See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324671332

Implementing Task-Based Language Teaching in ESL Classrooms

Article  in  SSRN Electronic Journal · January 2016

DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2729133

CITATION READS

1 1,324

1 author:

Jessie Barrot
National University, Philippines
34 PUBLICATIONS   142 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Knowledge Channel View project

A research about Facebook and language learning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jessie Barrot on 18 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Adv. Sci. Lett. 21(7), 2276–2280, 2016 RESEARCH ARTICLE

Copyright © 2016 American Scientific Publishers Advanced Science Letters

All rights reserved Vol. 21(7), 2276-2280, 2016
Printed in the United States of America

Implementing Task-based Language Teaching in

ESL Classrooms
Jessie Barrot
National University (Philippines), 551 MF Jhocson St., Sampaloc, Manila, Philippines

Several approaches to second language teaching have been proposed since the 19th century. Despite these changes in the
landscape of second language teaching task-based language teaching (TBLT) remains to be prevailing approach in language
classrooms. However, many English language teachers lack full awareness on what TBLT is and how it can be efficiently
implemented in their respective classrooms particularly in Asian classrooms using the most current language teaching and
learning principles. This paper, therefore, sought to provide insights on implementing TBLT in ESL classrooms from the
sociocognitive-transformative lens. The first section of the paper provides practitioners (textbook writers, teacher, curriculum
developers) extensive insights on the principles underpinning TBLT and how these principles can be put into practice in
language classrooms. It also presents how various language teaching theories, principles, and approaches can be integrated in
teaching grammar using TBLT. The second section briefly discusses the sociocognitive-transformative approach and how
TBLT can be implemented using such an approach with the aim to address the challenges and issues confronted by teachers
when using TBLT. Some implications for classroom practices and research are discussed.
Keywords: Task-based Language Teaching, ESL Pedagogy, Language Teaching Approach, Sociocognitive-Transformative
Approach.

1. INTRODUCTION

Several approaches to second language teaching
have been proposed since the 19 th century. Some of these
approaches and methods are grammar translation method,
audio-lingual approach, direct method, natural approach,
and communicative language teaching. More recently,
postmethod pedagogy1,2 and sociocultural approaches
have been advocated. Despite these current changes in the
landscape of second language teaching task-based
language teaching (TBLT) remains to be prevailing
approach in language classrooms. However, many
English language teachers lack full awareness on
what TBLT is and how it can be efficiently implemented
in their respective classrooms3 particularly in Asian
classrooms4.
*
Email Address: jessiebarrot@yahoo.com
This paper, therefore, aims to shed light on the
theoretical underpinning, features, and procedure on how
TBLT can be better realized in ESL classrooms using the
most recent principles in language teaching and learning.
The first section of the paper provides extensive insights
on the principles underpinning TBLT and how these
principles can be put into practice in language classrooms.
Specifically, the paper will showcase how pre-tasks, main
tasks, and post-tasks of various types can be executed in
an ESL context and how these tasks will be assessed. It
will also present how various language teaching theories
(e.g., sociocognitive theory, information processing
theory), principles (e.g., collaborative learning,
interaction hypothesis, contextualized teaching), and
approaches (e.g., CLT, content-based) can be integrated in
teaching grammar using TBLT. The second section briefly
discusses the sociocognitive-transformative approach and
how TBLT can be implemented using such an approach
2276
 RESEARCH ARTICLE
with the aim to address the challenges and issues
confronted by teachers when using TBLT.
2. THE APPROACH
Long and Crookes5 advocated that TBLT can be a
substitute for PPP approach. They proposed a task-based
pedagogy in which tasks are the building blocks of any
pedagogic activity. Since TBLT accommodates various
methods and incorporates various language teaching
principles when implementing tasks, it is not considered a
method but an approach. It is underpinned by the
consolidated information processing theories,
collaborative learning, and interactionist hypothesis6
which aims to develop learners’ knowledge and skills in
second language.
TBLT can either be either weak or strong7. The weak
form considers tasks as vital tools for language teaching.
These tasks are embedded in complex pedagogic contexts
and are preceded or succeeded by a sort of form-focus
instruction8,9. Weak TBLT resembles much the CLT. The
strong form of TBLT considers tasks as the core of
language teaching, any other else are secondary. The
problem with strong TBLT is it may not drive the
interlanguage forward rather it will focus more on helping
learners do the tasks better.
Rejecting the PPP approach, proponents of task-based
approach argue that tasks promote second language
acquisition in terms of breadth (pushing learners to use
new structures to express meaning) and control (precision
in conveying the meaning). Proponents further argue that
tasks must be the basic unit of any language syllabus.
Skehan6,7 described tasks as activities that use
language relating to the real world, activities that focus on
meaning more than form, activities that are problem-
oriented, and activities that are evaluated not in terms of
language but of outcomes. With a more comprehensive
definition, Ellis10 defined a task as a “workplan that
requires learners to process language pragmatically in
order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in
terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional
content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them
to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of
their own linguistic resources, although the design of the
task may predispose them to choose particular forms” (p.
16).
As for Loschky and Bley-Vroman11, they contend that
the most beneficial tasks are those that involve task
essential forms. These are forms that are necessary to
complete certain specified tasks. Unlike exercises that
have linguistic outcomes, tasks have non-linguistic
outcomes12. Two of the best options to replicate an
authentic experience or real-world tasks are through
problem-based and project-based learning13.
3. FORMS OF TASKS
Tasks can be classified in many ways: personal
information, narrative, or decision-making tasks14,
2277
Adv. Sci. Lett. 21(7), 2276–2280, 2016
communication or enabling tasks15, pedagogic or
target/authentic tasks5, and problem-solving or structured
input tasks16. Tasks can be classified into personal
information tasks which involve information known to
participants and assumed to reduce cognitive load,
narratives which require a certain degree of organization
for storytelling, and decision-making tasks which are
interactive and requires a series of decision that have to
be made14. Among the three, personal information tasks
are the easiest. Decision-making tasks, on the one hand,
are the most interactive and negotiable17. In terms of
vocabulary usage, narratives force the second language
speakers to use less frequent lexis in response to the
embedded events in the narrative. Whereas in decision-
making tasks, second language speakers use high frequent
lexis presumably because they can use different routes to
express their ideas17.
Tasks can also be distinguished as communication
tasks and enabling tasks15. Communication tasks draw
learners’ attention to meaning more than form. On the one
hand, enabling tasks draw learners’ attention on the
linguistic features, such as pronunciation, grammar,
vocabulary, discourse, and functions.
Finally, tasks can be pedagogic or target/authentic
tasks. While pedagogic tasks focus on developing
language accuracy and involve controlled grammar
exercises, target or authentic tasks replicate or rehearse
real-world communicative behavior that focuses on
language using5,18. Authentic tasks can be in a form of
information-gap task and opinion-gap tasks18.
Information-gap tasks are characterized by information
exchange to produce one correct and appropriate
outcome10,19. Opinion-gap tasks involve differences in
opinion about preference and judgments. These are open-
ended tasks in which there is no one correct answer.
Moreover, problem-solving tasks contain linguistic forms
to perform the task while structured input tasks that
contain target linguistic forms are built around non-
linguistic topics16.
Other classification of tasks include tasks as
workplans, tasks in process, or tasks as outcomes20 and
closed or open, one-way or two-way, focused or
unfocused, planned or unplanned, convergent or
divergent21.
Pica et al.19 examined the level of effectiveness of
jigsaw, information gap, problem solving, decision
making, and opinion exchange on comprehension,
feedback, and interlanguage modification. They found the
jigsaw tasks are the most effective among the five tasks.
However, Smith22 claimed if unfamiliar words are infused
to decision-making tasks, such tasks would result in more
negotiation for meaning compared to jigsaw tasks.
Furthermore, Yilmaz’s21 findings revealed that dictogloss
produce more language-related episodes (instances where
learners focus their attention to form) compared to jigsaw
tasks.
 Adv. Sci. Lett. 21(7), 2276–2280, 2016
4. CLASSROOM IMPLEMENTATION
According to Long23, TBLT can be operationalized in
a macrolevel using the following procedure: (1) conduct
needs analysis to determine the target tasks, (2) categorize
the tasks into types, (3) develop pedagogic tasks from the
task types, (4) choose and arrange the pedagogic tasks to
develop a task-based syllabus23. In a microlevel, Skehan7
identified four phases in implementing TBLT: pre-
emptive stage, during-task stage, posttask 1, and posttask
2. Pre-emptive stage aims to reduce cognitive load and
establish target language through planning and
consciousness-raising. During the actual task, it aims to
integrate fluency and accuracy through task choice and
pressure manipulation. Posttask 1 involves public
performances after completing a task in group level,
analysis of performance through videotaping etc., and
testing. It basically aims to defocus learners from
excessive fluency and encourage accuracy and
restructuring. The last stage, which is Posttask 2, aims to
promote the cycle of analysis and synthesis through task
sequences (repeating and parallel tasks) and task families
(tasks similar to the ones performed).
Breen24 has identified four factors that need to be
addressed when designing a task. These include task
objective task content, task procedure, and task situation.
He further posited that learners’ purpose moves in a
continuum from achievement orientation to survival
orientation. Achievement orientation occurs when
learners perceive that tasks are highly related to their own
learning needs. A survival orientation occurs when
learners do not perceive any relationship between the task
and their learning needs which may result in ill-
considered performance. Further, Nunan25 has identified
three principles of task design. These include the principle
of authenticity, principle of form-function, and principle
task dependency. Authenticity principle adheres to the use
of authentic spoken and written language samples in
language teaching. Using authentic language samples
provide learners with naturally occurring contexts. Form-
function principle adheres to the beliefs that form and
function must be made transparent during language
teaching. Finally, task dependency principle states that
each task must be dependent from the task that precedes it.
These tasks can be sequenced from receptive to
productive mode.
With regard to syllabus design, some have proposed
that grammatical syllabus be used as basis for language
teaching to address sequence of language development.
However, this type of syllabus seemed problematic for
the reason that learners differ in their current
developmental stage and their progress. According to
Ellis26, syllabuses that specify linguistic forms to be
taught and their order may not coincide with the built-in
syllabus of the learners. If this happens, learners may
have difficulties in learning the target linguistic forms.
Unlike grammatical syllabus, task-based syllabus allows
the learners to use the grammatical knowledge they have
RESEARCH ARTICLE
in meaningful contexts and in which they are
developmentally ready for learning these linguistic
features27.
When preparing task-based syllabus, tasks should not
be sequenced based on their linguistic content 28 but based
on specific tasks following some principled criteria7.
Tasks should be clearly described as well by specifying
the task content which includes the input (supplied verbal
and non-verbal information), procedures (series of
activities to be performed to accomplish a task), language
activity (receptive or productive), and outcomes (verbal
and non-verbal output). Similarly, Nunan12 posited that
task designers should use interesting and appropriately
graded tasks and identify the linguistic items that can be
taught in these tasks. For Robinson29, he concluded that
task-based syllabus should be designed and sequenced
based on cognitive complexity/demands rather than task
difficulty or task conditions. In case pedagogic tasks in a
TBLT are utilized in classrooms, they are better
sequenced based on task difficulty or complexity rather
than based on linguistic content29. Syllabus design using
pedagogic tasks as its basis must also be arranged in
increasing cognitive demands.
To facilitate the sequencing of tasks, teachers can
perform empirical retrospective evaluation. According to
Ellis30, empirical retrospective evaluation of tasks can be
done by collecting data from three different modes:
response-based (what students do), learning-based (what
students learned), and student-based (what students
think). One of the constructs that a retrospective
evaluation can determine is task difficulty. Specifically,
Candlin31 posited that task difficulty can be determined
through code complexity (syntactic and lexical
complexity), cognitive complexity (availability of schema
and processing demands), and communicative stress (time
pressure, scale or number of participants, and task
performance modality). Modality can be in speaking,
writing, listening, or reading. Among these modalities, it
is assumed that speaking entails more pressure than
writing while listening involves more pressure than
reading. Further, Robinson29 differentiates task
complexity (cognitive demand) from task difficulty
(learner factors) and task conditions (interactive
demands). Among the three, he argues that task
complexity should be the lone basis in selecting tasks
because the other two cannot be anticipated.
Some of the recent studies that provided empirical
support for the use of TBLT in language classrooms are
that of Gass, Mackey & Ross-Feldman32, Lingley33,
Smith34, Hawkes35, González-Lloret and Nielson36, and
East37.
5. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN USING TBLT
Though there is an agreement already on the
effectiveness of TBLT in language teaching, some
potential setbacks may arise from task-based interaction:
(a) it constrains turn-taking; (b) it leads to minimalization
2278
 RESEARCH ARTICLE
(minimal volume of language) and indexicality because
learners focus more on accomplishing the task than
producing language; and (c) tasks spawn too many
clarification requests, comprehension checks,
confirmation checks, and self-repetition which are
unproven and unprovable as to their role in second
language acquisition38. Finally, TBLT narrowly considers
contexts and lacks consideration of sociopolitical,
historical, and cultural aspects of language39. Hence,
many scholars40,41,42,43 advocated for intercultural
approach. With this, Seedhouse38 argued that task-based
learning may be well fit within ESP approach in which
the aim is to expose learners to real-life tasks. As to its
role in general English, Nunan12 claimed that as long as
the tasks are within the realities of the learners when they
are outside the classroom, tasks may be an option.
6. INTEGRATING TBLT WITH THE
SOCIOCOGNITIVE-TRANSFORMATIVE
APPROACH
Because of the issues and challenges in using TBLT,
it is necessary that it is integrated into an ESL
pedagogical approach that adheres to the most recent
principles in language teaching and learning. Hence, it is
proposed that TBLT be combined with the
sociocognitive-transformative approach44,45,46. It is a
model in ESL pedagogy that integrates the cognitive,
sociocultural, and transformative learning principles in
language pedagogy. This model integrates the most
current principles in language learning such as
collaboration, contextualization, differentiation, ICT
integration, process orientation, reflective learning, and
spiral progression44,45.
When implementing TBLT from a sociocognitive-
transformative perspective, the teacher needs to specify
learning goals that aims to produce 21st century
multiliterate lifelong learners. They also need to specify
short=term learning objectives that incorporates the
practice and development of language skills and
knowledge, reflective learning, social participation and
transformation, and development of 21 st century skills.
After specifying the learning objectives, learners need to
perform a pre-task that engages learners, activates their
schema, and diagnoses their weaknesses. Preferably, this
task should be done collaboratively to provide learners
some scaffolding and opportunity to interact with one
another. Afterwards, learners should be asked to do self-
assessment on their performance during the pretask task.
This allows learners to improve their metacognitive skills
necessary for monitoring and regulating their own
learning.
During the main task, learners can be asked to listen,
view, and read materials which serve as an input.
Preferably, these materials should be authentic and
aligned to 21st century themes (civic literacy,
environmental literacy, financial literacy, global
awareness, and health literacy) for learners to better
develop their language, intercultural competence, and
2279
Adv. Sci. Lett. 21(7), 2276–2280, 2016
social and self-transformation. These tasks should also be
collaborative and has social relevance. As part of the
post-task activity, learners may be asked to do
collaborative projects with emphasis on social
participation and contribution. For example, they may be
asked to submit a proposal to community leaders on how
juvenile delinquency can be minimized, or they may be
asked to submit a letter or position paper to the editor of a
national newspaper about a national issue.
As commented by five experienced teachers who
validated the sociocognitive-transformative approach44,
they are all aware, agree, and practice the principles
advanced by the approach. They further commented that
its procedure can be easily translated into specific
classrooms practices.
7. CONCLUSION
This paper sought to revisit TBLT and shed light on
the intricacies. To do this, this paper presents the
theoretical underpinning of TBLT, clarifies its design
(syllabus, task types), and discusses some ways on how it
can be implemented in language classrooms. Challenges
and issues in using TBLT are also presented and
addressed by integrating it with the sociocognitive-
transformative approach. Through this integration, it is
hoped that TBLT can be efficiently used in various
learning contexts and effectively produce more
communicatively competent ESL learners.
It is not the aim of this paper to argue the superiority
of integrated TBLT and sociocognitive-transformative
approach over other language teaching approaches.
Nonetheless, it can be a viable option for a more efficient
implementation of TBLT in classrooms. Hence, future
researchers may examine the effectiveness of the
proposed approach at the empirical level in various
learning contexts. The impact and acceptability of such an
approach on Asian ESL teachers and learners may also be
examined. This is so because the approach would not
achieve success without the combined efforts and
commitment of both the learners and teachers.
REFERENCES
[1] B. Kumaravadivelu. The postmethod condition: (E)merging
strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 28 (1994) 27–47.
[2] B. Kumaravadivelu. Towards a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL
Quarterly, 35 (2001) 537–560.
[3] R. Ellis. Task‐based language teaching: sorting out the
misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 19 (3) (2009) 221–246.
[4] Y. Butler. The implementation of communicative and task-based
language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 31 (2011) 36–57.
[5] M. Long & G. Crookes. Three approaches to task-based syllabus
design. TESOL Quarterly, 26 (1992) 27–56.
[6] P. Skehan. A cognitive approach to language learning (1998).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[7] P. Skehan. A framework for the implementation of task based
instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17 (1) (1996) 38–62.
 Adv. Sci. Lett. 21(7), 2276–2280, 2016
[8] J. Barrot. Combining isolated and integrated form-focused
instruction: Effects on productive skills. Language, Culture, and
Curriculum, 27 (3) (2014) 278-293.
[9] J. Barrot. Development and validation of materials for isolated
form-focused instruction. Modern Journal of Language Teaching
Methods, 4 (1) (2014) 267–282.
[10] R. Ellis. Task-based language learning and teaching (2003).
New York: Oxford University Press.
[11] L. Loschky & R. Bley-Vroman. Creating structure-based
communication tasks for second language development. In G.
Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning:
Intergrating theory and practice, (1993) 123–167. Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
[12] D. Nunan. Designing tasks for the communicative classroom
(1989). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[13] D. Fisher & N. Frey. Checking for understanding: Formative
assessment techniques for your classroom (2007). Alexandria,
Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
[14] P. Skehan & P. Foster. The influence of task structure and
processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning,
49 (1) (1999) 93–120.
[15] S. Estaire & J. Zanon. Planning classwork: A task-based
approach (1994). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
[16] M. Takimoto. The effects if input-based tasks on the
development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied
Linguistics, 30 (1) (2007) 1–25).
[17] P. Skehan. Modelling second language performance: Integrating
complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30
(4) (2009) 510–532.
[18] I. McGrath. Materials evaluation and design for language
teaching (2002). Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.
[19] T. Pica, R. Kanagy, & J. Falodun. Choosing and using
communication tasks for second language instruction. In G.
Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning:
Integrating theory and practice, (1993) 9–34. Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
[20] M. Breen. The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R.
Johnson (Ed.). The second language curriculum (1989).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[21] Y. Yilmaz. Task effects on focus on form in synchronous
computer-mediated communication. Modern Language Journal,
95 (1) (2011) 115–132.
[22] B. Smith. Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An
expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87 (2003) 38–57.
[23] M. Long. Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R.
Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy.
Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton, (2000) 179–192.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[24] M. Breen. Learner contribution to task design. In C. Candlin & D.
Murohy (Eds.). Language learning tasks, (1987) 23–46. London:
Prentice-Hall.
[25] D. Nunan. Second language teaching and learning (1999).
Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
[26] R. Ellis. The evaluation of communicative tasks. In B. Tomlinson
(Ed.) Materials Development in Language Teaching, (1998)
217–238. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
View publication stats
RESEARCH ARTICLE
[27] P. Robinson & S. Ross. The development of task-based
assessment in English for academic purposes programs. Applied
Linguistics, 17 (4) (1996) 455–476.
[28] P. Skehan. The role of foreign language aptitude in a model of
school learning. Language Testing, 3 (1986) 188–221.
[29] P. Robinson. Task complexity, task difficulty, and task
production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework.
Applied Linguistics, 22 (1) (2001) 27–57.
[30] R. Ellis. The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials.
ELT Journal, 51 (1) (1997) 36–42.
[31] C. Candlin. Towards task-based language learning. In C. Candlin
& D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks, (1987) 5–22.
London: Prentice Hall.
[32] S. Gass, A. Mackey, & L. Ross-Feldman. Task-based interactions
in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55 (4)
(2005) 575–611.
[33] D. Lingley. A task-based approach to teaching a content-based
Canadian studies course in an EFL context. Asian EFL Journal,
8 (3) (2006).
[34] B. Smith. The relationship between negotiated interaction,
learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-
mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39 (1) (2005) 33–
58.
[35] M. Hawkes. Using task repetition to direct learner attention and
focus on form. ELT Journal, 66 (3) (2012) 327–336.
[36] M. González-Lloret & K. Nielson. Evaluating TBLT: The case of
a task-based Spanish program. Language Teaching Research, 19
(5) (2015) 525–548.
[37] M. East. Taking communication to task–again: what difference
does a decade make?. The Language Learning Journal, 43 (1)
(2015) 6–19.
[38] P. Seedhouse. Task-based interaction. ELT Journal, 53 (3) (1999)
149–156.
[39] B. Kumaravadivelu. TESOL methods: Changing tracks,
challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (2006) 59–81.
[40] M. Byram. Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative
competence (1997). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
[41] J. Corbett. An intercultural approach to English language
teaching (2003). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
[42] C. Kramsch. The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In M.
Byram & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in intercultural
perspective: Approaches through drama and ethnography
(1998). Cambridge: CUP.
[43] R. St Clair & A. Phipps. Intercultural literacies. Language and
Intercultural Communication, 8 (2) (2008) 69–71.
[44] J. Barrot. A sociocognitive-transformative instructional materials
design model for second language (L2) pedagogy in the Asia
Pacific: Development and validation. The Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher, 24 (2) (2015) 283–297.
[45] J. Barrot. A macro perspective on key issues in English as second
language (ESL) pedagogy in the postmethod era: Confronting
challenges through sociocognitive-transformative approach. The
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23 (3) (2014) 435–449.
[46] J. Barrot. A sociocognitive-transformative approach to teaching
writing: Theory and praxis. Indonesian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 4 (2) (2015) 111–120.
2280