Task Based Language Learning
Over the past 30 years the teaching and learning of foreign languages, or L2 as widely known, has shifted in focus from the urging students to master morphosyntactic and grammar rules and structures to using a language as a means of communication with others in a comprehensible manner. This shift in viewpoints led to the emergence of a new range of skills that are desirable and pursued in language learning, namely communicative competence as this is discussed in the previous section.
Task-based language learning (TBLL) , also known as Task-based language teaching (TBLT) or Task-based instruction (TBI) was developed in the late 70’s as a result of the then emerging viewpoints on the value of communicative learning. It is a methodology that focuses on the use of authentic language and on engaging learning in meaningful tasks that are performed using the target language. Such tasks may include everyday interactions like visiting a doctor, asking for directions, calling customer service for help. Assessment is usually informal and based mainly on task outcome, namely appropriate completion of real world tasks, rather than on formal accuracy of given language forms. Task-based learning is especially popular for developing target language fluency and for enhancing student confidence in their capacity to effectively use a foreign tongue. Task-based learning has its origins in communicative language teaching (CLT) and can be considered one as of its branches.
Educators adopt task-based language learning for a variety of reasons. Some move to task-based syllabi in an attempt to make language learning in classrooms truly communicative rather than settling for the pseudo-communication that results from activities with no direct connection to real life. According to Prabhu (1987), who popularized task-based learning while working in Bangalore, India, the core idea of task-based learning is a linguistic action that learners are required to perform. Tasks are a way of tapping into learners' natural mechanisms for second-language acquisition. Task-based learning also has roots in Krashen’s language acquisition hypothesis which Krahnke (1987) restates by adding that ‘the ability to use a language is gained through exposure to and participation in using it’. Krankhe goes a step further supporting the notion that task-based learning helps learners develop ‘communicative competence, including linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic competence’. Ramirez (1995) adds to Krankhe’s theory by saying that ‘solving a linguistic task means that learning the target language will be the means to an end rather than the goal itself’. Connecting tasks to real-life situations creates the right context for the acquisition of a language in a meaningful way and provides large amounts of input and feedback (Krahnke, 1987).
The core element of task-based language learning is of course a task which according to Ellis (2003) should meet four main characteristics:
- Its main components are: goals and objectives, activities, teacher/learner roles, and settings
- It primarily focuses on pragmatic meaning
- It includes gap which, according to Prabhu (1987), consists of three main types: information gap, reasoning gap, and opinion gap
- It has a clearly defined, non-linguistic outcome
- The participants are expected to choose the linguistic resources needed to complete the task
The completion of a task can generate new language and/or new ways of learning.
So, what is a Language Task?
How is a language task defined? Many definitions have been suggested (Bygate, Skehan and Swain (2001), yet, common ground is at least that language tasks should:
- Be academic, for example writing a paper, a report, etc., or non-academic. For example responding to an e-mail, making a phone call, ororganizing a trip, in nature (Krahnke, 1987; Ramirez, 1995). Non-academic tasks may be useful for adult learners whose objective is to develop sufficient language competence for conversing and becoming integrated into the target culture quickly
- Encourage learners to complete a task related to the real world such as preparing a shopping list, filling in a questionnaire, writing a formal or informal letter, etc.
- Encourage learners to complete the activity by synthesizing content and not by copying and reproducing any form of discourse
- Encourage learners to produce content that resemble the real world communication
- Concentrate on the meaning rather than on the grammar form grammar, which is of less communicative importance
Task-based language learning tasks are not necessarily devoid of grammar and morphosyntactic rules as the latter are necessary for producing meaningful sentences. However, in a language learning task meaning precedes linguistic structure in importance. Learners are free to choose the morphosyntactic structures that best suit them for achieving the desired effective communication. The objective of tasks is not the deployment of a structure from a pre-specified range determined by the teacher or the course designer.
Strengths and weaknesses of TBL
According to Brown (1994) task-based language learning allows students to practice choosing the most appropriate elements of language to use in a holistic learning environment; it does not focus on choosing from a list of discrete and possibly “boring” items. Ellis (2003) firmly supports the idea that task-based language learning is mainly designed with the objective of helping learners develop abilities that engage them successfully in language use as a means of real life communication.
On the other hand, possible failures and problems have been identified regarding the application of task-based language learning models. According to Burrows (2008) there is little evidence of students being able to notice the forms or deduce the rules that they need to master. Robinson (2001) observes that since users tend to focus mainly on completing the task they may neglect proper form and resulting to poor production of the L2.
However, Foster (2009) confirms that simply adopting or rejecting a model of language instruction as far as its efficacy is concerned is problematic; he considers task-based language learning to be one of several useful approaches to teaching and not the single or best available method. Nunn (2006) and Bygate (2001) argue that the isolated use of a task cannot promote learning; for this reason, according to the same researchers, tasks must be adapted and integrated systematically into a broader curriculum.
Please click here to go back to the Learning methodologies specific to language instruction page.
Click here to go back to the homepage
References
Bygate, M. (2001), Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M. (Ed), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Longman.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Burrows, C. (2008), Socio-cultural barriers facing TBL in Japan. The Language Teacher,32/8, 15-19.
Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials English Language Teaching Journa1, 51( 1) 36-42.
Foster, P. (2009). Task-based language learning research: expecting too much or too little? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 247 - 263.
Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to syllabus design for foreign language teaching. Washington, D.C., Center for Applied Linguistics/Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nunn, R. (2006). Designing Holistic Units for Task-based learning. Asian EFL Journal, 8 (3), 69 – 93.
Ramirez, A. G. (1995). Creating contexts for second language acquisition: Theory and methods. New York: Longman.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: a triadic
framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition
and Second Language Instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
