critical of task -based syllabus design highlights the
benefits for ESP, while Stark (2005) and Evans (2013) describe the positive results of using TBLT
in business English classes. TBLT can also be beneficial for learners lacking fluency. Task -based
approaches encourage more efficient deployment of existing language resources and are ofte n seen
to greatly benefit fluency. Task cycles can also be adapted if necessary to further encourage
fluency, for example, cutting the report stage in favour of more speaking time during tasks. Willis
suggests that this is particularly beneficial to learne rs with a ‘grammar -oriented background’
(1996b:59).
Finally, although proponents of TBLT argue it is equally beneficial for young learners and
beginners, I believe this may not always be the case. The need for existing language in order to
complete tasks indicates that beginners could perhaps benefit from a synthetic syllabus initially to
form a base of language from which to build, before moving on to more analytic, task -based
approaches. Some success has been reported in teaching absolute beginners, for example Duran &
Ramaut (2006), however, their research was carried out in an ESL rather than EFL context. Further
to this, TBLT may be difficult with learners at or below primary school age as it aims to give
learners more control over their own learning, which may not be appropriate at very young ages.
Careless (2002), for example identified problems of noise and indiscipline, over -use of mother
tongue and student involvement when implementing TBLT in primary schools in Hong Kong,
although he does continue to suggest potential remedies for these difficulties. It therefore seems
reasonable to suggest that task -based syllabuses should be used with caution with young learners
and absolute beginners.
2.3.3. Arguments for Choosing a Task -Based Syllabus
Supporter s of task -based syllabuses make convincing arguments in favour of TBLT, and
while the pedagogical benefits of using tasks in class seem undoubtable, is this enough to justify
using tasks as the unit for syllabus design? Opponents such as Swan (2005:376) an d Seedhouse
(1999:155) argue that while tasks are beneficial, it is unsound to use them as the basis for syllabus
design. However, I believe that the task -based syllabus offers learners a greater chance of success
in L2 learning. Firstly, SLA research has demonstrated that learning is not a linear process of
gradually accumulating new forms. Synthetic syllabuses still operate on the assumption that

learners will convert the linguistic input pre -specified and provided by the teacher into intake.
Perhaps the greatest strength of the task -based syllabus is that it does not rely on this principle but
instead aims to best foster the optimal conditions for L2 acquisition to take place.
Task -based syllabuses offer a principled approach to language teaching and prov ide a
linguistically rich environment of communicative interaction to foster language learning.
Reflecting on my own language learning experience with a grammatical syllabus, I often felt the
content had little relation to the real world, and felt little m otivation to learn the prespecified
grammatical forms it offered. However, through communicating in a L2 with peers and friends,
outside the classroom I felt I made great improvements to my L2 ability. From my own language
learning experience it would seem that ‘learning by doing’ is in fact greatly beneficial.
Furthermore, by basing pedagogical tasks on real -life target tasks learning can be made interesting
and relevant, therefore more beneficial and intrinsically motivating for learners.
Finally, an appr oach to syllabus design that does not specify forms beforehand offers the
teacher more flexibility and the opportunity to put their expert knowledge to good use. Forms that
capture learners’ attention can be revisited during the language focus stage of the lesson, allowing
teachers to not only teach these forms but also exemplify common usage and alternative meanings.
Furthermore, task -based frameworks such as that suggested by Willis (1999b) are exactly that, just
frameworks. Good teachers will recognise t hat changes and adjustments can be made to better
accommodate their particular groups of learners, for example, Moser, (2005) who adapts Willis’s
framework by using language journals throughout the lesson to encourage focus on language form.
While there ma y be difficulties and problems with task -based syllabuses, I believe they offer most
learners the best chance to achieve L2 communicative competence. While opponents may be quick to
highlight the potential shortcomings of TBLT, it is worth noting that no s yllabus is unproblematic. I feel
that the arguments set out in this section, as well as throughout the whole paper offer a convincing
rationale for adoption of task -based approaches to syllabus design.
Syllabus design is concerned with the selection, sequencing and justification of the
content of the curriculum. Traditional approaches to syllabus developed were concerned with
selecting lists of linguistic features such as grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary as well as
experiential content such as to pics and themes. These sequenced and integrated lists were then
presented to the methodologist, whose task it was to develop learning activities to facilitate t he
learning of the prespecified content.

In the last twenty years or so a range of alt ernative syllabus models have been proposed,
including a task -based approach. In this piece, I want to look at some of the elements that a
syllabus designer needs to take into consideration when he or she embraces a task -based
approach to creating syllabus es and pedagogical materials.
Task-based syllabuses represent a particular realization of communicative language
teaching. Instead of beginning the design process with lists of grammatical, functional -notional,
and other items, the designer conducts a need s analysis which yields a list of the target tasks that
the targeted learners will need to carry out in the ‘real-world ’ outside the classroom. Examples of
target tasks include:
Taking part in a job interview. / Completing a credit card application. / Find ing one ’s way from a
hotel to a subway station. / Checking into a hotel .
Any approach to language pedagogy will need to concern itself with three essential
elements: language data, information, and opportunities for practice. These three elements will be
explained from the perspective of task -based language teaching.
By language data, I mean samples of spoken and written language. I take it as axiomatic
that, without access to data, it is impossible to learn a language. Minima lly, all that is needed to
acquire a language is access to appropriate samples of aural language in contexts that make
transparent the relationship between form, function and use.
In language teaching, a contrast is drawn between “authentic” and “non -authentic” data.
Authentic data are samples of spoken or written language that have not been specifically written
for the purposes of language teaching. “ Non-authentic” data are dialogues and reading passages
that have been specially written providin g information. In addition to data, learners need
information:
They need experiential information about the target culture, they need linguistic information about
target language systems, and they need process information about how to go about learning the
language.
They can get this information either deductively, when someone (usually a teacher) or a textbook
provides an explicit explanation.

They can get it inductively. In an inductive approach, learners study examples of language and
then formulate the rule.
Practice
The third and final essential element is practice . Unless you are extraordinarily gifted as
a language learner, it is highly unlikely that you will get very far without extensive practice.
In designing practice op portunities for my learners, I distinguish between tasks, exercises
and activities. A task is a communicative act that does not usually have a restrictive focus on a
single grammatical structure. It also had a non -linguistic outcome. An exercise usually ha s a
restrictive focus on a single language element, and has a linguistic outcome. An activity also has
a restrictive focus on one or two language items, but also has a communicative outcome. In that
sense, activities have something in common with tasks and something in common with exercises.
I distinguish between real-world or target tasks , which are communicative acts that we
achieve through language in the world outside the classroom, and pedagogical tasks, which are
carried out in the classr oom. I subdivide pedagogical tasks into those with a rehearsal rationale
and those with a pedagogical rationale.
2.3.4. Conclusion
This sub -chapter has investigated the underlying principles behind TBLT, looking at how it is
influenced by theories of language and language learning. The strengths and weaknesses of
task-based approaches to syllabus design were then assessed. Finally it examined possible
applications and arguments for adopting a task -based syllabus. Task -based approaches offer
numerous be nefits in a wide variety of teaching contexts. It is vital that teachers have thorough
knowledge of their own specific teaching context, as well as an understanding of the beliefs
and assumptions about the nature of language and language learning inherent in a particular
syllabus when choosing which type of syllabus to adopt. Only by making principled decisions
based on these factors, using needs analysis and carefully considering the demands of the
institution and social expectations can we best facilitate language learning.

References
Beglar, D. & Hunt, A., 2002. Implementing Task -Based Language Teaching. In: J. C. Richards &
W. A.
Renandya, eds. Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 96 -106.
15
Brown, H. D., 2007. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. 5th ed. White Plains: Pearson
Education.
Careless, D., 2002. Implementing Task -Based Learning with Young Learners. ELT Journal, 56(4),
pp.
389-396.
Coulson, D., 2005. Collabor ative Tasks for Cross Cultural Communication. In: C. Edwards & J.
Willis,
(eds) (2005).
Crookes, G. & Long, M. H., 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.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 9 -54.
Duran, G. & Ramaut, G., 2006. Tasks for Absolute Beginners and Beyond: Developing and
Sequencing
Tasks at Basic Proficiency Levels. In: K. Van den Branden, ed. Task -Based Language Education:
From
Theory to Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47 -75.
Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (., 2005. Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching. 1st
ed.
Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Evans, S., 2013. Designing Tasks for the Business Eng lish Classroom. ELT Journal, 67(3), pp.
281-293.
Foster, P., 1999. Task -Based Learning and Pedagogy. ELT Journal, 53(1), pp. 69 -70.

Harumi, S., 2010. Classroom Silence: Voices from Japanese EFL Learners. ELT Journal, 65(3),
pp. 260 –
269.
Hawkes, M. L., 201 2. Using Task Repetition to Direct Learner Attention and Focus on Form. ELT
Journal, 66(3), pp. 327 -336.
Hedge, T., 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford
University
Press.
Hobbs, J., 2005. Interactive Lexical Phrases in Pair Interview Tasks. In: C. Edwards & J. Willis,
(eds)
(2005).
Kiernan, P., 2005. Storytelling with Low -Level Learners: Developing Narrative Tasks. In: C.
Edwards &
J. Willis, (eds) (2005).
Krashen, S. D., 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. 1st ed. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Long, M. H. & Crookes, G., 1992. Three Approaches to Task -Based Syllabus Design. TESOL
Quarterly,
26(1), pp. 27 -56.
Loumpourdi, L., 2005. Developing from PPP to TBL: A Focuse d Grammar Task. In: C. Edwards
& J.
Willis, (eds) (2005).
Moser, J., 2005. Using Language -focused Learning Journals on a Task -Based Course. In: C.
Edwards &
J. Willis, (eds) (2005).
Moser, J., Harris, J. & Carle, J., 2011. Improving Teacher Talk Through a Task -Based Approach.
ELT
Journal, 66(1), pp. 81 -88.
Nunan, D., 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. 1st ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge
University Press.

Nunan, D., 2004. Task -Based Language Teaching. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Prabhu, N., 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S., 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 2nd ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seedhouse, P., 1999. Task -Based Inte raction. ELT Journal, 53(3), pp. 149 -156.
Sheen, R., 2003. Focus on Form –A Myth in the Making?. ELT Journal, 57(3), pp. 225 -233.
Shehadeh, A., 2005. Task -Based Language Learning and Teaching: Theories and Applications.
In: C.
Edwards & J. Willis, (eds) (20 05).
Skehan, P., 1996b. A Framework for the Implementation of Task -based Instruction. Applied
Linguistics, 17(1), pp. 38 -62.
Skehan, P., 1996a. Second Language Acquisition Research and Task -Based Instruction. In: J.
Willis &
D. Willis, eds. Challenge and C hange in Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan, pp. 17 -30.
Stark, P. P., 2005. Integrating Task -Based Learning into a Business English Programme. In: C.
Edwards
& J. Willis, (eds) (2005).
Swan, M., 2005. Legislation by Hypothesis: The Case of Task -Based Instruction. Applied
Linguistics,
26(3), pp. 376 -401.
Van den Branden, K., 2006. Task -Based Language Education. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
White, R. V., 1988. The ELT Cur riculum: Design, Innovation and Management. 1st ed. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Wilkins, D. A., 1976. Notional Syllabuses. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, D. & Willis, J., 2001. Task -Based Language Learning. In: R. Carter & D. Nunan, eds. The
Cambr idge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 173 -179.
Willis, D. & Willis, J., 2007. Doing Task -Based Teaching. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Willis, J., 1996a. A Framework for Task -Based Learning. 1st ed. Harlow: Longman.
Willis, J., 1996b. A Framework for Task -Based Learning. In: J. Willis & D. Willis, eds. Challenge
and
Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan, pp. 52 -62.
2.4. TYPES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING ACTIVITIES
There are some examples of teaching language through tasks and activities below:
a) Good advice
• Use the foreign language as much as possible.
• Use only mother tongue when necessary for explanation of exercises.
• The pre -task is meant to help create a good atmosphere for learning without anxiety.
Give words and supporting sentences for students to use.
• The pre -task must supply words, phrases, ideas to support the individual student in
the main task.
• Remember that a pre -task can be anything from for example:
o audio text
o a videoclip
o a brainstorm activity
o a small exercise (cloze, cross word etc.)
o photos (what do you see?)
o webpage (what do you see?)
Anything that will promote the foreign language and set the minds of the students into a
certain context and atmosphere.
• The main task must facilitate a process where each student can activate and use
his/her own strategies.
• Teacher role in the main task: monitoring the processes of the students working
with the main task.
• Remember the importance of the last step, the consciousness r aising activities:
o Students repeat their process and their work with the main task – must be per formed
in class – the process will make students realize that language is diverse and that

many different structures and words give meaning and can be used for
communication.
o The teacher must pick up and draw attention to relevant grammatical and se mantic
points in this last phase of the Task based learning -cycle.
b) Task: Getting to know your resources
o Level : Pre-intermediate and above.
It is assumed in this lesson that your school has the following student resources; books
(graded readers), video, magazines and Internet. Don’t worry if it doesn’t, the lesson can be
adjusted accordingly .
o Pre-task preparation:
One of the tasks is a video exercise which involve s viewing a movie clip with the sound turned
off. This can be any movie depending on availability, but the clip has to involve a conversation
between two people.
o Pre-task activity:
In pairs students discuss the following questions:
• Do you use English outside the classroom?
• How?
• What ways can you practise English outside the classroom?
o Stage one – Running dictation
Put the text from worksheet one on the wall either inside or outside the classroom. Organize your
students into pairs. One student will then go to the text, read the text and then go back to her partner
and relay the information to her. The partner who stays at the desk writes this information. When
teams have finished check for accuracy. You can make this competitive should you wish .
o Stage two
In pairs students then read the Getting To Know Your Resources task sheet (worksheet two). Check
any problem vocabulary at this stage. This worksheet can be adapted according to the resource
room at your school.
o Stage three
Depending on how the resourc es are organized in your centre, students then go, in pairs, to the
resource room or wherever the resources are kept and complete the tasks on the task sheet.
o Stage four

Working with a different partner students now compare and share their experience.
o Stag e five – Feedback
Having monitored the activity and the final stage, use this opportunity to make comments on your
students’ performance. This may take form of a correction slot on errors or pronunciation,
providing a self -correction slot.
c) Adverb Action
Teacher writes on the board an activity like "brush your teeth." Teacher picks one student,
they come to the front of the class. The Teacher then shows the Student a card with an adverb
written on it, such as "slowly". The chosen student then does the acti vity in the way of the adverb.
The other students have to guess the adverb. The one who guesses right gets a point and mimes
the next action which the teacher writes on the board. To help them you can give them a list of
options, if you think they need som e help.
d) Art Gallery
This is a great activity for reviewing vocab. Draw enough squares on the board for each
Student to be able to draw in. Have the Students write their names above their squares. Teacher
calls out a word and the Students draw it (could be simple nouns e.g. "dog, bookcase, train", verb
structures e.g. "draw a man running, eating cake, sleeping") or adjectives ("draw a big elephant,
an angry lion, an expensive diamond ring"). For each Student give a score for his/her picture, and
then move on to the next picture. The Student with the highest score at the end is the winner.
e) Fix the Ordered List
Teachers can use this Task -based Learning activity for any topic that they are covering that
revolves around step -by-step processes. I used to most commonly utilize this one when teaching
about cooking and baking or scientific processes, but it can be simplified way beyond those
subjects. Have your “process” typed out and cut the list line by line. Divide the students into groups
or teams. Giv e each team a different line. Together, they must communicate and put the list of
commands, directions, story lines, etc. in logical order. With very young learners who are unable
to communicate in sentences to each other, I used to have the small class ac t as one team. I hid all
the pieces of paper, and they had to work together to find them and reassemble the list.
f) Story/Comic Compare

This task works whether the students can write in sentences or not. Give your students a
story topic (a character and one occurrence). Tell them that they have x number of minutes finish
the story. Again, have them work in groups to practice listening to others, evaluating and
responding, and compromising. Once the allotted time frame has finished, have each group present
their story to the class. After, the entire class can discuss similarities and differences among the
various endings.
g) Plan a Party
No matter what country you are teaching in, party day is an ESL student’s favorite day.
Use this as an opportunity for y our student’s to do a super easy, but really fun, task. They won’t
even think of it as a classroom activity, since it involves fun and directly pertains to them. Together,
brainstorm things that make a party great. If you’d like, you can divide the student s into groups
and tell each of them to choose a theme for the party. They must then organize what they need,
where they will get it, and who will have which roles at your classroom party. Encourage them to
think about the details. Will there be music? What snacks should we eat? What are games that
everyone can play together? At the end of the planning period, have each group make a case for
their party to the class. Everyone can then vote for the party they want to have with you.
h) Things that Go Together
This is another activity that you can tailor to whatever subject suits your class. Divide a set
of notecards into two stacks. Write one part of a pair and put it into a stack, while writing the other
part and placing it in the other. For example, “play” c ould go in one stack while a picture of
someone playing basketball went in the other. Another example could be using “doctor” and
“hospital”. The purpose of this task is for students to recognize things that go together. Give each
student in the class a ca rd and instruct them to use verbal language only to find their pair – picturing
matching is too easy. This activity is particularly useful among kids.
i) In My Room/In My House
This Task -based learning activity is a great information gap task. It requires the students to
listen to another, make sense of what they’ve heard, and demonstrate their understanding through
drawing. Split the class into pairs, with each student receiving a sheet of paper. One partner will
be the speaker while the other is the drawer. The speaker will describe his/her bedroom or entire

house to the drawer, who will then create it. The drawer is free to ask questions t o clarify where
things are. Once the drawing is complete, the students switch roles. At the end, they will both have
a drawing of their own bedroom or house created by their classmate. As a class, you can then
discuss the differences and similarities in th e drawings. For example, “I have a toy box in my
bedroom. Timmy does, too!” and “My house has two bedrooms, but Jane’s has three”. In addition
to serving as an information gap task, this activity thus enables students to practice comparing and
contrasting, as well.
j) Plan A Trip
Whenever a school break or long weekend was approaching, my students liked to ask me
about my travel plans. I liked to ask them about their dream trips, as well, planting the travel bug
in their young minds from an early age. With this activity, your students will consider details in
order to be able to accomplish a task while developing a sense of worldliness. Planning a trip is a
highly useful skill that is applicable to real life. Plus, it allows them to use their imaginations a nd
think about the most exotic places and experiences that they can brainstorm. Allow them to create
a real trip for you, or enable them to add something to their own bucket list.
Split the class intro groups. You’ll need a map for each of these groups, so plan accordingly. A
single country map, usually of their home country, is easier for designing a road trip. They’re also
more likely to be able to come up with suggestions about a place they know. However, this is
dependent on their own experiences and kn owledge, so assess your class accurately. Prompt the
group to brainstorm what information they will need from you (the traveler), and answer the
questions the questions that they pose. For example: they should be thinking about how many days
you want the t rip to last, what your budget is, and what kind of sites you’d like to see or activities
you’d like to do. Tell them how much time they have, then set them loose to plan the ultimate trip.
Once the allotted planning time is up, have each group present thei r trip to the class. Encourage
other groups to ask questions, too. After each group has presented their itinerary, have the class
vote on which is the “best trip” – it’s probably more diplomatic to phase it as, “Which trip should I
take first?!”. Students c an offer up why they made their choice, which is especially interesting if
they voted for a group other than their own.
k) Department of Tourism

Many students decide to learn English because a) they want to travel or work somewhere
where that is the langua ge or b) the language is quickly becoming a major player in their own
country (schools, business world, etc.). This is another fun activity that gets students thinking about
the world around them. Your ESL class may be the only exposure that the students g et to life
outside of their own culture, so use that to inspire and teach!
As a group, come up with ideas for countries, cities, or specific travel destinations – this activity is
meant for more developed students, not early elementary kids. When they are l isting places, ask
them to consider what they know about these places. Have they seen commercials on TV or
vacations advertised elsewhere? Was this place in the news recently? Allow them to come up with
as much as they can on their own. Since this is a gro up activity (in which many students have
different ideas), allow for more than one place if you’d like. Alternatively, you can present the
activity as a competition, where each group is vying to be chosen by the Department of Tourism.
In groups, have the s tudents think of selling points for their destination. Why would people like to
go there? What would they do and eat? Where could they stay? Have the groups organize and
create a poster campaign to advertise the best of their destination – this includes wor ds, sentences,
and images! The work groups use a variety of communication techniques here, such as listing,
comparing, listening and responding, and weighing out options. When finished, each group should
present their proposal to the Department of Tourism (teacher and the rest of the class). Have the
class vote on the most convincing presentation.
l) Problem Solvers
This activity can be adapted to almost any topic and can be restructured to any level. As
the teacher, you can come up with a plethora of probl ems to present the students with. For example,
you could describe a traffic problem that occurs in the city that your students live in. Tell them
that they are part of a special committee responsible for brainstorming solutions and deciding on
the one that best works for everyone in the community. On a more advanced scale, you could
present a problem that a country is facing (i.e. an increasing number of refugees) and tell your
students to work as UN aid workers trying to find viable options. However, if th e students are
advanced enough, have them write down common problems in their town, a country, or the world
in general. Vote on which ones to use, or have one group switch papers with another.

Although this activity is a problem -solving task by nature, it includes other types of tasks, such as
listing, comparing/contrasting, and evaluating. Be sure that each group comes up with multiple
solutions before presenting the best one to the class. Simple, go -to responses should not be
accepted – you really want to push them to brainstorm, listen to each others’ ideas, and evaluate
pros and cons.
m) Story Comparison
Give the class a story/cartoon topic. Depending on your style, you can provide them with
as much or as little information as you’d like. I usually give them a main character and a few
compulsory events. I set the stage for the story and let them run wild planning out how the story
develops and eventually ends. Put the students in pairs after giving them the initial information.
This way, each student will have had a few minutes to start coming up with their own ideas in their
heads before being stifled by a partner. After they are in pairs, instruct them to write and illustrate
how the story ends. They will need to listen to each other and either agree on or compromise each
movement forward. After the allotted time has finished, have each group present their story
verbally to the class. This allows for a relaxed finish, whereby the entire class can discuss the
commonalities and differences that evolved betw een the different groups.
n) Jury Duty
This task requires well thought -out planning, but the fun makes it worth it. Come up with
a crime story (or find one in a lesson plan) – try not to be too gory. Present the class with a suspect
(it could be you), his/ her alibi, and any accompanying statements from witnesses. Don’t make it
too complex, but also have at least four bits of information for your groups to use in their
considerations. Divide the class into groups and explain that they are the jury, responsib le for the
fate of the accused. In the allotted amount of time, they will be required to review the evidence
and agree on a verdict. If you are posing as the accused criminal, encourage the students to ask
you questions if they require further information for their deliberations. Once they have finished
giving their verdicts, discuss (as a class) how each group came to their conclusions. What aspects
did they consider most important? Were there things that stood out more than others? Did a group
member poin t out something interesting that the others hadn’t thought about? The list is endless.
Have fun!

CONCLUSION
In the EFL (English as a Foreign Language) world, young learners are children between
the ages of 3 and 18 years old who are learning English. As a young learner teacher, you have a
very important role. You are responsible for activating learning. Children will learn if they
understand what they are doing. They must understand the message in order to develop a new
language. Children like learning ‘b y doing’ or learning through experience. Children don’t like
structured classes. Repetition of the same concept over and over again may lead to bored students.
REFERENCES

English as a Second Language; Integrate Ireland Language and Training 2005; pdf.
Teaching and Learning Languages: A Guide; pdf.
Teaching English to Young Learners, Joan Kang Shin (English Language Center; University of
Maryland, Baltimore County) pdf.
http://www.ESL -Kids -Classroom -Games&Activities.html
http://www.languages.dk/ -task-based-learning.html
http://www.leap.com/How -language -learning -tasks -can-help-language –
development_Curriculum -and-language -development_Supporting -language –
development_Language -Enhancing -the-Achievement -of-Pasifika.html
http://www.onestopenglish.com/teaching -approaches -task-based -learning.html
http://www.task -based -language -teaching.html
http://www.wikipedia.com/task -based -language -learning.html
2.5. LEARNER ROLES
So far, we have looked at task -based teaching from the perspective of the curriculum
developer and the teacher. In this final section of the chapter, I would like to look at the approach
from the perspective of the learner. Learner -centredness has been an influential concept in
language pedagogy for many years, and, like TBLT, it has strong links with communicative

language teaching. While the learner -centred curriculum will contain similar elements to
traditional curricula, a key difference is that information about learners and, where feasible, from
learners will be built into all stages in the curric ulum process, from initial planning, through
implementation, to assessment and evaluation. Curriculum development becomes a collaborative
effort between teachers and learners, since learners will be involved in decisions on content
selection, methodology a nd evaluation (Nunan 1988). The philosophical reasons for adopting a
learner -centred approach to instruction have been informed by research into learning styles and
strategies (Willing 1988; Oxford 1990), as well as conceptual and empirical work in the are a of
learner autonomy (Benson 2002).
Breen – a frequent contributor to the literature on learner -centred teaching – has pointed
out the advantages of linking learner -centredness with learning tasks. He draws attention to the
frequent disparity between what the teacher intends as the outcome of a task, and what the learners
actually derive from it. (We may parallel this with a similar disparity between what curriculum
documents say ought to happen and what actually happens in the classroom. Learning outcomes
will be influenced by learners’ perceptions about what constitutes legitimate classroom activity. If
the learners have been conditioned by years of instruction through a synthetic approach, they may
question the legitimacy of a program based on an analyti cal view of language learning.
As Breen notes, outcomes will also be affected by learners’ perceptions about what they
should contribute to task completion, their views about the nature and demands of the task, and
their definitions of the situation in whi ch the task takes place. Additionally, we cannot know for
certain
how different learners are likely to carry out a task. We tend to assume that the way we look at a
task will be the way learners look at it. However, there is evidence to suggest that, while we as
teachers are focusing on one thing, learners are focusing on other things. We cannot be sure, then,
that learners will not look for grammatical patterns when taking part in activities designed to focus
them on meaning, and look for meaning in tasks designed to focus them on grammatical form.
One way of dealing with this tendency is to sensitize learners to their own learning processes by
adding to the curriculum a learning strategies dimension. Eventually, it should be possible for
learners to make c hoices about what to do and how to do it. This of course implies a major change
in the roles assigned to learners and teachers. By using ‘task’ as a basic unit of learning, and by
incorporating a focus on strategies, we open to the students the possibility of planning and

monitoring their own learning, and begin to break down some of the traditional hierarchies. This
is not to say that the teacher and learner will view the same task in the same way and attach the
same ‘meanings’ to it. Nor does it absolve t he teacher from the responsibility of ensuring that
through an appropriate sequencing of tasks the appropriate ‘formal curricula’ are covered.
The language learner who is exposed to the implementation of task -based language
teaching in the foreign classro om should carry out three major roles: (1) group participant; (2)
monitor; and (3) risk -taker and innovator . Regarding the first learner role, it can be indicated that
the learners perform a number of tasks either in pairs or small groups. Pair or group wo rk may
involve some adaptation for those learners who are more used to whole -class activities and/or
individual work. Related to the second learner role, it can be stressed that tasks are employed as a
tool for facilitating the learning process in task -based learning. Classroom activities should be
organized so that learners can have the opportunity to observe how language is utilized in
communication. Learners themselves should “attend” both to the message in task work and to the
form where such messages t ypically come packed. Relevant to the third learner role, it can be
stated that many tasks will push learners to generate and expound messages for which they do not
have full linguistic resources and prior experience. In reality, this is said to be the poi nt of such
tasks. The skills of making guesses from linguistic and contextual clues, asking for explanation,
and consulting with other learners may need to be enhanced. (Richards and Rogers, 2001).

2.6. TEACHER ROLES
The language teacher aiming at implem enting task -based language teaching in the foreign
language classroom should perform three main roles: (1) selector and sequencer of tasks; (2)
preparing learners for tasks; and (3) consciousness -raising . Relevant to the first teacher role, it
can be stressed that the language teacher has an active role in choosing, adapting and designing
tasks and then building these tasks in keeping with learner needs, expectations, interests and
language skill levels. Related to the second teacher role, it can be st ated that some training for pre –
task is prominent for language learners. These training activities may include topic introduction,
specifying task instructions, assisting students in learning or recalling beneficial words and phrases
to make the task
accomplishment easy, and offering partial display of task process. As for the third teacher role, it
can be emphasized that the teacher deploys an amalgamation of form -focusing techniques,

covering attention -focusing pre -task activities, examining the give n text, guided exposure to
similar tasks, and employment of highlighted material. (Richards and Rogers, 2001).
According to Dave Willis and Jane Willis in their work “Doing task -based teaching” 2007,
the teacher must fulfill six important roles in a task -based classroom:
1) Leader and organizer of the discussion
Most task sequences begin with a teacher -led discussion, which can be moved further into a
group/pair work, but in most cases, it is possible to continue the whole activity in a teacher -led
form. The teacher should always remember that the main characteristics of a task -based approach
is that meaning is primary and comes before a focus on form. A discussion -based lesson can
develop from a teacher -led introduction to learners working individually to a q uestionnaire. The
teacher then initiates a discussion of the questionnaire, followed by a stage in which learners
summarize their opinions in a few written ideas. Thus, the learners have the opportunity to share
their opinions. At each stage, the teacher c ontrols the class. The same approach can be applied to
storytelling activities or to games.
There is an excellent precedent for this kind of procedure. N. S. Prabhu, one of the pioneers
of task -based approaches, recommended this kind of teacher -led discus sion in his classes in
Bangalore in South India. He used no group or pair -work ( N. S. Prabhu, 1987). The group work
has the great advantage that it gives learners plenty of opportunities to talk. But the teacher may
notice that there are times when the gr eater control of teacher -led approach more than outweighs
providing opportunities for learner talk. On one hand, a teacher -led approach may be adopted in
the early stages of task -based teaching, gradually using more and more group work as learners
become f amiliar with the idea of doing tasks. This approach may be also used when the learners
do a particular task or a particular type of task for the first time. If the learners are, for whatever
reasons, reluctant to use English in group work, the teacher coul d easily rely on a teacher -led
approach. But, on the other hand, a teacher -led class is not an easy option, as it requires careful
preparation, especially with elementary classes. The teacher must think things through with great
care, anticipating the diff iculties learners are likely to have and working out strategies for handling
those difficulties.
2) Manager of group/pair work

The group/pair work gives learners more opportunity to use the language, particularly the
spoken language, so the teacher needs to b e able to organize this kind of work in order to get the
best out of students. It is important to make sure that learners are absolutely clear about what is
expected of them before they move into groups. It is also important to monitor the groups carefully ,
to make sure that they are on the right way. The group work activity should be suspended if things
do seem to be going wrong and sort out problems before continuing.
It is sometimes useful to change the composition of a group and repeat a task. For exam ple,
learners could be asked to discuss a topic, then, change groups and continue the discussion with a
new set of partners. This provides useful opportunities for learners to rephrase ideas they have
already worked through. The same applies to storytellin g. Learners can change groups and tell
their story again to a new audience, or they can tell a story they have just heard from someone else
in a previous group.
3) Facilitator
A balance must be found between setting a task which provides the right kind of ch allenge
and making sure that learners can manage the task. If a new task is introduced and the teacher
is not sure about the level of difficulty, then the best thing is probably to err on the side of
making things too easy rather than risk things being to o difficult.
4) Motivator
Learners, especially young learners or beginners, must be encouraged all the time, which can
be done in two basic ways. First, the teacher should be as positive as he/she reasonably can be
in the feedback he/she gives to learners, h ighlighting their achievements. When reporting to
group work, the teacher should pick out some of the useful phrases learners have used and
comment positively on them. When a learner speaks to the class as a whole, the teacher should
always find something positive to say about the performance. Being positive does not mean
that the teacher has to be completely uncritical or that he/she has to ignore the problems that
learners have and the mistakes that they make, but it does mean that the teacher should send a
positive message whenever possible.
The second important way to enhance motivation is to highlight progress. It is worth
reviewing progress at regular intervals. The teacher should encourage learners to identify their
achievements and to take a pride i n them.

5) Language “knower” and advisor
This involves helping learners with meanings. The teacher should join in learner discourse
as an equal participant, but one who has greater knowledge and experience. When operating
in this role, the teacher should re sist the temptation to correct learners when they do not really
need it, but he/she should be ready to help by answering questions in a language study phase
when learners are struggling to find the best way of expressing themselves. It is useful for the
teacher to imagine himself/herself as conversing with a group of friends rather than being the
teacher.
6) Language teacher
There are, however, stages at which the teacher should adopt the traditional role, explaining,
demonstrating and eliciting appropriate la nguage forms. In a task -based approach this focus on
form normally comes at the end of a task sequence. It is an important role, but also a difficult one
which demands careful thought and preparation.

2.7. THE ROLE OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
Some of them may require considerable time ingenuity, and resources to develop.
Pedagogic materials that can be exploited for instruction in TBLT are limited only by the
imagination of the task designer. Realia, which is sustained by the TBLT proponents, favor the use
of authentic tasks supported by authentic materials wherever possible.
The following are some of the task types that can be built around such media products:
newspapers : students prepare a job -wanted advertisement using examples from the classified
section, or they examine a newspaper, determine its sections and suggest three new sections that
might go in the newspaper; television: after watching an episode of an unknown soap opera,
students list characters and their possible relationship to other ch aracters in the episode, or,
internet: students intiate a “chat” in a chat room, indicating a current interest in their life and
developing an answer to the first three people to respond, or, seeking to fin dan inexpensive hotel
in London, students search with three different search engines (eg. Goole, yahoo ), comparing
search times and analyzing the first ten hits to determine the most useful search engine for their
purpose.

2.8. CHALLENGES
Even though TBLT can contribute to meaningful learning, there c ould be still some
limitations or problems in certain school settings such as following listed:

1. Large class sizes :
The task -based learning and teaching could be more time consuming when the task is
complicated. Along with large class size issues, teachers might not have enough time to take care
of every student and monitor their learning process or progress. In response, teachers could choose
and train some high -level students as little teachers. They can help teach or model target skills for
other students and also learn communicative skills for themselves.
2. Cramped classrooms :
If the classroom is too cramped to have task -based learning, changing the classroom or
reducing dynamic activities among the resolutions.
3. Lack of appropriate resources :
Resources here might refer to time, place, technology tools, supplementary materials for
TBL, and so forth. For example, some schools located in rural areas might not have the Internet in
the classroom. Therefore, teachers should take these limitations in to account while designing task –
based lessons.
4. Teachers not trained in task -based methodologies :
It could be a problem if teachers are not trained in task -based methodologies and still want
to adopt this approach. In this case, teachers could adopt text book materials designed for TBL.
Such an approach could be an easy way for teachers to scaffold students’ learning effectively. In
addition, teacher educators need to offer adequate practical in -service training for teachers to
practice TBL in real teachin g. Finally, teachers could attend some professional development
workshops aiming in TBL to gain the professional knowledge of TBL. By doing so, teachers would
feel more confident in implementing TBL in class.

5. Teachers with limited language proficiency :
Since most ESL and EFL teachers are not native speakers, if we want to incorporate TBL
in EFL/ESL classroom, it is possible that those teachers lack of adequate language proficiency to
guide and model students’ learning. Or, they cannot provide abundant la nguage exposure to
support students’ language acquisition. Encouraging teachers to enhance their language
proficiency by attending professional workshops or certain language communities could be
helpful.
6. Traditional examination -based syllabi
Another com mon worry voiced by teachers and students is “What about the exam?” many
teachers worry that TBL will undermine students’ chances of success in traditional exams,
especially if these put more emphasis on grammar and accuracy than on ability to communicate
appropriately. Exams –school exams, university entrance exams, or external public exams –are
often the student’s main motivators for studying a language. Anything not directly connected with
them is often deemed a waste of time. If their exams do not test oral communication, students often
wonder about the relevance of taking part in oral tasks (Willis, 1996). While the educational
bureaucracies are conservative to change, teachers are responsible for striking a balance between
standardized tests and task -based instruction.
Other difficulties a teacher may encounter when teaching English as a foreign language,
could be divided into two main categories:
a) Pedagogic problems and some possible solutions
PROBLEMS SOLUTIONS
1. Teachers often believe that TBLT is not
possible with beginners. Teachers need to understand that TBLT
involves input -based as well as out -put based
tasks and that it is possible to build up
proficiency initially through a series of simple
input -based tasks.

2. Students may be unwilli ng to risk
communicating ‘freely’. • Allow planning time
• Learner -training.

3. Students will resort to communicating in
their L1. This is arguably not a problem; as
proficiency develops learners
automatically begin to use more of
the L2.

4. Teachers m ay not fully understand the
principles or TBLT or have the proficiency to
teach ‘communicatively’. More effective teacher training.

b) Problems with the Educational System

PROBLEMS SOLUTIONS
1. Emphasis on ‘knowledge learning’ Educational philosophy needs to change

2. Examination system More communicative tests need to be
developed.

3. Large classes Use group work; develop tasks suited to large
classes.

2.8.1. Difficulties for Teachers
Many proponents of TBLT recognise the increased demands it places on teachers. Skehan
(1996a:30) recognises that teachers will need to ‘command a significantly wider range of skills
than in more structural approaches’, while Willis (1996b) states that teachers may feel
uncomfortable stepp ing away and allowing learners more control of their learning. Furthermore,
Shehadeh (2005:27 -28) argues that one reason traditional approaches remain popular is that
teachers can predict language that will occur in lessons. This is perhaps especially vali d for non –

native -speaker teachers who may not possess the confidence or linguistic knowledge to cope with
unexpected language.
2.8.2. Difficulties for Learners
Task -based learning relies on learners utilising existing knowledge to complete tasks. It
seems likely therefore that task -based learning would pose a difficulty for absolute beginners
whose language resources are severely limited. Brown (2007:243), for example draws attention to
the fact that:
“In order to complete a task, a learner needs to have su fficient organisational competence,
illocutionary competence to convey intended meaning, strategic competence to compensate for
unforeseen difficulties, and then all the tools of discourse, pragmatics, and even nonverbal
communicative ability”
This is part icularly the case for learners in the early stages of general education, who may
be
better served by a product syllabus (Hedge 2000:361). Further to these difficulties, a task based
approach may not be in line with learner expectations of L2 instruction, w hich can make transition
to TBLT difficult (Willis 1996a:137). However, Willis and Willis (2007:217) suggest that by
explaining the benefits of a task -based approach and the principles behind it this challenge can be
overcome as demonstrated by Loumpourdi’ s (2005) successful implementation of a transition from
PPP to TBL in a grammar module.

2.9. TASKS AND THE FOUR LANGUAGE SKILLS
A common misunderstanding of task -based instruction is that it necessarily involves oral
interaction. But tasks can be designed to develop any of the four language skills (listening,
speaking, reading and writing). Many tasks are ‘integrative ’ (i.e. involve more than one skill).
Teaching writing is one of the most challenging tasks an EFL teacher has to face, and
students find writ ing a difficult skill to develop. This chapter, however, focuses on Task -Based
Language Teaching (TBLT) as a successful tool for tackling this problem. It defines TBLT and
examines its importance for enhancing the writing skills of the EFL students, giving ex amples of
tasks that have been successfully tried out in the classroom. The chapter also examines the use of
various strategies for increasing EFL learners’ involvement in reading -to-writing activities. It also

takes into discussion the development of spea king and listening skills from classroom situation to
real world situation.
Writing is an important skill that can open up a world of possibilities for any student. Even
in these days of the Internet and other technologies, written communication in English is still an
asset for the aspiring student. But for a majority of our students writing is a skill they find hard to
acquire. The major problems they face in writing are (1) finding an apt word suitable for the topics,
(2) using appropriate tenses based on the situation, (3) using correct spelling and punctuation, (4)
organizing ideas neatly and coherently in paragraphs. Such difficulties place a heavy burden on
students, often causing them to lose interest in writing. They find it difficult to write a comp osition
based on their own ideas and they are afraid of making mistakes in grammar, usage, vocabulary
etc. However, one way to resolve this problem is to use a TBLT approach in an EFL class as it
creates a free instructional environment in which students a nd teacher work together and
collaborate in a relaxed atmosphere.
Task -based language teaching is an approach rather than a method which creates a natural
context for using the target language in the classroom. It allows students to explore their ideas and
choose their own words, and thus become active learners.
It also gives teachers an opportunity to develop activities in the form of interesting tasks
on familiar subjects. The lesson is based on the completion of a task and the language studied is
determ ined by what happens as the students proceed with the work. It is an approach that offers
students material that they have to actively engage with in the process of their learning, enabling
them to explore their ideas freely and use their own words without worrying about mistakes in
grammar, vocabulary or other mechanical aspects of writing. When they practice to write
continually and complete their tasks, they can build their vocabulary and improve their handling
of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and usef ul expressions. The familiarity of the topic and the
enjoyment of the task are a solution to students’ writing difficulties.
Since TBLT is very student -centered, and since students are encouraged to use their own
language and vocabulary, it becomes necessa ry for the teacher to give continuous support during
the whole process. Otherwise, students will not learn new expressions, phrases or words
themselves. Even after the task cycle is completed, the learning process goes on. The valuation
part is crucial for the students to become aware of the tasks that they have completed and their

results. If the teacher does not do the follow – up, half of the effort is wasted. Thompson and
Millington (2012) point out that “large class sizes, inadequate financial support a nd teacher time
constraint at many institutions can make the introduction of task -based teaching problematic” (p.
159).
Tasks for Developing Writing -some examples:
1. On the first day of my EFL class in writing, I invite my students to write something abo ut
themselves so that I come to know about their background and especially about their knowledge
of English language and their writing skills. I show them a few examples of student writing from
the previous years as models. I realize that my students are h appy to express themselves freely.
Thus, as a teacher, I get an opportunity to listen to their stories and I give due credit to their
accomplishments, letting them know that they learn to write by writing.
2. A task based on a personal memory that works we ll with any age is an “I remember” one (
Peregoy, Suzanne and Boyle, 2013). This also can be given as an introductory task for students
who have just started their course in writing. Here the teacher gives a number of prompts to elicit
answers from the stu dents:
Teacher: I want you to think of five things that have happened to you. Write down each of the five
things, beginning with the phrase I remember. When you have finished, share your ideas with a
partner. [Give students time to share]
Teacher: Now, wr ite down one name associated with each of the five things you selected. [Waits
a few minutes]
Teacher: Can you name our five senses?
[Students mention the five senses: touch, sight, smell, hearing, and tasting.] Write down the most
important sense that goe s with each of your “I remember” reflections. [Waits a few minutes]
Teacher: Now, select the “I remember” you would most like to write about. Share the memory
with your group. [Waits about 15 minutes]
Teacher: Next, write the part of the memory that makes it memorable or important to you and
share it with your group.

Teacher: Now, writing as fast as you can for 10 minutes, see how much of the memory you can
get down on paper. Don’t worry about punctuation or spelling; you can think about that later, if
you like what you’ve written.
Teacher: [Ten minutes later.] Share your writing with your group members and ask them to make
suggestions that will make it clearer (p. 260). We can notice that in this type of task, all the three
phases – pre-task, task cycle and language focus – can easily be applied. Any topic or theme can
give rise to different types of tasks (Dave Willis, 2007) which can be generated with the help of a
typology in Table 1. Each type involves a different cognitive process. The top two types inc rease
in cognitive complexity from left to right, but are generally cognitively less challenging than the
two at the bottom. These may involve more complex cognitive operations or combinations of
simpler task types. For example, let us take the topic “Cats ”. In this case a ‘Listing Task’ might
be: List three reasons why people think cats make good pets. A ‘Comparing Task’ might be to
compare cats and dogs as pets. A ‘Problem Solving Task’ might be: How and by whom will the
cats be taken care of when the fam ily is away or absent? An anecdote telling task can involve
sharing stories or personal experiences about cats.
We can use TBLT for working with texts and turn text reading into a task for the students.
Here, in – stead of the three stages mentioned above, we can divide the tasks into pre -reading,
during -reading and after -reading activities. Pre -reading aims to activate schema by helping
students relate what they already know to a reading passage and this helps in building back -ground
knowledge. At this stag e, students may be introduced to vocabulary and ideas found in the text.
The teacher can ask them to make predictions about what they are going to read. Such activities
encourage students to anticipate a reading and stimulate their interest and motivation to read
(Jacobs, 1999). A video clip/pictures related to the text can be shown to the students before reading
the text. A brain storm activity and matching exercise with new and difficult vocabulary from the
text can also be arranged as pre -tasks. As state d before, a pre -task should always make students
feel ready and comfortable before working with the main task, and when working with texts it is
always required to include the main theme of the text and new vocabulary items from it.
During -reading activiti es help students integrate their background knowledge into the new
information they receive from the text. While they are reading, they can gather, organize, and
analyze the text and see if their predictions during the pre -reading session were similar or d ifferent.

Students can also be encouraged to formulate new questions and predictions (Jacobs, 1999). After –
reading activities provide students with an opportunity to articulate their understanding of the text
they have read (Barnett, 1988, Jacobs, 1999). D uring this stage, students can be given different
writing exercises where they get a lot of practice in using vocabulary and sentence patterns they
find in the reading. The following is a passage on “Mark Twain’s Boyhood Home.” On the west
bank of the Miss issippi there is a quaint house with a white picket fence, preserved as a museum
dedicated to its former owner – a famous writer. It is said that many characters and stories from his
novels are based on real -life experiences that he had there as a boy. This house was the childhood
home of Samuel Clemens, although most of you may know him by his pen name: Mark Twain.
Samuel Clemens was born in November 1835, as the infamous Halley’s Comet shot through the
skies. His family moved to this house in Hannibal, Mis souri when he was 8 years old. The family
was so impoverished that they had to move out of the house for a while, living above a local drug –
store in exchange for his mother’s services as a cook. They couldn’t afford to move back until after
his father died , in 1847. Ten years later, at age 22, Sam Clemens started to work on a riverboat.
As a journalist, he adopted the pen name “Mark Twain” after a river term that means two fathoms
(12 feet) in depth, meaning “safe water” for riverboats to pass through. Unde r this new name, he
published many famous books including The Adventurous of Huckleberry Finn, an anti -racist
story that is often misinterpreted and criticized for using racial terms and stereotypes.
Pre-Reading
Before handing over the passage to the stude nts, the teacher can involve them in some pre –
reading activities that will create the right attitude for receptivity. During these activities, students
will be asked to make use of their experience of life and their imagination and intelligence which
will enable them to guess what may happen in certain situations. The title of the passage, the
illustrations, key words, warmers etc. are some of the tools that may be used by the teacher. In the
case of the above passage, the teacher can write the title on the board, followed by certain questions
which the students may be asked to answer in their notebooks:
1. What do you understand by boyhood?
2. What is the difference between boyhood and childhood?
3. Have you heard about Mark Twain?

4. Have you travelled on a riverboat?
5. What do you understand by the word “racism”?
6. What is the difference between “pen name” and “real name?”
At this juncture, students can be asked to work either in groups or individually. The teacher may
collect the answers and share them with the class. The teacher can also show an illustration of a
house on the banks of a river. The picture of the Mississippi river or a video clipping related to the
Mississippi can also be shown to stir interest in the minds of the students.
During -Readin g Activities
Now, as students are ready to read the text, the teacher can distribute copies of it to the
students. The following during -reading activities can be tried out:
1. Listening to a good reading of the text
2. A reading of the text
3. Language exe rcises
4. Checking against the inferences made about the text in the pre -reading activities. Students often
enjoy listening to a text either on a tape or when it is being read aloud by the teacher in the
classroom. It is, of course, very advantageous if th e teacher has a good voice and a dramatic sense
while reading the text. This will help students to “feel” the language, its rhythm, intonation, sounds
etc. If the text is long, the teacher can read some of the interesting sections which will encourage
them to read the whole piece. Now, it is the turn of the students to read, at first silently, and then
aloud and individually, in pairs or in groups. The teacher can ask them to mark some of the difficult
words or expressions in the text and then help them to find out their meanings. From the reading,
students will be happy to note that they have formed some clear ideas about the text before actually
going through it.
Post-Reading Activities
Post-reading activities are meant to create a suitable situation in wh ich the students can
express their reactions to reading the text. These will not only deepen their understanding of the

text but also generate interest in the creative use of the language. Some of the post -reading
activities are:
Comprehension Questions
These questions are meant to assess how far the students have understood the text. The teacher
may ask the following questions regarding the present text:
• Why do you think Mark Twain wanted to use a pen name rather than his real name?
• Come up with a pen name for yourself. Explain what it means to you and why you chose it?
• Imagine growing up with very little money, just like Mark Twain. How would you handle the
situation?
• Can you guess the meaning of the word “stereotypes” from the context of the text ?
As an alternative, the teacher can also split the text into different sections and provide
section numbers. The sections must be divided as per the content of the text. The text with the
marked sections and numbers should be handed over to the students. Another sheet of paper with
a specific format also should be given to the students, like the one below:
You must read the text and fill in the format.
Look at the sections in the text and write down the most important information from each section
in the first column.
Write down your experience, opinion, knowledge about the information you find in the text in the
second section.
Students may be asked to work together or individually when they read and fill in the
format. When they have all finished with the text and the format, they may be allowed to discuss
their choices. The motivating factor is that students are free to put into the format the information
that they find correct and that they must make a case for their choice while talking about the tex t
in class. They are also given time to work with difficult vocabulary items and expressions. Here
they have an opportunity to consult each other and also the teacher about the text’s words and
phrases that they find difficult to understand.

The teacher ca n move around in the class and monitor how students are doing the task.
This gives the teacher an opportunity to understand specific problems faced by the students in their
use of language and in the writing process. At the same time, the teacher, at this juncture, has the
full attention of the students, who will be motivated to learn the language well and in turn write
well.
When dealing with fiction or short stories, the pre -reading, during -reading and after –
reading activities can be incorporated. If the story has a straightforward plot, it is easy for the
teacher to clip up the text and turn the text reading process itself into a common task for a group
of students. So, the teacher should select the story prudently and see that it suits the purpose. But,
while doing the main task, the format may be slightly different. First, the teacher should divide the
text into small sections (it may be cut up into 3 -4 sections) – logical in relation to the plot of the
story. Then, he/she can divide the story into diffe rent sections and mark each section with letters
or numbers. The class should be divided into groups that match the number of sections. The teacher
then keeps the different sections separate on the table and asks each student in a group to pick up
one of t he pieces. When all the students in a group have read their own piece of text, they must tell
the rest of the group what the text is about. After this, each group must try to write the story in the
right sequence. The format may be as follows:
Short story Adjectives/descriptive language
◦Main Character
◦Minor Characters
◦Setting 1
◦Setting 2
◦Setting 3
◦Problems/Themes
Reconstructing the Story

As a variation, students can also be asked to recall and retell the story that they have dealt with.
This task helps students clarify their understanding of the story and gives them more practice in
using the language. For this task:
• It is better to have a short story as students can recall stories better.
• Select key words from the reading that students can use while reconstructing the story.
Alternatively, the teacher can write the words on the board or on a piece of chart paper.
Procedure
• The teacher may first read the story and ask the students to spend a few minutes in si – lent reading,
focusing on the main idea of the story and the key words.
• See that the students understand the meaning of the key words.
• Ask students to put aside the story and take turns with another student in the class to tell each
other the story in their own words.
• Encourage the st udents to make use of the key words.
• Ask students to write down what they remember from the reading, using key words from the
story.
• The teacher may collect the written work of the students for comments and improvement.
There are innumerable ways and m ethods to improve the writing skills of our EFL students.
TBLT is just one approach that can help. This approach is based on the assumption that students
may study more efficiently when their minds are focused on the task, rather than on the language
that they are using. Students begin with the task and, when they have finished it, the teacher draws
attention to the language used, making corrections and adjustments. With the introduction of
different tasks, the class environment becomes more alive, with the result that student involvement
and participation becomes observable. However, the implementation of TBLT needs a good deal
of preparation on the part of the teacher, especially in designing tasks that are interesting and
suitable.
Teachers can also desi gn tasks based on different texts that the students can read and then
write on. The important point is that teachers must select the tasks prudently and implement them

properly. They must create situations in which students can think independently and also suggest
tasks that kindle their interest and sharpen their intuitive faculty and sensibilities. In turn, students
will develop an interest in writing and will be able to enhance their writing skills.
Learning a foreign language is a long and gradual proce ss, a continuum which marks our
students’ progress from the artificial classroom situations to being able to use the language in real
world communication. Speaking is considered one of the most difficult language skills to acquire
among
As in the classroo m setting most EFL learners rather remain silent or resort to rote learning
when they are required to respond to a speaking task. As such, it is a demanding task for language
teachers to provide sufficient inputs for students to be competent speakers of En glish (Bygate,
1987). Students usually feel insecure about their level of English and face problems
communicating as well as expressing themselves in the target language. As a result, they rather
remain silent as they are in fear of making mistakes and do not show active participation in
speaking lessons. Ian G. Malcolm (1987) refers to the guarded and taciturn behavior of students
who refuse to speak as the "shyness syndrome" and that this problem has been reported of
Polynesians in New Zealand, various Am erican Indian groups, Hispanics in the United States,
Black Americans and Southeast Asians. Malcolm quoting Tan (1976) and Salleh (1981) says that
many pupils in Southeast Asian classrooms are bilinguals whose use of the classroom language is
hesitant. Yap (1979) also quoted as saying that the frequent complaint mainly in secondary schools
is that learners do not respond or take too long to respond, or speak too softly (cited in Gaudart
,2003, p.2) English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students.
Emphasis should thus be given to address this problem as speaking is an important element
in mastering English language. Therefore, it is important to explore new methods of teaching in
order to enhance students' speaking performance and confidence to use the langu age. Task -based
Language Teaching (TBLT) or Task -based Instruction (TBI) makes the performance of
meaningful tasks central to the learning process. The Task -based listening activities which will be
used are based on authentic materials used in teaching second language. Nunan (1999) defines
authentic materials as spoken or written language data that has been produced in the course of
genuine communication, and not specifically written for purposes of language teaching. The

materials are based on the real world c ontext outside classroom in situations in which they really
occur.
Gebhard (1996) suggested some examples of the authentic materials that may serve as
source for lesson planning including for listening and speaking class. The authentic listening –
viewing m aterials include TV commercials, quiz shows, cartoons, news clips, comedy shows,
movies, soap operas, professionally audio -taped short stories and novels, radio advertisements,
songs, documentaries and sales pitches. In this study, the task based listening activities will include
the use of audio CDs on selected stories and songs. Throughout the implementation of the activities
students are required to respond to certain tasks related to the selected materials following the
framework for task -based learning proposed by Jane Willis (1996) which comprise of pre -task,
task cycle and language focus. Among the tasks suggested include listing(e.g. brainstorm/ fact
finding), ordering or sorting (e.g. sequencing/ ranking), comparing (e.g. matching/ finding
similarit ies or differences), problem solving (e.g. analysing real situation/ decision making),
sharing experience (e.g. narrating/opinions) and creative tasks which includes all the tasks
mentioned.
Speech involves communication between people and the rules that a pply to all forms of
interpersonal behaviour also apply to speaking behaviour (Chitravelu et.al, 1995, p.59). Graham –
Marr (2004) mentioned many reasons for focusing in listening and speaking in EFL classroom and
one of them is the fact that speaking skills have been found to be a fundamental skill necessary to
succeed in life. The ability to speak in the target language has always been associated with the
success of learning the language. Before a person can speak the language he learnt, he should first
be able to listen and understand the language. Listening should be the first and foremost skill to be
acquired in learning a new language because understanding spoken words is prerequisite to
speaking, reading and writing; and that comprehension should preced e reproduction. Listening
skill transfers to other skills and promoting listening skills before focusing on oral skills can result
in increased second language acquisition. (Cheung, 2010).
Many people have studied the implementation of Task -based instructi on in language
classrooms and have advised using tasks in language classrooms because students' motivation rises
through assigned tasks. On looking at the positive results that the use of tasks may bring about in

the EFL classroom, it can be said that usin g a variety of tasks in class gives positive results (Ruso,
2007).

REFERENCES
Barnett, M. (1988). Teaching reading in a foreign language. ERIC, ED 305829.
Dave, W., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing Task -based Teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Foster, P. (1999). Key Concepts in ELT: Task -based learning and pedagogy. ELT Journal, 1(53),
69–70. doi:10.1093/elt/53.1.69
Hymnes, D. L. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Jacobs, V. (1999, August). What sec ondary teachers can do to teach reading? Harvard Education
Letter: Research Online.
Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus design and methodology. Oxford, UK: OUP.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task -based language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Pres s.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511667336
Peregoy, F. S., & Owen, F. B. (2013). Reading, writing and learning in ESL: A resource book
for teaching K -12 English learners. New York: Pearson.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, UK: OUP.
Ruso, N. (20 07). The influence of task based learning on EFL classrooms. EFL Journal, 18
Richard, J. C. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Skehan , P. (2003). Task -based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1 –14.

Thompson, C., & Neil, J. M. (2012). Task -based learning for communication and grammar use.
Language Education in Asia, 2(3), 159 –167.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for Task -based learni ng. London: Longman.
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/english -language/the -effects -of-task-based -listening -english –
language -essay .php