While the history of approaches to teaching ELT has witnessed many ideas come and go, Communicative Language Teaching (henceforth CLT) has stuck around for a while. Not without its critics, though! This article by John Klapper (2003) explores some criticisms of CLT put forward by proponents of Task-Based Language Teaching approaches (henceforth TBLT) and evaluates TBLT ideas that aim to counteract these, though do not manage to do so without encountering their own problems.
Some criticisms of CLT
- unclear what constitutes ‘communication’, which is both the aim and also the means of learning
- no prescribed techniques for use in classroom
- little consensus on methodology or theoretical basis
- few links to SLA or general learning research findings
- heavy focus on transactional language for performing limited number of functions
- little attention to form or cognitive views of language learning
- over-reliance on topics / contexts pertaining to imagined future use in English-speaking country
- problematic P-P-P lesson framework often associated with CLT
Task-Based Language Teaching
In contrast to CLT, TBLT sees accuracy-focussed instruction as essential in supporting foreign language acquisition. In this approach, ‘task’ is taken to mean activities that are based on meanings relevant to learners’ needs and current environments, and that lead to a genuine outcome such as having solved a problem or decided on a compromise. Completing the real task successfully has priority in a TBLT classroom. After they have done so, learners are then guided to focus on the accuracy of the language forms they used.
The focus on language accuracy within TBLT often involves incidentally ‘noticing’ and ‘awareness raising’ of the formal aspects of the language used to complete the meaning-based task. Specific activities may include highlighting examples of a certain form, classify affixes, compare/contrast usage of different forms. Including a focus on form in this way (as opposed to focus on formS, see Long 1991), TBLT thus aims for a balanced or work on fluency, accuracy and complexity, justified by reference to how L1 speakers acquire and use language (see Skehan 1996) and cognitive views of learning in general. Although there is no one prescribed lesson framework for TBLT, a ‘pre-task – task cycle – post task language focus’ framework is common , as described by Edwards (2003).
Some criticisms of TBLT
- P-P-P is easier for novice teachers to work with
- learners may be exposed to large amounts of incorrect language use during work on tasks, or language which is not complex enough to serve as useful input for further learning
- huge assumption that non-explicit correction and noticing activities is sufficient to move learners towards developmental readiness for learning a language point
- hard to provide evaluate ‘successful’ task completion and generally assess language during task activities.
- is it possible to design a task-based syllabus for use in mainstream education?
- teenage and adult learners may not be as receptive to inductive grammar teaching
Conclusion
TBLT is supported my more SLA research insights than many other language teaching methodologies. Still, until TBLT has been shown to actually be more effective than these other methods or approaches, perhaps a more sensible way to move forward is to aim to combine it with CLT, which also enjoys a wealth of support among language teachers. Klapper suggests that the task phase in TBLT could be seen as something akin to the ‘production’ stage of a P-P-P lesson in CLT. If the P-P-P framework were then reconfigured so that presentation and practice could follow on from, rather than preceding, production, we could create a pedagogical sequence more in line with what SLA research tells us about how langauge learning happens: This hybrid model would include plentiful exposure, meaningful interaction, and systematic skill development with both declarative and procedural knowledge.
Klapper’s closing comments are things I would wholeheartedly agree with. ‘Good’ teachers are reflective and able to adapt their teaching when new insights become available from their own experience or from research in related fields. The moderate, hybrid approach suggested here by Klapper takes account of the latest research in SLA and psychology, and would thus seem a positive, as well as easy-to-implement, change for language teachers to make.
References
Edwards, C. (2003) ‘Task-based language learning.’ DELPHI staff development module. Available at: http://www.delphi.bham.ac.uk (forthcoming)
Klapper, J. (2003) Taking communication to task? A critical review of recent trends in language teaching, Language Learning Journal, 27:1, 33-42, DOI: 10.1080/09571730385200061
Long, M. H. (1991), ‘Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology.’ In: de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. and Kramsch, C. (eds) Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 39-52.
Skehan, P. (1996b) ‘A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction’, Applied Linguistics 17, 1, 38-62.
Hi, I’m curious if you can give an example of a task-basked teaching assignment for young learners just starting out. With that can we then combine the methods within the task? Just trying to understand practicality.
I’ve not got experience with YLs, I’m afraid. But maybe one of our other readers can help. But yes, a good question to ask – it’s often hard to see ‘what is actually done in the classroom’ when reading research articles!
See below the abstract from a statistical meta-analysis of 52 evaluations of program-level implementations of TBLT in real classroom settings, including parts of the Middle-East and East Asia, where some have said it could never work for “cultural” reasons, and “three-hours-a-week” primary and secondary foreign language settings, where the same people have also claimed that it could never work:
“Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is an empirically investigated pedagogy that has garnered
attention from language programs across the globe. TBLT provides an alternative to traditional
grammar translation or present-practice-produce pedagogies by emphasizing interaction during
authentic tasks. Despite several previous meta-analyses investigating the effect of individual
tasks or short-term task-based treatments on second language (L2) development, no studies
to date have synthesized the effects of long-term implementation of TBLT in authentic language
classrooms. The present study uses meta-analytic techniques to investigate the effectiveness of
TBLT programs on L2 learning. Findings based on a sample of 52 studies revealed an overall
positive and strong effect (d = 0.93) for TBLT implementation on a variety of learning outcomes.
The study further examined a range of programmatic and methodological features that
moderated these main-effects (program region, institution type, needs analysis, and cycles of
implementation). Additionally, synthesizing across both quantitative and qualitative data, results
also showed positive stakeholder perceptions towards TBLT programs. The study concludes with
implications for the domain of TBLT implementation, language program evaluation, and future
research in this domain.”
Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. H. (2017). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research
“until TBLT has been shown to actually be more effective than these other methods or approaches” – shouldn’t CLT also be proven to be more effective first? I think there are dozens of studies from different contexts that show the effectiveness of TBLT. Not sure how much there is showing that CLT, let alone Ppp, is more effective.
This point was not meant as a contrast with CLT, which (I think) is already shown in this article to not be very effective, but to any other methodologies. The point the author was making was that, although TBLT has plenty of theoretical support, ultimate ‘proof’ of it’s efficacy is still to be provided (as it is with any method), and thus perhaps principled eclecticism is a good compromise.
1. This article can’t fairly claim to show that CLT is not effective.
2. IMO, Marek makes a perfectly reasonable point about the implication of your “until TBLT has been shown to actually be more effective than these other methods or approaches ….” remark.
3. TBLT not only has plenty of theoretical support, it has support from more than 60 studies showing the effectiveness of TBLT in a wide variety of contexts.
4. No methodology can meet the demand for “ultimate proof of it’s (sic) efficacy”. Thus, TBLT’s failure to meet such a demand does not support the argument that principled eclectiicsm is a good compromise.
Thanks both of you for your comments, and thanks Geoff for adding references to further reading – this is all valuable stuff for readers of ELT Research Bites!
In the bite, my aim is try summarise the thoughts and conclusions on TBLT that Klapper presented in his article. He provides a good summary of the theoretical support for TBLT. In response to critics who, focussing on its practical effectiveness, point out the number of people who have learnt a language through CLT and other synthetic syllabi, he wrote “it is clear TBLT has a lot more work to do before it can provide a convincing alternative pedagogical model, still more before it can claim superiority over other approaches.” (p. 39) Particularly, he mentioned the need for large-scale studies showing its value for training both receptive and productive skills. This was his basis for the conclusion I summarised in the ‘bite’. The research you have both mentioned was presumably conducted after Klapper wrote this article in 2003, so it seems that this issue may have since been addressed. Maybe, Geoff, you would like to ‘bite’ the Bryfonski & McKay (2017) article for us, so readers can learn about what has happenned since Klapper published this piece?
I’d be pleased to “bite” the Byfonski & McKay article, and Long’s (2016) “In defense of tasks and TBLT: Non-issues and real issues” at the same time.
Thanks Geoff! We usually ‘bite’ single articles at a time rather than syntheses, but you could discuss that with Anthony Schmidt, as he coordinates these things. You can find guidelines on how to contribute here https://eltresearchbites.com/contributing-to-elt-research-bites/, and I’ll tell Anthony to look out for a message from you.
Long (2016) has this to say about Klapper (2003):
Klapper eventually proposes what he describes as a weak version of TBLT, a ‘hybrid model’ “which accepts the primacy of the communicative focus but reinstates declarative knowledge and practice at the appropriate point in the task cycle” (p. 40). He claims this is “the most effective way to make forms salient to students and thereby to speed up the acquisitional process” (p. 40). He is careful, however, to distinguish his proposal from conventional PPP:
“It does not assume, like traditional language syllabuses that linguistic forms can be learnt in a pre-ordained order over a short period of time. In such a model, there would be no structural syllabus independent of the task syllabus, rather the forms to be practiced would arise from the task context; but planning would be required to ensure grammatical structures were regularly revisited and recycled, especially those that were poorly represented in classroom input and task instruction.”
(Klapper, 2003, p. 40).
At first sight, this might appear similar to arguments by TBLT advocates for abandoning the structural syllabus and PPP, and their (partial) replacement by focus on form, which is also reactive and often triggered by task work, not the other way around. The difference, however, and it is a major difference, is that there is no assumption in genuine TBLT that performance of individual grammatical structures can be developed to native-like levels rooted in a separate explicit knowledge system via the massive practice required for automatization, or that if accomplished, the new underlying knowledge will morph into the separate implicit system. In other words, not just the methodology but the underlying psycholinguistic rationale for TBLT is quite different. Klapper’s proposal, like that of R. Ellis (1994, 2003, 2009), is for a hybrid model, one which may yet turn out to be correct but which some would see as fatally flawed because it seeks to meld two oppositional psycholinguistic positions. In my view, if there is a place for skill-acquisition theory in TBLT, it is for the use of task repetition to improve task performance, not performance of individual grammatical structures before their time.
Long, M. (2016) In defense of tasks and TBLT: Non-issues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 3-36. .