Task-based language teaching - Lirias

This is a contribution from TBLT as a Researched Pedagogy. Edited by Virginia Samuda, Kris Van den Branden and Martin Bygate.© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

This electronic file may not be altered in any way.The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet.For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com

Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

John Benjamins Publishing Company

http://www.copyright.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.benjamins.com

http://www.benjamins.com

https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.12.07van© 2018 John Benjamins Publishing Company

chapter 6

Task-based language teaching

How task-based is it really?

Goedele Vandommele1, Kris Van den Branden1 & Koen Van Gorp21University of Leuven / 2Michigan State University

The purpose of the study described in this chapter was to explore the classroom practices of teachers with varying degrees of experience in task-based language teaching (TBLT) while using a task-based syllabus. In particular, we wanted to assess the extent to which their actual classroom practices are in line with the main tenets of the task-based approach. We observed four teachers as they were team teaching in pairs during a two-week summer school for adolescent newcomers with high-beginner proficiency levels of Dutch. Results indicate that the classroom practices of both teaching teams lived up to the main principles of TBLT. On the whole, the classroom practice of the more experienced team of teachers was systematically rated higher. The classroom practice of the inexperienced team was found to be consistent with three out of the five principles that were rated, namely “Promote Learning by Doing”, “Focus on Form” and “Provide Input and Opportunities to Produce Output”. However, two other principles (“Provide Negative Feedback” and “Individualize Instruction”) were virtually absent in teachers’ use of tasks. The experienced team was found to implement some of the principles during all activities, while others seemed much more context-dependent. This study may deepen our insight into the different features of TBLT, in particular regarding core and more peripheral features of TBLT. Ultimately, it can guide qualitative training of teachers new to TBLT.

Introduction

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been one of the most influential approaches to second language education since the early nineties and evidence for the impact of tasks on language learning is growing (Ellis & Shintani, 2013; Long, 2014). The imple-mentation of task-based principles in actual classroom practice, however, is challeng-ing for many teachers. This study will explore the classroom practices of different teachers in comparable contexts, working with comparable learners and sharing an equally positive view towards a task-based approach, but who differ in terms of their experience with task-based teaching.

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp

Implementing TBLT

Over the last few decades, the main principles of TBLT and its potential impact on second language acquisition have been well described (Ellis & Shintani, 2013; Long, 2014; Van den Branden, Bygate, & Norris, 2009). Moreover, empirical research, most of which is conducted in laboratory settings, has produced evidence for the impact of task-based interaction on language learning (Ellis & Shintani, 2013; Keck, Iberri-Shea, Tracy-Ventura, & Wa-Mbaleka, 2006; Long, 2014; Samuda & Bygate, 2007).

At the same time, a growing body of research has explored the implementation of tasks in authentic L2 classrooms. Such research has revealed that teachers often modify tasks, which results in a gap between tasks on paper (and as used in experimental labo-ratory settings) and tasks in authentic classrooms. This gap was described (Breen, 1989; Ellis, 2003) in terms of a tension between “task-as-workplan” and “task-in- process”. It follows from the observation that teachers make instructional choices (Borg, 2003) in order to suit their particular contexts, their available resources, their learners’ needs, and their own competences, practices and beliefs. By making instructional choices when working with tasks, teachers, by definition, reconstruct them (Berben, Van den Branden, & Van Gorp, 2007). As a result, no two tasks-in-action, including those based on a single task-as-workplan, are exactly the same, even when they are carried out by the same individual on different occasions (Coughlan & Duff, 1994).

Thus, some of the core principles of TBLT may be implemented in different ways by different teachers, or may fail to be put into practice altogether. As a matter of fact, the growing body of literature on TBLT implementation has shown that many teachers working with tasks may even violate some of the key principles behind the task-based approach (Carless, 2007, 2009). Some principles may be partially adopted or modified, while others seem to be bluntly ignored.

TBLT as an innovation

For many teachers, TBLT is an innovative approach that deviates from the more form-focused, teacher-dominated method they are accustomed to. Research on the imple-mentation of educational innovations has shown that the success of an educational innovation depends on a wide range of factors, including the complexity, feasibility and concreteness of the innovation and the advantages teachers associate it with (Van den Branden, 2009a). Ellis (2003) points out that, as complexity and lack of concreteness are typical of most theoretical descriptions of TBLT, this may inhibit TBLT’s imple-mentation. Even though at first sight, TBLT might be conceptually simple and easy for teachers to grasp, it can be hard to do at the same time: for instance, what exactly does it mean to devote primary attention to meaning? How much focus on form is allowed or recommended? And when exactly should focus on form be offered to learners?


Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really?

In addition, some of the key principles of TBLT may be hard to implement due to contextual constraints (e.g., class sizes, lack of materials and infrastructure). Often, TBLT is seen as being incompatible with the local context, since “it counters our tradi-tions of practice, requires rethinking the outcomes of our programs, and implies an overhaul of the teaching and testing that is going on in many language classrooms” (Norris, 2009, p. 591).

Given the difficulties associated with the implementation of TBLT, Van den Branden (2009a) has argued that teachers require support throughout the innovation process. This support can take different shapes, including (1) in-service training and relevant information on the innovation, (2) teaching aids and tools and (3) school-based, practice-oriented, on-the-ground coaching (Van den Branden, 2009a).

A growing body of research looking into the impact of different types of teacher support on task-based classroom practice has shown the crucial importance of teach-ers’ understanding of and attitudes towards the task-based approach (East, 2014a). This has led to support programs in which teachers’ beliefs and practices are addressed and their experiences with tasks are explored and followed up, for instance by way of reflective practice (East, 2014b) or action-research (Calvert & Sheen, 2014).

Providing teachers with task-based materials has been shown to have mixed results on the implementation of TBLT. On the one hand, when teachers develop their own mate-rials, they have been shown to acquire ownership and a deeper understanding of TBLT (McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007; Van den Branden, 2006). On the other hand, however, Ellis (2003) argues that teachers should focus on setting up the kind of interac-tion with their learners that fosters language acquisition. Instead of wasting energy devel-oping tasks, they should be provided with ready-made task-based materials. Still, teachers who were provided with tasks designed by professional syllabus developers have been shown to adapt those tasks, rather than the tasks modifying the teachers’ behavior. Some of those teachers were found to use the tasks to resort to more traditional, grammar-based methods and make the tasks fit their preferred approaches (Carless, 2007, 2009); others made selective use of the materials, changed the goals and grouping formats, skipped phases or added other ones, and simplified text material (Van den Branden, 2009b). In this respect, Van den Branden (2009a) has argued for the need to follow the teacher’s lead and start from the teacher’s own interpretation and use of tasks to set up an intensive cycle of reflective practice in an effort to deepen the teacher’s insight and professional expertise with regard to promoting their students’ language competences.

Package deal or separate components?

At this point, the question can be raised whether a theoretical description of the main principles underpinning TBLT should be considered a package deal: are there a number of key principles that should all be put into practice in order for a lesson to be truly con-



sidered “task-based”? Are some principles more crucial than others? With regard to the implementation of TBLT, this also raises the question whether some principles can be or should be implemented first, while others can be introduced later. For instance, this could be asked about the practice of more experienced teachers who have built up considerable expertise in working with tasks. Little research has looked into task-based implementa-tion from this perspective. We believe that comparing the classroom practices of teachers with varying expertise and/or experience with working with tasks can provide valuable insights into the kind of TBLT principles that find their way into mainstream classroom practice more easily and into the principles that require more effort. This kind of research can also shed light on the feasibility of different principles for teachers, their suitability and practicability in particular school contexts and on their value for different types of learners. Ultimately, such research could also provide new directions for enhancing the gradual implementation of innovative practices like TBLT.

To the best of our knowledge, only Andon & Eckerth (2009), Erlam (2015) and Oliver and Bogachenko (2018, this volume) have studied the implementation of TBLT principles. In Andon & Eckerth ’s (2009) research, experienced language teachers who had previously encountered (aspects of) the task-based approach, referred to specific aspects of TBLT during interviews, but in their classroom practice would “experiment with different elements of TBLT, reject some of them, embrace others, and combine all of them with other pedagogical elements” (Andon & Eckerth, 2009). The question remains whether the “principled eclecticism” that characterized the teachers’ class-room practices resulted from the teachers’ belief in such practices or from the teachers’ limited experience with task-based work.

Erlam’s (2015) study looked into the integration of different components of TBLT in tasks designed by teachers who came out of a year-long professional teacher train-ing program. Erlam found that two principles were implemented with relative ease by teachers, namely the primacy of focus on meaning and having tasks with a clearly defined, non-linguistic outcome. Two criteria that were harder to incorporate were the need for a gap and insisting on students’ reliance on their own resources. Even though these findings clearly illustrate that TBLT is not a straightforward package deal for teachers to put into practice when designing tasks, the study reveals little in terms of the teachers’ implementation of tasks in authentic classrooms.

In our study, we wanted to explore which aspects of TBLT occurred in the actual classroom practices of teachers. In contrast with Andon & Eckerth (2009), we focused on teachers with different levels of experience in TBLT and provided them with tasks designed by a professional task developer. We were particularly interested in exploring the teachers’ use of the different tasks in their classrooms.

Thus, the main research questions guiding the study are as follows:

– To what extent are key principles of TBLT put into practice by teachers while working with tasks?



– To what extent do teachers who have varying degrees of experience with TBLT-related classroom practices differ with regard to putting the key principles into practice?

– To what extent are experienced and less experienced teachers consistent – across different tasks – in putting TBLT principles into practice?

Method

Background and context of data collection

The current study was part of a larger research project that investigated the spoken and written language development of high-beginner adolescent L2 learners of Dutch. The L2 learners participated in a two-week summer school of Dutch as a second lan-guage, which gave them the opportunity to continue learning Dutch during their sum-mer holidays. During these two weeks, L2 learners worked towards an overarching, meaningful and motivating project goal: the design of a website introducing future newcomers to Flemish society. Half of the L2 learners worked towards this goal on the basis of a task-based syllabus that was developed by a professional task developer (i.e. the first author of this article). For the purpose of this study, we will focus on these L2 learners. In the task-based setting, four teachers were involved in team-teaching two different classes. The teachers were free to adapt the task-based syllabus to suit their own ideas, purposes and classroom practices.

L2 learners

The L2 learners participating in the summer school were selected on the basis of a range of criteria. First, the project focused on learners of low socio-economic back-grounds, as this group typically underachieves in the Flemish educational system (Stoll, Hulshof, Nusche, & Shewbridge, 2011). Second, at least an intermediate beginner level of Dutch language proficiency was required: the participants at minimum had to be able to understand and use basic everyday expressions while making conversation on topics related to their personal life (A1 level – following the CEFR scales (Council of Europe, 2011)). Third, no participants had attended Dutch-medium reception classes for newcomers for more than 12 months prior to the study. Finally, the participants were between 12 and 16 years old.

The classes

The 31 L2 learners involved were divided into two classes according to age.

– Class A consisted of sixteen L2 learners aged 15–16; five were girls and eleven boys. – Class B consisted of fifteen L2 learners aged 13–14; four were girls and eleven boys.



The four teachers

Four teachers working in pairs used the task-based syllabus. As team teaching is becoming increasingly popular in Flanders and because it is very common in summer schools, two teachers teamed up to work with Class A and the other two with Class B. The following table summarizes teacher characteristics in terms of their education, knowledge of and experience in working with TBLT.

Interviews with the teachers, as well as assessment of their CVs, revealed that the individual teachers differed in their knowledge of and experience in implementing TBLT. In Class A, a very experienced teacher worked together with a less experienced teacher, while both teachers of Class B had only limited experience with task-based language education.

Table 1. Teacher profiles

Class A Class B

T1 Education bachelor degree of education bachelor degree of educationTeaching experience 30 years of teaching experience 5 years of teaching experienceLearners adolescent newcomers L1 adolescents mostlySubjects L2 Dutch currently sciences (geography and

biology), previously L1 DutchKnowledge of TBLT extensive basicExperience in TBLT 15 years of TBLT practice occasionally uses tasks in science

classOther teacher trainer, educating and

coaching in-service teachers of newcomers with regard to TBLT

she has once participated in project work with L2 newcomers and their teachers

T2 Education student teacher (bachelor) student teacher (master)Teaching experience 3 years of teacher training

internship1 year of teacher training internship, short interim teaching jobs

Learners mostly L1 adolescents, some L2 mostly L1 adolescents, some L2Subjects L2 English, L1 Dutch L2 Dutch, L2 English, L1 DutchKnowledge of TBLT basic extensiveExperience in TBLT no integration in practice participation in this intervention is

the first opportunity to put TBLT knowledge in practice

Other teamed up with experienced teacher A1, he receives on-the-spot instruction and feedback on task-based pedagogy and practice

enrolled in a teacher education program which specializes in language education of L2 Dutch, created and administered by a distinguished scholar in task-based language teaching



The task-based syllabus

The first author developed a task-based syllabus on newcomers’ experiences in Flan-ders, thus providing the teachers with material covering the two-week intervention. The syllabus consisted of eighteen tasks that were part of the above-mentioned project. Projects have been claimed to be effective for language learning (Legutke & Thomas, 2014). Within the task-based frame in particular, Skehan (2014) suggests project work as an effective method for organizing pedagogic sequences (e.g. focus on form, plan-ning, repetition, and so forth).

All eighteen tasks were geared to the overarching project goal, namely the design of a website introducing future newcomers to life in Flanders. Each task invited the students to brainstorm, speak, write, listen and, to a lesser extent, read about life in Belgium compared to life in their home country. Since the study focused on stu-dents’ language development in terms of productive skills, the syllabus contained a large number of speaking and writing tasks. Targeted outcomes of the tasks were, for example, a list with ideas for website content, a picture story describing a newcomer’s day in Flanders, a memory game contrasting features of Belgium with those of new-comers’ home countries, an interview with people living in Antwerp, an invitation to the launching event of the website, and a YouTube video promoting the website. Task types varied widely, ranging from listing, comparing, and sharing personal experi-ences to reporting and opinion-gap activities.

For all tasks, the syllabus provided teachers with a description of the materials, an estimate of the duration of the activity and a description of the goals and phases of the task. The teachers’ manual was intended to be a source of inspiration rather than to be overly prescriptive. It described concrete activities for all stages of the tasks and included pedagogical suggestions, for instance on how to introduce a task or on how and when to integrate a focus on form into the meaning-based work. In that way, the syllabus foregrounded important task characteristics while still respecting the autonomy of the teacher. Nevertheless, the teachers were strongly encouraged to work towards the final products associated with the various tasks (e.g., a memory game) and towards the main goal of the project (the website).

Given the basic level of language proficiency of most students, the main aim of all activities in the syllabus was to engage the students in meaningful communication. However, suggestions to direct attention to linguistic form (‘Focus on Form’) were included as well. Linguistic forms to express comparisons, for example, were bound to occur in several tasks and could therefore be targeted for focus on form.

Before the intervention, the syllabus was reviewed by two experienced teachers of newcomer classes. Both made suggestions for improvements and only minor revisions were needed. A few additional, minor changes resulted from a pilot trial in a beginner language learner classroom where both the teacher and the students found most tasks



challenging, but suitable for the target group. The teacher who tried out the tasks in the pilot study, however, remarked that using computers and the internet with illiterate learners might pose a risk. Nevertheless, because of the overall goal of the project (i.e., designing a website), we decided to hold on to the use of computers.

Task sampling

We selected four tasks for the purpose of this study. The selection was based on the location of the activities, the degree of teacher involvement, the range of task types and interaction formats involved, and the spread of the tasks over the 10 intervention days. As for location, we discarded outside-school activities, for example an interview with inhabitants of Antwerp. We also left out tasks with a high degree of learner autonomy, in which the teachers’ involvement was limited to introducing and debriefing. Two tasks were discarded because both classes and their teachers were at the same location at the same time. Also the lessons dedicated to getting to know each other on the first day and wrapping-up on the final day were not used, because they were not represen-tative of the task-based work. All in all, eight tasks remained from which we selected four. These tasks were distributed over the different intervention days and included different task types and grouping formats. Appendix A at the end of this chapter pro-vides a description of all the tasks that were included in the syllabus.

The tasks

Each task consisted of three phases (Skehan, Willis, & Willis, 1996). First, the task is introduced to the whole group in a pre-task phase in which some form of planning is possible. Then, during the actual task performance, learners are asked to perform the task in pairs or group(s) while the teacher monitors students’ progress. Subsequently, debriefing and post-task discussion take place in a post-task phase. The teacher man-ual occasionally includes suggestions for focus on form, related to task-essential lan-guage features. For the sake of illustration, the teacher manual that was provided for Task 4, and learner products/outputs for this task are added in Appendices B and C respectively.

Task 1 (first day of the intervention): Statements on Belgium

The first task is an opinion-gap activity resulting in a summary of students’ opinions on Belgium. The task probes into newcomers’ experiences in Belgium and asks them to compare life in their home countries to life in Belgium. The teacher introduces five statements on life in Belgium and asks students to move to one side of the room if they



agree with the statement (“true”) or to the opposite side if they disagree (“false”). The statements concern the weather, traffic, people, buildings and clothing in Belgium. After taking up a position, students argue their cases. In the post-task debriefing, the teacher summarizes students’ expectations and impressions of life in Belgium to pre-pare the ground for the overarching goal of the intervention (the design of a website introducing newcomers to Flanders). A suggestion is added to focus on linguistic fea-tures of argumentative speech that the students have used during the task.

Task 2 (third day of the intervention): Storyboard: A newcomers’ day in Belgium

The second task is a creative task that involves learners sharing experiences and that results in a sketched storyboard for a picture story that will be published on the web-site. The picture story aims to describe a (school) day in the life of a newcomer in Belgium. The eight frames of the picture story should contain newcomers’ activities during a typical day. This can include taking the bus to school or playing football after school – activities which can subsequently be photographed and included in the story. Before taking the actual pictures, students work in small groups to brain-storm on the activities they want to incorporate, on a suitable location for taking their pictures and on the possible conversation going on in the picture. They write the conversation down.

Task 3 (fifth day of the intervention): Invitation to the party

The outcome for the third task is a written invitation to the farewell party of the summer school that accompanies the launch of the website. The learners and the teacher start with an oral reflection on the information that should be included in the invitation and the teacher provides a written recap. Then the learners work on the invitation in small groups, while interacting on the content, phrasing and struc-ture of the invitation.

Task 4 (seventh day of the intervention): Contrasts in memory

The fourth task is an oral exchange of students’ experiences in Belgium resulting in pic-tures of contrasts between Belgium and the students’ country of origin. Each student develops two contrasting cards for a memory game comparing an aspect of their own choosing. Students team up in pairs to exchange ideas on differences between their home countries and Belgium and to individually decide on the actual contrast they want to incorporate in the memory game on the website. They subsequently look for adequate descriptions and images for these contrasts. The teacher’s manual includes suggestions for a focus on form with regard to expressing comparisons.



Data collection

Teachers and learners were audiotaped as they engaged in the task-based work. In each group, a total of 120 hours of spoken data were collected over ten days. Four days covering a total of approximately six hours were taken into account for the analysis reported in this study. We used lapel microphones, which were worn by two learners and the two teachers of each group. In addition, digital cameras were used to collect comprehensive shots. One camera offered a panoramic view of the classroom interaction, while a second was used to shoot close-up images of peer and student-teacher interaction.

Because of the active, unpredictable and interactive nature of TBLT, the static camera failed to capture all teachers’ actions. Learner-to-learner interaction without microphone was also often inaccessible. Some of the targeted learners’ talk was unin-telligible, especially when not supported by video footage. All the same, the combina-tion of audio, video and the researcher’s field notes and recollections provided a fairly comprehensive picture of the classroom practice of the four teachers, the way they worked with the four tasks and their individual interaction with learners.

Instrument for the general assessment of core TBLT principles

Different definitions of tasks (see for example the discussion on task definition in Samuda & Bygate (2007) and descriptions of the main tenets of task-based language teaching can be found in the TBLT-related literature. For our study, we chose to work with Long’s (2014) Methodological Principles (MPs), from which we selected five principles which are also systematically mentioned in other key publications on the basic principles underpinning TBLT. All the selected MPs also feature in Ellis’s “Prin-ciples of instructed language learning” (2005).

MP2: Promote Learning by Doing (1)

MP2 emphasizes the functional use of language through performing real-world tasks with a prime focus on meaning. This principle is central in all literature on TBLT (Ellis, 2003; Long, 2014; Skehan, 1998; Van den Branden, 2006; Van den Branden et al., 2009) and is also considered one of the “critical properties of TBLT” (Samuda & Bygate, 2007, p. 64).

MP4: Provide Rich and Substantial Input (2)

Learners need extensive and rich exposure to the target language, that is large amounts of qualitative (genuine, relevant, diverse) input (Ellis, 2005; Long, 2014). Because of



the specific context of the larger research project which focused on the development of production skills, we added “and opportunities for output”. We believe that this addition is validated because Long, in his Interaction Hypothesis, emphasizes the importance of providing learners with opportunities for producing output, which also features in Ellis’s (2005) Principles.

MP6: Focus on Form (3)

MP6 features prominently in TBLT literature and emphasizes the attention paid to form while learners are communicating (Doughty & Williams, 1998). Long (2014, p. 317) defines focus on form as the “reactive use of a wide variety of pedagogic procedures to draw learners’ attention to linguistic problems in context”. Differ-ent from traditional approaches (for teaching grammar in particular), to which Long (2014) refers as focus on formS, focus on form is brief and embedded in a context of meaningful language use. It is a temporal shift in allocation of attention: from attention to meaning to reflection on target language. Moreover, in TBLT, focus on form is preferably reactive and respects learners’ internal syllabus. In some research, the variety of pedagogic procedures available for focus on form includes the option of ‘negative feedback’ (e.g., Ellis, 2005). For this study, however, we fol-low Long (2014) who lists focus on form and negative feedback as two separate methodological principles. This allows us to distinguish between on the one hand “focus on form”, which can also take the form of reactive, metalinguistic rule deter-mination and, on the other hand negative feedback, which often takes the form of error correction.

MP7: Provide Negative Feedback (4)

The importance of negative feedback has been the focus of a lot of research into task-based interaction (Mackey & Goo, 2007) and is mentioned in key publications on TBLT. In Ellis (2005) this principle is mentioned as one of three options for “Focus on form”. As noted above, Long, on the other hand, distinguishes both focus on form and negative feedback as two separate methodological principles. The lat-ter is more in line with natural communication, as it may occur through commu-nication breakdowns, recasts, or even overt error correction. In classrooms, recasts in particular constitute “the most frequent form of negative feedback” (Long, 2014, p. 55). By including both of Long’s MPs and handling them in separate categories, we may be able to better map the exact quality of attention that is given to form by teachers with and without experience in TBLT. As a result, we count a com-municative focus on form manifested in negative feedback and a possibly non-communicative, but nonetheless reactive, focus on form as two separate categories in the analysis.



MP10: Individualize instruction (5)

MP10 is also referred to as “learner centeredness”. This principle refers to the fact that learners’ built-in syllabus should guide and mediate instruction and that teachers should react to individual learners’ task-based work, questions and needs (Nunan, 1988).

The five principles were incorporated under “Learning by Doing”, “Provide Input and Opportunities for Output”, “Provide Negative Feedback”, “Focus on Form” and “Individualize Instruction”. The resulting instrument is displayed in Table 2.

Table 2. Rating tool for the assessment of five core principles of TBLT

Nr. Principle The teacher …

1. Learning by Doing has students use language in a meaningful and goal-directed way, as a means to a non-linguistic end

2. Provide Input and Opportunities for Output

provides rich input, enhances interaction and provides students with opportunities to produce extensive language output, relate their experiences and express their personal opinions, for example by asking open-ended questions

3. Provide Negative Feedback

provides negative feedback by way of corrective feedback, for example by using recasts

4. Focus on Form provides opportunities for focus on form5. Individualize

Instructiontailors instruction to cater for differences in pace, proficiency, cognition, and intensively supports learners who struggle with the task

A coding system was developed to assess the extent to which the teachers’ practices complied with the above-mentioned principles. Table 2 displays the instrument for the general assessment of the five principles.

Each principle was rated separately on a five-point scale, ranging from rating 5 (this features “systematically” in the teacher’s behavior during this lesson), 4 (“fre-quently”), 3 (“sometimes”), 2 (“rarely”), to 1 (“never”).

Scoring procedure

Thirteen MA students in linguistics who had attended a course on task-based language teaching were trained to rate the teachers’ classroom practices on the above-mentioned principles. In a second stage, an additional nine students were also trained with the same material to give ratings of the same teachers’ behavior while they were working with an additional task. The intra-class correlation coefficient between all raters after training was high for both the first group (ICC = .91) and the second group (ICC = .92).

The first group of trained raters were randomly divided into two groups and given access to the audio and video material recorded during three tasks. One group scored



the teacher practice for Task 1 and Task 2, the other group scored Task 4. Since only ten raters completed their assessments in time and two raters did not rate every task separately, the number of raters was not the same for the different tasks. More specifi-cally, Task 1 and Task 2 were assessed by only two raters and Task 4 by six raters. The second group of nine raters all scored Task 3. As reliability between raters was high, even for the tasks that were rated only by two raters (ICC = .91), we decided to include these scores all the same.

Table 3 summarizes the important elements of the scoring procedure.

Table 3. Summary of scoring procedure

Task Name Number of raters ICC

1 Statements 2 .912 Storyboard 2 .913 Invitation 9 .924 Memory 6 .91

Results

Table 4 lists the mean values of the ratings for the five principles. For the sake of clarity, negative ratings (below the cut-off point at 3, indicating that the behavior described in the parameter occurred less than ‘sometimes’, that is: rarely or never) are highlighted. Because we are dealing with mean scores, we will consider ratings higher than 4 as indicative of principles that feature “systematically” in the teacher’s behavior, ratings between 4 and 3 as featuring “frequently” and ratings below 3 as featuring “rarely or never”.

General ratings

The overall means (bottom right in the table) are above 3 for both classes. Yet, on the whole, TBLT principles are more systematically put into practice by the teachers of Class A than by the teachers of Class B (Class A: M = 4.16; Class B: M = 3.04). Also the mean ratings for all the five principles (across tasks) are higher for Class A than for Class B. These differences between both teacher teams were to be expected, given their differential team experience in task-based language teaching.

Variation across tasks

Looking at the overall scores for each task, teacher practice in Class B does not show much variation across the four tasks: Class B teachers’ use of each task receives mean



ratings of around 3. The scores of the teachers of Class A show more variation from task to task, ranging between 3.82 and 4.70, a finding which is interesting and will be discussed later.

Ratings of principles

In Class A, two principles, namely “Promote Learning by Doing” (M = 4.78) and “Pro-vide Input and Opportunities for Output” (M = 4.43) stand out as being put into prac-tice ‘systematically’ across tasks. For the three other principles, “feedback” (M = 3.81), “Focus on Form” (M = 3.87) and “Individualize Instruction” (M = 3.90), the means indicate a relatively frequent, but less systematic implementation.

In Class B, not a single principle gets a mean higher than 4 (systematic). Three principles, namely, “Promote Learning by Doing” (M = 3.72), “Provide Input and Opportunities for Output” (M = 3.38), and “Focus on Form” (M = 3.63) are frequently, yet not systematically, put into practice across tasks. The means for the other princi-ples, that is, “Feedback” (M = 2.66) and “Individualize Instruction” (M = 1.83) indicate that these were put into practice ‘rarely’ by the teachers. The more systematic applica-tion of principles in Class A, and the relatively infrequent application by the teachers in Class B is of course something that might have been anticipated from their differ-ences in experience. The differences between ratings of different principles is also an interesting finding, which we will elaborate on further in the discussion section.

Variation in ratings of principles

In most cases, the mean ratings of the five principles were fairly consistent across tasks as well. For one, “Promote Learning by Doing” receives high scores in Class A for

Table 4. Ratings for five core principles of TBLT

Task 1 Statements

Task 2 Storyboard

Task 3 Invitation

Task 4 Memory

Overall mean

Class A Class B Class A Class B Class A Class B Class A Class B Class A Class B

1 Learning by Doing

5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.44 3.67 4.67 3.20 4.78 3.72

2 Input and Output

5.00 4.50 5.00 3.00 3.89 3.22 3.83 2.80 4.43 3.38

3 Feedback 3.00 2.50 4.50 2.00 3.89 2.56 3.83 3.60 3.81 2.664 Focus on

Form2.50 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.78 4.33 4.20 3.20 3.87 3.63

5 Individualize Instruction

4.50 1.50 5.00 2.00 2.11 2.00 4.00 1.80 3.90 1.83

Task mean 4.00 3.10 4.70 3.00 3.82 3.16 4.11 2.92 4.16 3.04



every task. Conversely, the low means in Class B for “ Individualize Instruction ” and “Provide Negative Feedback” apply to all the tasks that were rated (except for a moder-ate score in Task 4 for “feedback” = 3.60), indicating that those principles are ‘rarely’ or ‘almost never’ put into practice.

Moreover, for most other principles, ratings are roughly consistent across tasks – whether consistently above the cut-off point of 3 (for Class A) or consistently below (for Class B). Only the scores in Class A for “Focus on Form” and “Individualize Instruction” display somewhat more variation across tasks, but this is mainly due (in both cases) to one deviant low score for one particular task. More concretely, the devi-ant low scores in Class A anoted for Task 1 on “Focus on Form” and for Task 3 on “Individualize Instruction”. This variation in ratings for certain principles might sug-gest differences in ease of use, or in their relevance, which is something we will return to below.

Illustrative examples: The Memory Task

The above ratings provide us with a general impression of the differences in the imple-mentation of the key principles by the experienced and inexperienced teams. In this section, we wanted to take a closer, more qualitative look into the teacher-learner interaction in both classes in order to shed more light on the general tendencies and contrasts observed in Table 4.

We will look into the teacher teams’ practices in Task 4 (the Memory Task). We selected this task because its scores roughly follow the trends described above. The experienced teacher team’s classroom practices are largely consistent with TBLT prin-ciples in Class A, whereas this is far less the case for the more inexperienced teacher team of Class B.

The following excerpts present three minutes of interaction from both classes dur-ing the main task phase of the Memory Task. The reader may recall that this task involves creating memory cards that depict objects that are different in Belgium com-pared to the students’ native country. Here, the learners are deciding on the content of their cards and the teachers are walking around to support the learners.

Throughout these extracts, we will look at how the different teachers implement the five key features of TBLT that are the focus of this study, namely “Promote Learning by Doing” (MP2), “Provide rich and substantial Input and Opportunities for Output” (MP4), “Focus on Form” (MP6), “Provide Negative Feedback” (MP7) and “Individual-ize Instruction” (MP10).

Illustrative examples from the Memory Task in Class A

First, we will look at two examples from the Memory Task, featuring teacher A1 and two learner pairs, in order to get a sense of how far the five principles figure in this



experienced teacher’s practice. In Case 1, teacher A1 interacts with Grace1 and Lasya, and in Case 2 with Arif and Marie.

Case 1. Teacher-learner interaction during the main phase in Class A

Speaker English translation Transcript

T(A1): okay, so if you marry (0.7) in tibet, people wear a different dress (.)

okee dus als je trouwt (0.7) in tibet dan dragen mensen een andere jurk (.)

Lasya: yes (.) ja (.)T(A1): I should be able to recognize (.) lasya (.)

that this bridal dress comes from tibet (.)ik moet kunnen zien (.) lasya (.) dat dit een trouwjurk is uit tibet (.)

Lasya: Tibet (.) Tibet (.)T(A1): so here you put uhm (.) dus je moet hier euh (.)

dress or bridal dress [and then tibet (.) jurk of trouwjurk [en dan tibet (.)Grace: [or or (.) (points) [of of (.) (wijst)T(A1): [or on the back (.) [of op de achterkant (.)Grace: [or here (.) [of hier (.)T(A1): yes (.) good Grace (.) ja (.) goed Grace (.)

a very good idea (.) een heel goed idee (.)Lasya: okay (.) oke (.)T(A1): if people get married in Ghana (.) als mensen trouwen in Ghana (.)G yes (.) ja (.)T(A1): what should you wear ↑ wat moet je dan dragen ↑G uhm uhm (trousers) uhm (.) euh euh (broek) euh (.)T(A1): all in white? alles in wit?Grace: no (.) nee (.)T(A1): no (.) ah (.) okay (.) so what do you wear ↑ nee (.) ah (.) okee (.) wat draag je dan ↑Grace: uhm (.) uhm (.) euh (.) euh (.)Grace: (in English) with different colors (.) with different colors (.)T(A1): in Dutch (.) you know (.) you can do so

just fine (.)in het nederlands (.) jij weet (.) jij kan dat wel (.)

Grace: uhm (.) euh (.)T(A1): with many ↑ met veel ↑Grace: many (continues in English) colors (.) veel colours (.)T(A1): co kleuGrace: colors (.) kleuren(.)

. To protect participants’ privacy, all names have been replaced by pseudonyms.




T(A1): colors yes (.) with many colors (.)

kleuren ja (.) met veel kleuren (.)

T(A1): which colors do you like? welke kleuren vind jij mooi?Grace: hmmm (.) hmm (.)T(A1): if you can choose for your bridal dress

which color would you choose?als jij mag kiezen voor jouw trouwjurk welke kleur moet ie hebben?

T(A1): green↑ (.) or yellow↑ groen↑ (.) of geel↑Grace: no (.) nee (.)T(A1): or pink↑ (.) like this↑ (points) of roze↑ (.) zoals dit hier↑ (wijst)Grace: hmmm (.) hmmm (.)T(A1): or orange ↑ of oranje↑Grace: white (.) wit.T(A1): white yes↑ wit ja↑

and which other color↑ en welke kleur nog↑Grace: white and (.) yellow (.) wit en (.) geel (.)T(A1): yes (.) ja (.)

hmmm (.) hmm (.)

Learners Grace and Lasya in the excerpt above are L2 learners with high-beginner language skills. We see that the teacher is ‘focused on meaning’ and, more in par-ticular, on helping the learners to accomplish the task (MP2): the teacher focuses on the learners’ progress and she insists that they work towards a high-quality outcome by emphasizing that the picture they are drawing should be recognizable as a dress. Just prior to this, the teacher had interpreted their drawing as a t-shirt. By asking the students to express the differences between Belgian bridal dresses and those from Ghana and Tibet in more detail, she helps the learners to achieve the task outcome and at the same time provides the learners with the opportunity to produce spoken output related to bridal dresses (MP4). Moreover, she provides some core vocabu-lary to help the learners to express their ideas on the differences between clothing in Belgium and their native countries. For instance, she offers the word “jurk” (dress) and the Dutch names for the different colors “roze” (pink), “oranje” (orange), “wit” (white) (MP4). When Grace uses an English term instead of a Dutch one the teacher asks to use Dutch instead and is confident that Grace will find the Dutch terminol-ogy (MP6). Later, teacher A1 reacts on the use of the English word “colors” with a prompt: she uses part of the Dutch word “kleu-”, which is then completed by Grace as “kleuren” (MP7). Finally, we can interpret the differential support the teacher

Case 1. (Continued)



gives to Grace and Lasya as an example of individualized instruction (MP10). While the teacher appears to be satisfied with Lasya remaining focused on the task, she aims to push Grace a bit further: she puts emphasis on eliciting production as well as focusing on the task.

Case 2: Teacher-learner interaction during main phase in Class A

In Case 2, we see teacher A1 in interaction with Arif and Marie, a different learner pair. Again, we will discuss the key features of “Promoting Learning by Doing” (MP2), “Providing Input and Opportunities for Output” (MP4), “Focusing on Form” (MP6) and “Providing Negative Feedback (MP7). We will pay specific attention to the teach-ers’ approach towards “Individualizing Instruction” (MP10) by comparing the interac-tion in Case 2 with the interaction in Case 1.


Arif: we have no ideas (.) we hebben geen ideeën (.)T(A1): you have run out of ideas (.) jij hebt geen ideeën meer (.)Marie: no (.) nee (.)T(A1): so except for for houses and transport

everything is the same↑dus voor voor de rest buiten de huizen en het transport is alles hetzelfde↑

Marie: but but the bus but but (.) the bus not uhm not street after street (.)

ma ma de bus ma ma (.) de bus niet euh niet straat per straat (.)

Marie: no (.) nee (.)Arif: is ordinary (.) is gewoon (.)Marie: street the bus (.) straat de bus (.)T(A1): yes ↑ ja ↑Marie: this street in uhm dees straat in euhArif: here you can say where you wanna (.) hier jij zeg gewoon waar jij wil (.)Marie: no [ in africa no (.) the bus is for (0.8) nee [in afrika nee (.) de bus is voor (0.8)Arif: [and it transports (.) [en die brengt (.)Marie: (in French) voyage (.) voyage (.)T(A1): to go on a journey (.) om op reis te gaan (.)Marie: yes (.) ja (.)Marie: not uhm street this (.) niet euh straat deze (.)T(A1): it is not in the cities (.) not in the cities

only (.) a bus is for real long travelsis niet in de stad (.) niet alleen maar in de stad (.) een bus is echt voor verre reizen

Marie: yes (.) ja (.)T(A1): to to cover long distances (.) om om een lange afstand (.) af te leggen




Arif: yes more is motor (.) ja meer is motor (.)Marie: yes motor (.) ja motor (.)Arif: if you want (.) als jij wilt (.)T(A1): or by motorcycle (.) of met de motto (.)Marie: yes (.) ja (.)Arif: yes (.) ja (.)T(A1): okay maybe you need to add the

country (.)oké misschien moet je er het land bijzetten (.)

T(A1): because if I search for photos on internet I need to know (.) for which country I need to search these photos for (.) hmm↑

want als ik foto’s zoek op internet moet ik weten (.) uit welk land ik die foto’s moet zoeken (.) hmm↑

Arif: okay okay africa (.) oké oké afrika (.)T(A1): with a k not with a c (.) (points to the

word “Africa”)met een k niet met een c (.) (wijst op het woord “Africa”)

T(A1): yes in dutch (.) ja in het nederlands (.)

The second learner pair consists of Marie and Arif, the latter being the most pro-ficient student in the class. Again, the teacher A1 primarily focuses on completing the task and starts negotiating on the contrast the students want to incorporate in their game (MP2). She offers input on the words that the learners fail to find, like “reis” (journey) and “lange afstand” (long distance) (MP4). In her interaction with these pupils, teacher A1 challenges the learners to produce output by asking very open questions (“so except for houses and transport everything is the same?”) and indeed, the learners respond by elaborating on their ideas (MP4). She also shifts attention to form when explaining the spelling of the word ‘Afrika’ in Dutch to the most proficient student (MP6). Teacher A1 also provides the learners with negative feedback by means of recasts (MP7): she rephrases their sentence “we hebben geen ideeën” (we have no ideas) by adding “meer” (more), which is more accurate, as the students have already produced some ideas. Furthermore, she rephrases the learners “ja moto” (yes motor) as “of met de motto” (or by motorcycle). By doing so, she adds the correct preposition and eliminates possible misunderstandings by rephrasing the erroneous use of “motor” (engine) in this context, as a “motto” (informal Dutch for motorcycle) (MP7).

The latter recast can also be interpreted as evidence of individualizing instruc-tion (MP10). Arif receives negative feedback in the form of an implicit recast (not “motor” but “motto”) to elicit more accurate word use and is invited to briefly shift

Case 2. (Continued)



attention to the correct spelling of “Africa”. In contrast, teacher A1 primarily wants to provide Marie (who is less proficient) with the words she does not know, such as “journey”.

The comparison between teacher interaction in Case 1 and Case 2 highlights that teacher A interacts differently with different learners and interacts more in line with the learners’ possibilities and linguistic needs (MP10). For Grace and Lasya, who both easily switch to English when they are presenting ideas to each other, teacher A1 focuses on providing input and having them express their ideas, pref-erably in Dutch. Thus, she encourages Grace to answer in Dutch. She elicits the word “kleur” (color) and gradually moves from open to less open questions on Grace’s favorite color for a bridal dress. When the learner seems unable to answer the first question, she starts with asking “which color” and switching to “green?”, “white?”, etc. For Arif and Marie, teacher A1 also provides task-essential vocabu-lary and encourages them to express their ideas. However, in their case, the fact that they answer her first open question (“so (…) everything is the same?”), allows her to expand on these answers. In addition, only in the case of the most proficient learner, Arif, accuracy becomes an aim: Arif receives negative feedback in the form of an implicit recast (not “motor” but “motto”) and is informed about spelling con-ventions in Dutch (the sound “k” is often written with a “k” and not with a “c” as in English).

Taken together, Case 1 and Case 2 illustrate the ways in which teacher A1 puts all five core principles in practice in just over three minutes. Importantly, she also distinguishes between learners of different language proficiency: for the less profi-cient learners, teacher A1 emphasizes learning by doing, rich input and (close-ended) opportunities for output; for the more proficient learners, she adds to those two prin-ciples a focus on form and negative feedback.

Illustrative examples from the Memory Task in Class B

Cases 3 and 4 provide us with insights into the activation of the five principles of “Promoting Learning by Doing” (MP2), “Providing rich and substantial Input and Opportunities for Output” (MP4), “Focusing on Form” (MP6), “Providing Negative Feedback” (MP7) and “Individualizing Instruction” (MP10) by a lesser experienced teacher. As before, the cases illustrate three minutes of interaction that occurred in the Memory task, this time between teacher B1 and four learners. The more proficient learners Mirwais and Babur feature throughout both excerpts, as these learners com-pete for the teacher’s attention when, in Case 4, the teacher is helping learners Sardar and Victor formulate their ideas.



Case 3: Teacher-learner interaction during main phase in Class B


T(B1): what is available in belgium that does not exist in afghanistan↑ (.)

wat is er nog in belgië dat er in afghanistan niet is↑ (.)

Mirwais: zoo (.) zoo (.)Babur: central station (.) centraal station (.)Mirwais: the zoo (.) de zoo (.)T(B1): yes (.) ja (.)Mirwais: big museum central station train (xx) grote museum centraal station trein (xx)T(B1): there are trains though eh↑ (.) treinen wel eh ↑ (.)Mirwais: a little bit a little bit (.) een beetje een beetje (.)Mirwais: euh not (.) that is (.) what do you call

it in dutch (.) (in English) this uhm church (.)

euh niet (.) dat is (.) wat is het in nederlands (.) this uhm church (.)

Babur: (in Dutch) church (.) kerk (.)T(B1): church you see (.) kerk voila (.)Mirwais: no church (.) geen kerk (.)T(B1): no church in afghanistan eh↑ (.) geen kerk in afghanistan eh↑ (.)Mirwais: and no uhm (English + Dutch) kink (.) en geen euhm (English + Dutch) kink (.)Babur: no girls like (…) like girls (…) with

trousers (.)geen meisjes zo (…) zo meisjes (…) met broek (.)

Mirwais: that is ordinary not special (.) dat is normaal niet speciaal (.)Mirwais: but that uhm afghanistan have no

(English + Dutch) kink only ha(s) (.)maar dat eh afghanistan heb geen (English + Dutch) kink (.) alleen heef (.)

Babur: no king but president (.) geen konink but president (.)T(B1): ah yes yes yes yes yes king (.) no king

yes (.) sure ↑ (.)ah ja ja ja ja ja koning (.) geen koning ja (.) ja zeker ↑ (.)

Babur: sure (.) zeker (.)T(B1): those are all good ideas (.) maybe you

should write these ideas down in a word document for now (.)

dat zijn allemaal goeie ideeën (.) misschien moet je die ideeën al eventjes (.) opschrijven in een word document (.)

Babur: write down in word (.) schrijven in word (.)T(B1): lest you forget about them (.) and put

your chair on its four legs (.)dat je ze niet vergeet (.) en zet je op vier poten (.)

Mirwais: but this is very g (.) not forget (xx) but (.) not forget of (xx) but (English) memory is very good (.)

maar dit is dit is heel g (.) niet vergeten van xxx maar (.) (English) memory is heel goed (.)

T(B1): right right but uhm try not to use the internet use word (.)

ja ja maar euh probeer toch maar niet op internet op word (.)



Mirwais and Babur in the excerpt above are both talkative intermediate beginner learn-ers (even low intermediate). The teacher focuses on meaning and on completing the task (MP2). She insists that they write down their ideas so that they can present them to the whole class and look for suitable illustrations later on. She expresses her agree-ment with some of their ideas (“these are good ideas”) and her disbelief with others (“there are trains though”). The input teacher B1 provides is primarily non-linguistic with a focus on task instructions, which, however, does not assist the learners in their formulation of contrasts. On the other hand, teacher B1 does provide the learners with opportunities to produce spoken output (MP4) by asking open questions on things that are available in Belgium but not in Afghanistan. The teacher confirms Babur’s contribution when he provides Mirwais with the Dutch words he needs to express the contrasts he can only express in English (“koning” (king) and “church” (kerk)). None-theless, she does not provide linguistic feedback herself, perhaps because the learners help each other out. Towards the end of the excerpt, however, she does not seize the opportunity to provide the Dutch word for ‘memory’ either. In this excerpt then, we find that focus on doing real-world tasks and the meaning in them and opportunities to produce output are implemented, but the other key principles cannot be observed. We even find a few occasions on which the teacher did not take the opportunity to “Provide Negative Feedback” (MP7).

Case 4: Teacher-learner interaction during main phase in Class B, Task 4

In Case 4, we see teacher B1 interacting with learners Sardar and Victor who are engaged in generating ideas for contrasts. Again, we will discuss the key features and pay specific attention to the teacher’s approach towards individualizing instruction (MP10), by comparing the interaction in Case 4 with the interaction in Case 3.


T(B1): (to Sardar and Victor) but do you already have an idea for (0.5) what is different uhm in belgium than in ecuador↑ (.)

(tegen Sardar en Victor) maar heb je al ideeën voor (0.5) wat is er anders euhm in belgië dan in ecuador↑ (.)

what don’t they have in ecuador that they do have here ↑ (.)

wat hebben ze in ecuador niet en hier wel↑ (.)

Mirwais: (in English) what will be the name of paragraph? (.)

what will be the name of paragraph? (.)

T(B1): memory (.) memory (.)Mirwais: memory (.) memory (.)Victor: uhm me(.)mo(.)ry (.) euh me(.)mo(.)ry (.)T(B1): memory (.) memory (.)Sardar: miss look here (.) juf kijk eens (.)




T(B1): (2.0) (reads what Sardar and Victor have written) cycling↑ yes well done. (.)

(2.0) (leest wat Sardar en Victor hebben geschreven) fietsen↑ ja voila. (.)

so you open a a word document (.) here (.) and you write down as many ideas as possible on (.)

dus je opent een een word document (.) hier (.) en je schrijft zoveel mogelijk ideeën op (.) over (.)

(6.2) (writes on the computer) (.) (6.2) (writes on the computer) (.)so for example uhm you draw you draw a column (8.6) and you compare (1.6) ecuador (2.5) belgië (1.3) so you say in belgium there are a lot of cyclists (.)

dus bijvoorbeeld euh je maakt je maakt een kolom (8.6) en je vergelijkt (1.6) ecuador (2.5) belgië (1.3) dus jij zegt in belgië zijn er veel fietsers (.)

Victor: yes ecuador (.) ja ecuador (.)T(B1): this is not the case for ecuador (.) in ecuador niet (.)

only a few (0.8) a few (2.3) cyclists (.) een beetje maar (0.8) een beetje (2.3) fietsers (.)

then think of what other things are different↑ (.) between ecuador and belgium (1.1) ja↑ (.)

denk dan eens na wat is er nog anders↑ (.) tussen ecuador en belgië (1.1) ja↑ (.)

Victor: yes all prehended (.) ja al grepen (.)Babur but miss we do not have macdonalds in

afghanistan (.)maar mevrouw wij heb geen macdonalds in afghanistan (.)

T(B1): no↑ (.) nee↑ (.)Mirwais: no (.) nee (.)T(B1): ah well (0.3) then that’s another one you

can add (.)ah voila (0.3) dat kan je d’er ook al inzetten dan (.)

Mirwais: miss we haven’t got any quick burger king burger (.)

mevrouw wij heb geen quick burger king burger (.)

T(B1): nothing↑ no quick no king burger no (.) niets↑ geen quick geen king burger geen (.)Babur: no albert heijn (.) geen albert heijn (.)T(B1): no fast food restaurant (.) geen fast food restaurant(.)Mirwais: no kfc (.) geen kfc (.)T(B1): no pizza hut (.) geen pizza hut (.)Mirwais: no pizza but peoplest (in english) prepare

pizza (.)geen pizza maar menstens prepare pizza (.)

T(B1): yes yes (.) ja ja (.)

In the excerpt above, Victor and Sardar are both shy learners at low beginner level. The teacher focuses on the learners’ completion of the task (MP2): she helps them to format a word document while they are trying to write down their ideas and expresses agreement with their ideas (“well done”). The teacher focuses her input on the use of the text processing program and on rephrasing the instruction, but provides little

Case 4. (Continued)



linguistic input that the learners can use while performing the task, with the exception of the word for “cyclists” (MP4). She asks a few open questions regarding things that are available in Belgium but not in Ecuador/Afghanistan. These questions apparently do not push Victor and Sardar to produce a lot of output, even though this had pre-viously led the more proficient students to formulate ideas. For these less proficient learners, the teacher could have better provided input rather than promoting output, as she did with the first learner pair. However, we do not find interaction moves in which the teacher individualizes instruction by taking the learners’ proficiency levels into account. Furthermore, linguistic feedback in the form of recasts is absent, as well as instances of “Focus on Form”.

In sum, we see clear differences in the frequency with which all key features are implemented throughout the above a cases of teacher-learner interaction in Class A and Class B. In a short time span, we find multiple instances of all key features in Class A. Conversely, in Class B, we only find evidence for the key features “Learning by Doing”, and, to a smaller extent, for “Provide Input and Opportunities for Output”.

Discussion

With this study we aimed to investigate the extent to which the classroom practices of teachers with different degrees of experience in TBLT complied with five core prin-ciples of task-based language teaching.

First of all, regarding our first research question, the results overall demonstrate that the classroom practice of both teacher teams was characterized by the frequent implementation of a number of principles of task-based language teaching. Three core principles in particular, namely “Promote Learning by Doing”, “Provide Input and Opportunities for Output” and “Focus on Form” were implemented systematically by the two teacher teams and across all tasks.

The fact that these three principles could be observed in the practice of both expe-rienced and inexperienced teachers may have been partly enhanced by the interven-tion in which the teachers operated, with the syllabus to assist them. The focus on meaning on the one hand, and the exposure to input/providing opportunities for out-put on the other hand were two inherent features of all the tasks in the syllabus the teachers worked with. So, with regard to these principles, the teachers received a lot of support and inspiration. Classroom observation shows that none of the teachers modified the tasks in the syllabus so much as to go against these central features of TBLT. Moreover, both features (“Promote Learning by Doing” and “Provide learn-ers with Rich Input and Opportunities to Produce Output”) are also pivotal in other pedagogical approaches, such as communicative language teaching, which might have further facilitated their implementation.



The frequent implementation of the core principle “Focus on Form” is not likely due to transfer from other approaches, as it is unique to TBLT. Other facilitative fac-tors for teachers without TBLT experience may be some familiarity with (part of) their role in focus on form, which requires them to briefly pay attention to language, and draw learners’ attention to form. The question remains then, why the value attributed to attention to form did not translate in “pre-teaching grammar points or vocabulary items” (Long, 2014, p. 318), that is, in focus on formS. Possibly, it was again the syllabus that offered sufficient ideas to go by, by pointing out task-essential structures which might be problematic for learners, and by providing the teachers with the opportu-nity to reflect on these structures in post-task phases. Apart from those moments, we witnessed reactive focus on form when learners were asking for metalinguistic expla-nation. In all, we found that inexperienced teachers as well as experienced teachers implement “Promote Learning by Doing”, “Provide Input and Opportunities for Out-put” and “Focus on Form” in their practice, if they are provided with tasks to support their implementation.

Considering our second research question regarding the effect of experience, the more experienced teacher team received higher scores. What is more, these overall high(er) scores were observable for all principles and across tasks.

Conversely, some of the key principles appeared more problematic for the teacher team that was inexperienced in TBLT. More specifically, “Individualize Instruction” was rarely to never a part of the classroom practices of the inexperienced team, while “Provide Negative Feedback” (MP7) was almost absent. That less experienced teach-ers create weak versions of TBLT has been documented before in studies that describe how teachers struggle with an innovative approach such as TBLT, even when they are given a task-based syllabus to start from (Carless, 2007; Van den Branden, 2006). However, the fact that those two particular principles emerge as especially challeng-ing is new and possibly surprising, given that they are not exclusive to TBLT. Reasons could be found in the nature of the principles, or in their specific combination. In the first place, for teachers who are new to TBLT practice, corrective feedback might be difficult to reconcile with the prime focus on meaning. Inexperienced teachers might be primarily focused on establishing and maintaining communication; possibly they are reluctant to correct learners as not to upset the balance. Secondly, to provide indi-vidualized instruction may be particularly difficult, because it demands, among others, adequate assessment and monitor skills to gain quick as well as in-depth knowledge of students’ abilities and progress. In addition, individualized instruction requires a good command of TBLT principles, in order to use them flexibly, for instance, by focusing on form for one learner, but using implicit recasts for other. Furthermore, the syl-labus provides relatively little support to teachers regarding the principles of negative feedback and individualizing of instruction as these principles essentially require that teachers interactionally respond to learners’ needs, which cannot be anticipated. In



all, the principles not implemented may be delicate and challenging for teachers, for which no support was available in the syllabus.

The experienced and inexperienced teacher team also differed with regard to the extent to which their classroom practices were consistent across different activities. While the scores for the inexperienced team were low for all tasks, or moderately high for all tasks, the scores for the more experienced team showed greater varia-tion. The ratings for Class A can be summarized as follows: high scores throughout for “Promote Learning by Doing”, moderate or high scores throughout for “Provide Rich Input and Opportunities for Output”, moderate scores throughout for “Provide Negative Feedback”; and high scores on all tasks except one for “Focus on Form” and “Individualize Instruction”. Through the highly experienced teacher in Class A (who had even provided in-service training on TBLT), team A had expert knowledge of the major principles underpinning TBLT. Still, team A implemented the five core prin-ciples in three out of four tasks in this study, but did not put one of these principles into practice in a fourth task. “Focus on Form” was conspicuously absent from this teacher’s practice for Task 1, while “Individualize Instruction” was not implemented for Task 3. Evidently, it is hard to determine whether the teachers found it inap-propriate, undoable, or simply unnecessary to put the above-mentioned principles into practice during the performance of these specific tasks. The tasks themselves, however, provide some clues as to why team A did not implement a specific core principle. Task 1, for instance, was the first task of the whole project which may have rendered this task less favorable for a focus-on-form. For Task 3, task-specific indi-vidualized instruction may have been less feasible, because the teacher who took the lead for this activity was too busy wrapping up the previous task. From this observa-tion we might conclude that not all tasks (in context) are suited for implementation of key features. Moreover, more experienced teachers are less likely to mechanically apply principles across tasks and more sensitive to task-specific appropriateness of a principle. In contrast, less experienced, especially novice, teachers are more likely to stick to the principles they have grasped and apply them doggedly, even if they do not fit in with the task.

Interestingly, our results resemble the findings of Andon & Eckerth (2009) that were mentioned earlier, which showed that experienced teachers are “eclectic” in their implementation of task-based principles. There are indications in this study that teachers who have broad experience in working with tasks may have come to deduce a personal set of key principles. Some of these they consider to be crucial “must-haves” when working with tasks (in this case, for example, “Promote Learning by Doing”), while they assign a more optional status to other principles (for example “Focus on Form”). From this study alone, it is difficult to conclude whether teachers consider some principles of TBLT as being more ‘peripheral’ and others as belonging to the



‘core’ of TBLT, or whether, alternatively, some principles might be more ‘difficult’ to implement, or more sensitive to the task or to broader contextual issues.

Conclusion and suggestions for further research

This study provides further evidence that even when different teachers are working with the same task-on-paper, they create different tasks-in-process. When teachers are supported by task-based syllabi, however, both experienced and less experienced teachers are able to put key principles of TBLT in practice.

With respect to the impact of differential experience, this study provides clear indications that teacher experience may influence the implementation of tasks in authentic classroom practice: more experienced teachers appear to be more consistent in systematically putting key principles of TBLT into practice. Even though the study has shown that less experienced teachers are able to incorporate core characteristics of TBLT into their classroom practice, they did not do so for all the core principles we identified. Some of these principles, like “Provide Negative Feedback” and “Indi-vidualize Instruction” appeared to be more difficult to implement for inexperienced teachers. We need further research to establish whether the particular principles that proved problematic in this study are so for other teachers who start to work with tasks. Ultimately, more of this kind of research may inform teacher training programs, even-tually leading to a sequencing of easy and problematic principles in an implementation program for TBLT. For now, such conclusions are too premature.

Finally, while the inexperienced teachers were roughly consistent regarding the principles they did put into practice, experienced teachers were found not to imple-ment some of the principles systematically. Thus, even experienced teachers can and will (and perhaps even must) deviate from task-based principles, and may have very good reasons for doing so. In our study, the two principles deviated from by the expe-rienced teacher were focus on form and individualizing instruction. Each was devi-ated from on one occasion. It is possible that these principles are more sensitive to task-conditions or may be more difficult to implement across the board.

Clearly, this study is limited in scope: only four tasks carried out in two classes were investigated. We need more studies covering a broader range of teachers, tasks and contexts to determine with more confidence how all the above-mentioned factors interact. In this study, our scores may have been polarized and inflated because only two classes were involved.

Nevertheless, small-scale studies into a restricted number of classrooms like this study can further our insights into the complexity of implementing tasks in the prac-tice of authentic classrooms.



References

Andon, N., & Eckerth, J. (2009). Chacun à son gout? Task-based L2 pedagogy from the teacher’s point of view. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 286–310.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00240.xBerben, M., Van den Branden, & Van Gorp, K. (2007). We’ll see what happens: tasks on paper and

tasks in a multilingual classroom. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, & M. Verhelst (Eds.) Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective (pp. 32–67). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.

Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524520.014Calvert, M., & Sheen, Y. (2014). Task-based language learning and teaching: An action-research

study. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 226–244 https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814547037Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from

Hong Kong. System, 35(4), 595–608.Carless, D. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT versus PPP Debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal

of English Language Teaching, 19, 49–66.Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an

activity theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–193). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Council of Europe (2011). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learn-ing, teaching, assessment. Council of Europe. <http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf>

Doughty, C. J., Varela, E. et al. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C. J., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

East, M. (2014a). Encouraging innovation in a modern foreign language initial teacher education programme: What do beginning teachers make of task-based language teaching? The Language Learning Journal, 42(3), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.856455

East, M. (2014b). Mediating pedagogical innovation via reflective practice: A comparison of pre-service and in-service teachers’ experiences. Reflective Practice, 15(5), 686–699.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2014.944128Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.12.006Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2013). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition

research. London: Routledge.Erlam, R. (2015). “I’m still not sure what a task is”: Teachers designing language tasks. Language

Teaching Research, 20(3), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814566087

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00240.x

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524520.014

http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814547037

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf

http://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.856455

http://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2014.944128

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.12.006

http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814566087



Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthe-sizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.08kecLegutke, M., & Thomas, H. (2014). Process and experience in the language classroom. London;

Routledge.Long, M. (2014). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester: John

Wiley & Sons.Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of language teaching. Chichester: Wiley-

Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA:A meta-analysis and research synthesis.

In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 107–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264333

Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. H. Long & C. J.Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch30Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524506Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2007). Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmil-

lan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230596429Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268–286. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500003585Skehan, P. (Ed.). (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5Skehan, P., Willis, J., & Willis, D. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based

instruction. Readings in Methodology, 13.Stoll, L., Hulshof, M., Nusche, D., & Shewbridge, C. (2011). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment

in education: School evaluation in the Flemish Community of Belgium 2011. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from <http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/oecd- reviews-of-evaluation-and-assessment-in-education-belgium-flemish-community-2011_ 9789264116726-en#page21>

Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667282

Van den Branden, K. (2009a). Diffusion and implementation of innovations. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 659–672). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch35

Van den Branden, K. (2009b). Mediating between predetermined order and chaos: The role of the teacher in task-based language education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 264–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00241.x

Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. M. (Eds.). (2009). Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.08kec

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783

http://doi.org/10.2307/40264333

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch30

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524506

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230596429

http://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500003585

https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5

http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/oecd-reviews-of-evaluation-and-assessment-in-education-belgium-flemish-community-2011_9789264116726-en#page21



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667282

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch35

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00241.x



Appendix A: Overview of the selected tasks

Week 1

Monday Tuesday (A + B) Wednesday Thursday Friday

Statements on Belgium (speaking, listening)

Browsing through a website for adult newcomers (reading)

Storyboard: A newcomers’ day in Belgium (writing, speaking)

(outside) Following instructions in Antwerp (reading, interaction)

(autonomous) Converting the storyboard to real photo’s (writing)

Getting introduced: find someone who … (speaking, listening)

Making a Quiz on Belgium (writing)

A game for discovering Antwerp (reading, sharing information)

(outside) Photographing contrasts in typical Antwerp (interaction)

Invitation to the Party (writing, speaking)

A Flood of Ideas: written brainstorm on Antwerp (writing)

Week 2

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Showing off: the Story-Board (Post-task) (speaking)

Contrasts in Memory (speaking, writing)

Preparing an interview with the locals (speaking)

Preparing an interview with the locals (speaking)

Wrapping up (speaking)

What haven’t we covered? (brainstorm)

What to put on the website (speaking about and reviewing product)

(autonomous) Interviews with locals (in the zoo, local hospital, library, …) (speaking)

Promoting the website (speaking)

The finishing touch: finalizing products (writing, speaking)

Appendix B

Teacher’s manual for Task 4

Task 4: A Memory Game Type of activity The students find examples of differences between their native country and Belgium, and use these examples to create cards for a Memory Game. Product Cards for a Memory Game, containing images and captions.



Duration 90 minutes

Material When you chose to create an online Memory Game:

– internet connection – a program to create an online memory game, for example:

http://mediageletterdheid.slo.nl/lessen/slo/ik_jij/memory/

Objectives

– Students can formulate ideas on contrasts between their original country and Belgium. – Students can find information and pictures on the chosen contrasts on the internet.

Task summary

– pre-task in class introduction of memory game containing contrasts – main task in pairs discussion of ideas and of a description of the contrast – post-task in groups of 5 presentation of cards of each pair, using the cards to play the mem-

ory game

Task descriptionPre-task PhaseInvite the students to develop a Memory Game for the website: a website which incorporates games is always popular. In this task, the student will develop a Memory Game that can also introduce Belgium to newcomers (the main goal of the website). Propose a Memory game that uses contrasts between elements of their own country and Belgium as cards. Ask the class to provide some ideas for contrasts: are there things that they find odd in Belgium? Refer to some of the ideas for content that came up during previous brainstorms on the website. For example, contrasts that have to do with clothing, food, transport, etc. How would you depict contrasts on two memory cards? Discuss some concrete examples with the students, for example two memory cards involving clothing, food or transport.

Main Task phase Students work in pairs. Each student does a suggestion for a memory card and explains the differ-ences in detail.The students take the following steps:

1. Discuss content for memorycards in pairs.2. Choose two ideas. Write them down.3. Illustrate the ideas: look for photos on the internet or make a drawing of the contrast4. Describe your card. Incorporate the differences in your description.5. Now you have two cards for you memory game! Can you think of more?

Support the students to find ideas. Ask questions about things they do, see, eat, wear in Belgium and in their native country: What do you do/eat/see/wear in Belgium? Did you do/eat/see/wear the same in your country?/ Do the Belgian children do/eat/wear the same things? Could you incorporate the dif-ference in two memory cards?Support the students to put their ideas in words and write them down. Focus on intelligibility of their ideas first, but also instruct the learners in accurately writing their ideas down.Students who finish early can think about and create extra memory cards them.

http://mediageletterdheid.slo.nl/lessen/slo/ik_jij/memory/



Post-task PhaseThe students in pairs present their ideas and the memory cards they made. The other students can react to the ideas, and also incorporate similar ideas in their own cards. Ask the students which of the cards they would prefer to incorporate into the website. Why?Use some of the students’ ideas and/or utterances to focus on expressing comparisons. The following issues can be pointed out:

– x is the same/different in Belgium – use of comparative, e.g. big, bigger. Inquire whether the designing of the memory cards resulted

in more ideas for website content: Do students have new ideas? Add the ideas to the other ideas for the website.

Invite the students to play the Memory game with the cards they developed.

Appendix C

Products that were developed during Task 4

Task-based language teaching - Lirias

Documents

Transcript of Task-based language teaching - Lirias