Integrated Distance Delta

Module 2

PDA PART B: EXPERIMENTAL PRACTICE :

TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING

Kateryna Kirichenko
Table of Contents

Section A Background Essay: Theory and Practice............................... 1

What is Task-Based Language Teaching ..................................................................................................2
Weak and strong TBLT .......................................................................................................................... 2
Task ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Types of tasks ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Development of TBLT ........................................................................................................................... 2
Criticism of TBLT ...................................................................................................................................2
Frameworks for TBLT and their classroom implementation .................................................................2

Section B Background Essay: Rationale ...................................................... 4

Section C Lesson Plan .............................................................................................. 4
Section D: Lesson: Commentary ...................................................................................4
Section E Lesson: Objectives ...........................................................................................4

Section F Lesson: Evaluation of objectives .........................................................4

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................4
Commented [S1]: This will be updates and the pages will be
Appendices..........................................................................................................................................4 correct
 Commented [DP7]: In your background essay you’ve
Background Essay: Theory and Practice mentioned a lot of potentially relevant ideas, but you need to
expand on them (see my comments below) to make them more
What is Task-Based Language Teaching specific and concrete. This will probably involve mentioning fewer
points, so choose the ones which are most relevant to what you’re
Task – based learning (TBL), or task -based language teaching (TBLT), is a part of the communicative going to do in your lesson.
approach family (Nunan, 2004) that places task in the centre of learning and teaching. It promotes learning by
doing and requires rich, authentic but comprehensible input either from the teacher or from authentic texts Before uploading your final version, could you change the layout a
bit to paragraphs under headings (not in a table)? I suggest you
and/or audio/video materials. remove the subheadings (“What is TBLT”, etc) to save words, and
link your ideas together more into paragraphs.
TBLT has developed as a response to PPP and emphasizes language acquisition as opposed to language Commented [DP2]: This makes your definition circular…
learning (Krashen, 1981) and focus on form rather than focus on forms (Long, 1991). The language focus in
TBLT is not pre-selected by teacher (as in PPP) but emerges during the task because it is required for
successful completion of the task – what Nunan called ‘a need-based approach to content selection’ (Nunan,
2004).
Weak and strong TBLT
There are two main versions of TBLT – ‘strong’ and ‘weak’. In the strong version of TBLT learners learn
language by using it (to complete a task) or in the weak form they learn a language in order to use it
(Thornbury, 2006). Commented [DP3]: Points like these (also the ones above
about focus on form(s)) need to be expanded a bit to make it clear
Task that you know what they mean. A brief example/explanation for
Task, being the centre of TBLT, has been defined many times. The one that I, personally, found the most each would do.
precise was suggested by Jane Willis: task is a goal-oriented communicative activity with a specific outcome, Commented [DP4]: “definition”
where the emphasis is on exchanging meanings, not producing specific language forms (Willis, J, 1996).
Commented [DP5]: This is a definition of “task”. So what does
Types of tasks it mean in practice for a lesson/ material/ approach to be “task
There are many typologies of tasks but all of them can be divided into focused and unfocused. According to R. based”?

Ellis focused tasks are used ’to elicit specific linguistic features either by design or by the use of Commented [DP6]: “linguistically focused” would be more
precise (tasks could be focused/unfocused in other ways).
methodological procedures… Unfocused tasks are designed to elicit general samples of learner’s language.’
Focused tasks can be a) structure based; b) structure based comprehension tasks; c) consciousness-raising
tasks.
Unfocused tasks can be a) pedagogical; b) real world
(Ellis, 2009)
J. Willis talks about closed and open tasks. Closed tasks can have only one possible outcome and only one way
to achieve it. Open tasks are less structured and have a less specific goal and can have more than one
outcome (Willis, 1996)
Development of TBLT
As mentioned above, TBLT has developed as a contrasting approach to PPP. In PPP language learning follows
a syllabus of pre-selected grammar items (Thornbury, 2006). D. Wilkins called it a ‘synthetic’ approach
syllabus (Wilkins, 1976 as cited in Nunan, 2004). In ‘synthetic’ syllabus learning is simplified by breaking the
content down to into its constituent parts, and introducing each part separately. Other syllabuses that do not
rely on prior analysis of the language into its discrete points belong to ‘analytical’ approach (Nunan, 2004).
Despite its popularity and wide use PPP has been receiving a lot of criticism. Dave Willis formulated 3 reasons
why grammar can’t simply be broken down into pieces and taught in a straightforward manner: because it’s
too complex, because there is too much of it and because learners do not learn this way. (Willis, D, 2007).
Skehan also argued that ‘The processes by which learners operate are ‘natural’ processes and teachers cannot
simply choose what is to be learned’ (Skehan, 1996).

In his acquisition-learning hypothesis, Krashen suggested that conscious learning and subconscious acquisition
of second language are two totally different processes and that they need different approaches. He argued
that spontaneous communication competence can be acquired only through subconscious acquisition. This
supports the ‘strong’ version of TBLT in that that classroom activities need to be focused on meaning rather
than on forms.

The need for meaning-based activities has led to the development of TBLT. In 1987 Prabhu described his
Bangalore experiment using tasks to promote language acquisition in secondary school classes in Bangalore,
India (Prabhu, 1987). Since then there TBLT has been widely recognized in language teaching as an approach
that promotes language acquisition by conducting meaningful tasks using real-life language.
Criticism of TBLT Commented [S8]: I would love to expand on it but the word
count…
The following issues raised some criticism of TBLT:
 tasks sequencing (syllabus design) - systematic teaching of new language (Swan, 2005) Commented [DP9]: I’m afraid this section is not usable as it is:
most of the points are so brief that it’s not clear why they would be
 assessment/testing criticisms.
 focus on fluency rather than accuracy
 learners may resort to L1 or non-verbal means of communication in completing the task
 current frameworks mostly target adults learners of higher levels.
Frameworks for TBLT and their classroom implementation
There have been a few suggested frameworks for task design in TBLT. While they all differ in some
ways, all of them have three stages: Pre-Task, Task and Post-Task.

 Pre-Task: the topic is introduced and learners previous knowledge is activated (schemata).
In some frameworks (Skehan and Nunan) attention is drawn to new language forms and
some controlled practice (explicit teaching) takes place. J. Willis and D. Nunan suggest
providing learners with an authentic model - a recording or a video of others doing the task
(Willis, 1996 and Nunan, 2004).
Teacher’s role: a guide. In this stage teacher needs to raise interest in the topic, elicit ideas and, if
needed, language necessary to accomplish the task.

 Task: students do the task. In J.Willis’ framework this includes the task itself, planning and
reporting (public performance) while Skehan places public performance in the Post task
stage.
Teacher’s role: give instructions; ensure that the students are on task. After that teacher can only act
as a monitor intervening only if the students don’t understand he task. In the planning stage, teacher
should act as a language adviser and in the report stage as a chairperson, introducing the
presentations, setting purposes for the listening, nominating speakers, etc. At this stage, it is
important to take notes of students’ language use for the language analysis in post task (Willis,
1996).

 Post-task: Language analysis, consciousness-raising activities and, in some models, language

practice. In Nunan’s framework the last stage is the pedagogical task, there isn’t a
feedback/language analysis stage.
Teacher’s role: provide learners with useful consciousness-raising activities to practice language
learners need (as emerged from the task – reactive teaching).

(Nunan, 2002, Skehan 1996, Willis, J, 1996). See Appendice 1 for the framework models
968 words
 Commented [DP10]: This provides a reasonable rationale for
Background Essay: Rationale this approach with your learners.
So, when I read the example of Dave Willis’ Ghanaian students learning question tags (Willis 2003), I realized
that that was exactly what was happening in my classroom. What I taught my students didn’t learn (or rather,
acquire). Reflecting back on my teaching it became obvious to me that I have been teaching using PPP
approach most of the time. My students perform well on the tests but I am often frustrated that their Commented [DP11]: What sort of tests?
spontaneous communication doesn’t seem to improve.

Reflecting back on my own teaching before the OC, I could see that in my lessons I often placed declarative
knowledge before the procedural. I constantly monitored my students restricting their language use to TL and
corrected them. As a result, while my students understood the rules and were able to apply them in
controlled and even freer practice, they failed to integrate the structures I taught them in their daily
communication. Their interactions in the freer practice were often restricted and unnatural.

I kept reading on about TBLT and was surprised to find how little has been written on TBLT with young
learners. As D. Carless points out ‘…there has been little practical discussion of how tasks are actually
implemented in school setting…’ (Carless, 2004).
In my opinion, TBLT can be successfully used with children. Here is why:

 children learn best by doing – this has been discussed by many authors in ELT literature
 children remember words and expressions that are relevant to them. I have often been amazed by Commented [DP12]: Are names of dinosaurs “relevant” to
children? Maybe “important”?
their ability to remember all kinds of dinosaurs while they seemed to forget the simplest (in my
opinion) vocabulary we learnt in the classroom
 children are very creative and competitive
 children can hardly be classified as analytical learners (there are exceptions, of course) – they do not
need to understand the rules and metalanguage, they acquire language rather than learn it.
 children are less self-conscious about experimenting with language
 children are good at imitating

So I have decided to focus on TBLT with Young Learners. I am currently teaching a group of 7-10 year old
children at pre-intermediate level. They enjoy projects and take pride in their work. They are also very
competitive. They have a good range of vocabulary and enjoy interactive activities. Often it feels wrong trying
to limit their communication in order for them to use the one structure we are learning. TBLT offers more
freedom for them to express themselves and caters to their true linguistic needs.

417 words
Lesson Plan Commented [S13]: Criticism of TBLT ...

DATE 11.05.2013

TIME / LENGTH 60 minutes.

LEVEL Junior Gold (B1)

No. OF STUDENTS 12

CLASS PROFILE AND I have only had one lesson with this class so far. I will have
another lesson with them before I teach the EP lesson and will
LEARNER NEEDS
write more here then. .

AIMS Due to the nature of TBLT, the main aim of the lesson is to
complete the task – make origami following instructions Commented [DP14]: Nice task, and this is the goal of one
activity; but your lesson aim needs to state how their English will
benefit (however modestly) from this lesson: you’ve said what
Main focus: complete the task (make the origami) they’re going to do, but you need to state simply why you want
them to do this.

Supporting focus: speaking – teach other groups how to

make origami

LANGUAGE ANALYSIS Because this lesson is based on the strong TBLT approach, there is
no pre-selected language.
I can assume only that:
 students will need to use imperatives (fold, cut, connect) Commented [DP15]: Does the origami task involve cutting?
 during the planning stage, students will use sequencing
words (first, then, finally, etc.)
 use of language chunks such as ‘this way’, ‘like this’ etc.
TIMETABLE FIT It is a once a week three hours per lesson, 8 lessons course.

In the lesson before this lesson we will be using sequencing words

such as first, second, then, after that, etc.

 This class enjoys ‘hands on’ activities

 students level will allow them to understand the video
ASSUMPTIONS  students
ANTICIPATED Problems

PROBLEMS AND  students use L1 during the task stage

SOLUTIONS  students do not use planning time to organise their ideas
 some students are not interested in making origami
(in relation to TBLT  stronger students dominate the group
 students use very simple language and non-verbal means
approach) of communication during the task
Solutions:

 while monitoring, remind the students to use Enlish.

 come over and help them, nominate students for
particular roles
 make is a competition – the best origami, the best
presentation
 have the stronger students work together in a team. This
will allow the quieter students to take more control in
their teams.
  in the pre-task, write down some examples of useful
language. Point to it nad encourage the students to use it
MATERIALS AND AIDS  video that shows how to make origami Commented [S16]: Sorry, I am not including any into this
lesson. I have the video but had no time to transcribe it or make the
 a ready origami from the video handouts/templates
 transcript of the video
 3 sets of picture instructions of how to make 3 different
origami
 a template where they can organise their instructions for the
presentation
 plenty of paper for origami making
PERSONAL AIMS  Non-intrusive monitoring
 Give more control to the students
Lesson Procedure

Inter-
Stage and Aim Procedure Time
action

Pre-task t-ss

Lead in  Show the students an origami. Ask what it is and if they can make some. Commented [DP17]: “a piece of origami”?
 2-3
 tell the students that we are going to learn how to make origami in this lesson.
min
 to generate interest in the  Show the students an origami video. Would you like to make it?
task  give the students a tapescript to follow and watch the video again.
 to activate schemata  Make the origami  5 min
 to provide an authentic Teacher can draw students’ attention to some of the language used in the video that might  5 min
model for the students and be useful for the students in the later stages  10min
encourage noticing
t-ss

Task  Students work in groups of 4. Give each group a set of picture instructions of an origami.
They need to work out and make that origami.
ss-ss  15mi
 to promote authentic Teacher monitors but doesn’t intervene unless absolutely necessary (ensure that students
n
meaningful communication are on task and understand what they are supposed to do, discipline issues) Commented [DP18]: Will members of a group have particular
between the students roles? E.g. one is explaining the instructions and another is
listening and trying to follow the instructions?
Planning  set the goals and timing for the students.
 students prepare a presentation to teach other groups to make the origami. Provide them
ss-ss  10mi
 to encourage students to focus with a template to organise their instructions.
n
on form Teacher monitors and helps, advises on the language when needed
 to provide ‘thinking’ time
Report  set the goals, explain that points will be awarded for the best origami in each
presentation.
 to identify knowledge gap
 students teach other groups how to make origami
 to provide students with an ss-ss  15
 award the team with most points
opportunity for active, real-life min
Teacher nominates the speakers, sets the goals, listens and takes notes for the language
speaking/listening activity
analysis

Due to the time constraint language analysis will take place after the break and is not included in this lesson plan
Details of Individual students relevant to the lesson: Commented [S19]: This is not complete because I need more
time with this class. I have only had one lesson with this class.
Commented [DP20]: Still, most of the information shown here
is relevant to TBL/ origami or to the target skills/language.
Name m/f age Strengths Weaknesses Other comments (e.g. behaviour, learning
preferences)

1 Sarim m Active, enjoys making things.

2 Faiz m

3 Abbas m Can be impatient sometimes. Short attention

span. Very competitive

4 Hajer f Very fluent and active. Accuracy, spelling Speaks before she thinks, a risk-taker. Doesn’t
Great range of tolerate any ambiguity
vocabulary for her
level. Likes making things.

5 Shamsa f Fluency Needs time to think before answering questions.

Not confident, but

6 Sara f Fluency, listening, A very quiet girl. Rarely participates because

spelling others take the lead. Enjoys making and
decorating things. Quite artistic

7 Sama f Very accurate fluency Quiet, takes time to think. Will benefit from
planning stage, can help other students if
encouraged to do so. Not competitive at all.
8 Ali m Very active, a risk-taker. Often speaks just for the
sake of giving an answer. Very competitive. Takes
pride in his work, keeps all things we make in
class. Good team player and happy to take the
lead.

9 Leeha f

10 Fatimah f Very good range of None that I can Risk taker, can be very dominant, needs to be
vocabulary. Fluent and think of reminded that there are other students in the
accurate, class. On the other hand, helps other students.
Very bright, understands the instructions before
Good listening and everyone else in class. Can be used for modelling.
reading skills. Good Loves crafts, colouring, etc. Very competitive
spelling.

11 m

12
 Commented [DP21]: In your commentary try to refer to
Lesson: Commentary terms/concepts from your background essay, e.g. how is the
For this lesson I chose to follow Skehan’s TBLT framework (see appendice 1) origami task “goal oriented”? Will you do any “consciousness
raising” in the lesson, and how?
Commented [DP22]: You need to explain how you’re following
This lesson is based around the task of making origami following instructions given and teaching others how to it, e.g. how are you going to “ease the processing load” or
make it. It is a focused task and the lesson is based on the strong approach in TBLT. “manipulate pressure” in the origami lesson?
Commented [DP23]: focused on… because…
I chose this task because I feel that it would appeal to my students. They enjoy hands on activities and they
Commented [DP24]: in that…
often teach each other how to make things during breaks. We have done a few projects but they have always
been the products of PPP – students HAD to use TL of the lesson which restricted the communication.

The class I will be teaching is quite strong and talkative but there are a few shy and risk-averse students who
often miss the opportunities to participate because of the louder, more active students. In this lesson they will
have a chance to contribute to group work and take part in the presentation. Planning stage will give them
time to prepare so that they feel more confident. On the other hand, some students are the risk-takers and
often give answers ‘for the sake of it’, without thinking what they are saying. For them the planning stage will
help focus on both what and how (focus on accuracy) they are going to say in the report stage.

I will be using authentic video which will give the students an example of what they need to do. It is very
important for the YL to have a model as their abstract thinking is not yet fully developed. a
263 words

Commented [DP25]: Objective 4 is fairly specific, but 1-3 need

Lesson: Objectives to be made more focused, e.g. acquisition of what? (1)
1) I would like to see if TBLT helps acquisition as claimed by its proponents
No. 2 seems to include two things: non-interventional monitoring
2) for me to practice non-intervention monitoring and reactive teaching (dealing with emerging language) and dealing with emerging language. If you think both of these are
3) to help the students to improve their communication during the task and to build their confidence by important in the present lesson/ approach, I suggest you split this
into two objectives.
teaching others by providing them with the language they need to complete the task rather than
prescribed by the teacher
4) to find out how TBLT works with YLs
a) Will they stay on task?
b) Will they use language from the model during the task?
c) Do they ask questions about the language they need to complete the task
d) How much L1/non-verbal communication will be used during the task?
e) Will planning stage motivate them to be more accurate?
130 words

Commented [DP26]: Remember that you’ll be managing a

Lesson: Evaluation of objectives lesson with an unfamiliar approach, so you need to prepare the
Objective 1: in the next lesson I will conduct a similar short task based activity and see if the students use the evaluation tasks (and the observer) carefully so that you don’t have
to be thinking about evaluating all these objectives too much in the
language they asked about/ saw in the model in this lesson. This will show if they retained it and incorporated actual lesson.
in their repertoire.
Objective 2: ask the observer to focus on my monitoring at each stage of the lesson and how I deal with
emerging language. Provide him/her with an observation task template. Commented [DP27]: Good idea, but you’ll need to think about
Objective 3: during the lesson observe the shyer students. Are they involved in the task? How much do they exactly what this will consist of, and include a copy in your
appendix.
contribute to the group work? Take notes. Compare with their participation before and after.
Objective 4: I will use a template to take quick notes during the lesson and discuss it with my observer after
the lesson.
122 words
 Commented [S28]: sorry, I have not arranged it alphabetically
Bibliography yet and a few more titles will be added.
Commented [DP29]: You’ll need to remove the numbering
from the sources; then you can easily put them in alphabetical
order by selecting the whole list and using the Sort (A->Z) button on
1. Prabhu, N. S. 1987 Second Language Pedagogy OUP the Word toolbar.

2. Brandl, K. 2007, Communicative Language Teaching in Action: Putting Principles to Work,

Pearson Education, Inc.
3. Ellis, R, 2003 Task-based Language Learning and Teaching, OUP
4. Ellis, R, 2009 Task-Based Language teaching: Sorting out the Misunderstandings,
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, n. 3: 222-246
5. Willis J. 1996, A framework for task-based learning, Longman
6. Nunan, David, 2004 Task-based language teaching, CUP
7. Thornbury, S, 2006 An A-Z of ELT, Macmillan Publishers
8. Skehan, P Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction in edited by Willis Commented [S30]: How do I show that this article appeared in
a book (below)?
J and Willis D, 1996 Change and challenge in language teaching, Macmillan Heinemann
Commented [DP31]: Like this:
9. Carless, D, 2002 Implementing task-based learning with young children, ELT journal, Year of Skehan, P. 1996: Second language acquisition research and task-
based instruction. In Willis, J. and Willis, D. (Eds.), Challenge and
young learner special edition 2003-2004, OUP change in language ... (etc).

10. Willis, D, 2007,

11. Willis, D, 2003 Rules, Patterns and Words, CUP
Appendice 1

Skehan’s task framework

Willis’ task framework

Nunan’s framework: Commented [S32]: Sorry, need a scanner… in the final version
there will be one