Task-based language learning (TBLL), also known as task-based language teaching (TBLT) or task-based instruction (TBI) focuseson the use of authentic language and on asking students to do meaningful tasks using the target language. Such tasks can include visiting a doctor, conducting an interview, or calling customer service for help. Assessment is primarily based on taskoutcome (in other words the appropriate completion of real worldtasks) rather than on accuracy of prescribed language forms. This makes TBLL especially popular for developing target language fluency and student confidence. As such TBLL can be considered a branch of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).

TBLL was popularized by N. Prabhu while working in Bangalore, India.[1] Prabhu noticed that his students could learn language just as easily with a non-linguistic problem as when they were concentrating on linguistic questions. Major scholars who have done research in this area include Teresa P. Pica and Michael Long

According to Jane Willis, TBLL consists of the pre-task, the task cycle, and the language focus.[2]

The components of a Task are:

1. Goals and objectives2. Input3. Activities4. Teacher role5. learner role6. Settings

BackgroundTask-based language learning has its origins in communicative language teaching, and is a subcategory of it. Educators adoptedtask-based language learning for a variety of reasons. Some moved to task-based syllabi in an attempt to make language in the classroom truly communicative, rather than the pseudo-communication that results from classroom activities with no direct connection to real-life situations. Others, like Prabhu in the Bangalore Project, thought that tasks were a way of tapping into learners' natural mechanisms for second-language acquisition, and weren't concerned with real-life communication per se.[3]

Definition of a TaskAccording to Rod Ellis, a task has four main characteristics:[4]

1. A task involves a primary focus on (pragmatic) meaning.2. A task has some kind of ‘gap’ (Prabhu identified the three

main types as information gap, reasoning gap, and opinion gap).

3. The participants choose the linguistic resources needed to complete the task.

4. A task has a clearly defined, non-linguistic outcome.

In practiceThe core of the lesson or project is, as the name suggests, the task. Teachers and curriculum developers should bear in mind that any attention to form, i.e. grammar or vocabulary, increases the likelihood that learners may be distracted from the task itself and become preoccupied with detecting and correcting errors and/or looking up language in dictionaries andgrammar references. Although there may be several effective frameworks for creating a task-based learning lesson, here is a basic outline:

Pre-task

In the pre-task, the teacher will present what will be expected of the students in the task phase. Additionally, in the "weak" form of TBLL, the teacher may prime the students with key vocabulary or grammatical constructs, although this can mean that the activity is, in effect, more similar to the more traditional present-practice-produce (PPP) paradigm. In "strong"task-based learning lessons, learners are responsible for selecting the appropriate language for any given context themselves. The instructors may also present a model of the taskby either doing it themselves or by presenting picture, audio, or video demonstrating the task.[5]

Task

During the task phase, the students perform the task, typically in small groups, although this is dependent on the type of activity. And unless the teacher plays a particular role in the task, then the teacher's role is typically limited to one of an

observer or counsellor—thus the reason for it being a more student-centered methodology.[citation needed]

Review

If learners have created tangible linguistic products, e.g. text, montage, presentation, audio or video recording, learners can review each other's work and offer constructive feedback. Ifa task is set to extend over longer periods of time, e.g. weeks,and includes iterative cycles of constructive activity followed by review, TBLL can be seen as analogous to Project-based learning.[6]

Types of taskAccording to N. S. Prabhu, there are three main categories of task; information-gap, reasoning-gap, and opinion-gap.[7]

Information-gap activity, which involves a transfer of given information from one person to another – or from one form to another, or from one place to another – generally calling for the decoding or encoding of information from or into language. One example is pair work in which each member of the pair has a part of the total information (for example an incomplete picture) and attempts to convey it verbally to the other. Another example is completing a tabular representation with information available in a given piece of text. The activity often involves selection of relevant information as well, and learners may have to meet criteria of completeness and correctness in making the transfer.

Reasoning gap Reasoning-gap activity, which involves deriving some new information from given information through processes ofinference, deduction, practical reasoning, or a perception of relationships or patterns. One example is working out a teacher’s timetable on the basis of given class timetables. Another is deciding what course of action is best (for example cheapest or quickest) for a given purpose and within given constraints. The activity necessarily involves comprehending andconveying information, as in information-gap activity, but the information to be conveyed is not identical with that initially comprehended. There is a piece of reasoning which connects the two.

Opinion gap Opinion-gap activity, which involves identifying andarticulating a personal preference, feeling, or attitude in response to a given situation. One example is story completion; another is taking part in the discussion of a social issue. The activity may involve using factual information and formulating arguments to justify one’s opinion, but there is no objective procedure for demonstrating outcomes as right or wrong, and no reason to expect the same outcome from different individuals or on different occasions.[7]

ReceptionAccording to Jon Larsson, in considering problem based learning for language learning, i.e. task based language learning:[6]

...one of the main virtues of PBL is that it displays a significant advantage over traditional methods in how the communicative skills of the students are improved. The general ability of social interaction is also positively affected. These are, most will agree, two central factors in language learning. By building a language course around assignments that require students to act, interact andcommunicate it is hopefully possible to mimic some of the aspects of learning a language “on site”, i.e. in a country where it is actually spoken. Seeing how learning a language in such an environment is generally much more effective than teaching the language exclusively as a foreign language, this is something that would hopefully be beneficial.

Larsson goes on to say:

Another large advantage of PBL is that it encourages students to gain a deeper sense of understanding. Superficial learning is often a problem in language education, for example when students, instead of acquiring a sense of when and how to use which vocabulary, learn all the words they will need for the exam nextweek and then promptly forget them.In a PBL classroom this is combatted by always introducing the vocabulary in a real-world situation, rather than as words on a list, and by activating the student; students are not passive receivers of knowledge, but are instead required to actively acquire the knowledge. The feeling of being an integral part of their group also motivates students to learn in a way that the prospect of a final examination rarely manages to do.

Task-based learning is advantageous to the student because it ismore student-centered, allows for more meaningful communication,and often provides for practical extra-linguistic skill building. As the tasks are likely to be familiar to the students

(e.g.: visiting the doctor), students are more likely to be engaged, which may further motivate them in their language learning.[according to whom?]

According to Jeremy Harmer, tasks promote language acquisition through the types of language and interaction they require. Harmer says that although the teacher may present language in the pre-task, the students are ultimately free to use what grammar constructs and vocabulary they want. This allows them, he says, to use all the language they know and are learning, rather than just the 'target language' of the lesson.[8] On the other hand, according to Loschky and Bley-Vroman, tasks can alsobe designed to make certain target forms 'task-essential,' thus making it communicatively necessary for students to practice using them.[9] In terms of interaction, information gap tasks in particular have been shown[by whom?] to promote negotiation of meaning and output modification.[10][11]

According to Plews and Zhao, task-based language learning can suffer in practice from poorly informed implementation and adaptations that alter its fundamental nature. They say that lessons are frequently changed to be more like traditional teacher-led presentation-practice-production lessons than task-based lessons.[12]

Bibliography

Doughty, Catherine; Pica, Teresa (1986). ""Information Gap"Tasks: Do They Facilitate Second Language Acquisition?". TESOL Quarterly 20 (2): 305–325.

Ellis, Rod (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford, New York: Oxford Applied Linguistics. ISBN 0-19-442159-7.

Frost, Richard. "A Task-based Approach". British Council Teaching English. Retrieved April 12, 2006.

Harmer, Jeremy (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rded.). Essex: Pearson Education.

Larsson, Jon (2001). "Problem-Based Learning: A possible approach to language education?". Polonia Institute, Jagiellonian University. Retrieved 27 January 2013.

Leaver, Betty Lou; Willis, Jane Rosemary (2004). Task-Based Instruction In Foreign Language Education: Practices and Programs. Georgetown University Press. ISBN 978-1-58901-028-4.

Loschky, L.; Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). "Grammar and Task-Based Methodology". In Crookes, G.; Gass, S. Tasks and

Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. ISBN 978-058524356-6.

Pica, Teresa; Kang, Hyun-Sook; Sauro, Shannon (2006). "Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 301–338.

Plews, John L.; Zhao, Kangxian (2010). "Tinkering with tasks knows no bounds: ESL Teachers’ Adaptations of Task-Based Language-Teaching". TESL Canada Journal. Retrieved 26January 2013.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). "Second Language Pedagogy". Oxford University Press. Retrieved 18 January 2013.

Willis, Jane (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Longman.

Teaching approaches: task-based learning

By Tim Bowen

What is TBL?How often do we as teachers ask our students to do something in class which they would do in everyday life using their own language? Probably not often enough.

If we can make language in the classroom meaningful therefore memorable, students can process language which is being learned or recycled more naturally.

Task-based learning offers the student an opportunity to do exactly this. The primary focus of classroom activity is the task and language is the instrument which the students use to complete it. The task is an activity in which students use language to achieve a specific outcome. The activity reflects real life and learners focus on meaning, they are free to use any language they want. Playing a game, solving a problem or sharing information or experiences, can all be considered as relevant and authentic tasks. In TBL an activity in which students are given a list of words to use cannot be considered as a genuine task. Nor can a normal role play if it does not contain a problem-solving element or where students are not given a goal to reach. In many role plays students simply act out their restricted role. For instance, a role play where students have to act out roles as company directors but must come to an agreement or find the right solution within the giventime limit can be considered a genuine task in TBL.

In the task-based lessons included below our aim is to create a need to learn and use language. The tasks will generate their own language and create an opportunity for language acquisition (Krashen*). If we can take the focus away from form and structures we can develop our students’ ability to do things in English. That is not to say that there will be no attention paidto accuracy, work on language is included in each task and feedback and language focus have their places in the lesson plans. We feel that teachers have a responsibility to enrich their students’ language when they see it is necessary but students should be given the opportunity to use English in the classroom as they use their own languages in everyday life.

How can I use TBL in the classroom?Most of the task-based lessons in this section are what Scrivener** classifies as authentic and follow the task structure proposed by Willis and Willis***.

Each task will be organized in the following way:

Pre-task activity an introduction to topic and task Task cycle: Task > Planning > Report

Language Focus and Feedback

A balance should be kept between fluency, which is what the taskprovides, and accuracy, which is provided by task feedback.

A traditional model for the organization of language lessons, both in the classroom and in course-books, has long been the PPPapproach (presentation, practice, production). With this model individual language items (for example, the past continuous) arepresented by the teacher, then practised in the form of spoken and written exercises (often pattern drills), and then used by the learners in less controlled speaking or writing activities. Although the grammar point presented at the beginning of this procedure may well fit neatly into a grammatical syllabus, a frequent criticism of this approach is the apparent arbitrariness of the selected grammar point, which may or may not meet the linguistic needs of the learners, and the fact thatthe production stage is often based on a rather inauthentic emphasis on the chosen structure.

An alternative to the PPP model is the Test-Teach-Test approach (TTT), in which the production stage comes first and the learners are "thrown in at the deep end" and required to performa particular task (a role play, for example). This is followed by the teacher dealing with some of the grammatical or lexical problems that arose in the first stage and the learners then being required either to perform the initial task again or to perform a similar task. The language presented in the ‘teach’ stage can be predicted if the initial production task is carefully chosen but there is a danger of randomness in this model.

Jane Willis (1996), in her book ‘A Framework for Task-Based Learning’, outlines a third model for organizing lessons. While this is not a radical departure from TTT, it does present a model that is based on sound theoretical foundations and one which takes account of the need for authentic communication. Task-based learning (TBL) is typically based on three stages. The first of these is the pre-task stage, during which the teacher introduces and defines the topic and the learners engagein activities that either help them to recall words and phrases that will be useful during the performance of the main task or to learn new words and phrases that are essential to the task.

This stage is followed by what Willis calls the "task cycle". Here the learners perform the task (typically a reading or listening exercise or a problem-solving exercise) in pairs or small groups. They then prepare a report for the whole class on how they did the task and what conclusions they reached. Finally, they present their findings to the class in spoken or written form. The final stage is the language focus stage, during which specific language features from the task and highlighted and worked on. Feedback on the learners’ performanceat the reporting stage may also be appropriate at this point.

The main advantages of TBL are that language is used for a genuine purpose meaning that real communication should take place, and that at the stage where the learners are preparing their report for the whole class, they are forced to consider language form in general rather than concentrating on a single form (as in the PPP model). Whereas the aim of the PPP model is to lead from accuracy to fluency, the aim of TBL is to integrateall four skills and to move from fluency to accuracy plus fluency. The range of tasks available (reading texts, listening texts, problem-solving, role-plays, questionnaires, etc) offers a great deal of flexibility in this model and should lead to more motivating activities for the learners.

Learners who are used to a more traditional approach based on a grammatical syllabus may find it difficult to come to terms withthe apparent randomness of TBL, but if TBL is integrated with a systematic approach to grammar and lexis, the outcome can be a comprehensive, all-round approach that can be adapted to meet the needs of all learners.

Tasks: Getting to know your centreThe object of the following two tasks is for students to use English to:

Find out what resources are available to them and how they can use their resource room.

Meet and talk to each of the teachers in their centre.

To do these tasks you will require the PDF worksheets at the bottom of the page.

Task 1: Getting to know your resourcesLevel: Pre-intermediate and above

It is assumed in this lesson that your school has the following student resources; books (graded readers), video, magazines and Internet. Don’t worry if it doesn’t, the lesson can be adjusted accordingly.

Pre-task preparation: One of the tasks is a video exercise whichinvolves viewing a movie clip with the sound turned off. This can be any movie depending on availability, but the clip has to involve a conversation between two people.

Pre-task activity: In pairs students discuss the following questions:

Do you use English outside the classroom? How? What ways can you practise English outside the classroom?

Stage one - Running dictationPut the text from worksheet one on the wall either inside or outside the classroom. Organize your students into pairs. One student will then go to the text, read the text and then go backto her partner and relay the information to her. The partner whostays at the desk writes this information. When teams have finished check for accuracy. You can make this competitive should you wish.

Stage twoIn pairs students then read the Getting To Know Your Resources task sheet (worksheet two). Check any problem vocabulary at thisstage. This worksheet can be adapted according to the resource room at your school.

Stage threeDepending on how the resources are organized in your centre, students then go, in pairs, to the resource room or wherever the resources are kept and complete the tasks on the task sheet.

Stage fourWorking with a different partner students now compare and share their experience.

Stage five - FeedbackHaving monitored the activity and the final stage, use this opportunity to make comments on your students’ performance. This may take form of a correction slot on errors or pronunciation, providing a self-correction slot.

Task 2 - Getting to know your teachersLevel: Pre-intermediate and above

Students may need at least a week to do this activity, dependingon the availability of the teachers in your centre

Pre-task activity: In pairs students talk about an English teacher they have had.

What was her name? Where was she from? How old was she? Do you remember any of her lessons? What was your favourite activity in her class?

Stage oneUsing the Getting To Know Your Teachers task sheet (worksheet three) and the Interview Questions (worksheet four) students write the questions for the questionnaire they are going to use to interview the teachers.

Stage twoTo set up the activity students then interview you and record the information.

Stage threeDepending on which teachers are free at this time they can then go and interview other teachers and record the information. You may wish to bring other teachers into your class to be interviewed or alternatively give your students a week or so to complete the task, interviewing teachers before or after class, or whenever they come to the centre.

Stage fourWorking with a different partner students compare their answers and experiences then decide on their final answers on the superlative questions.

Stage fiveFeedback and reflection. Allow time for students to express their opinions and experiences of the activity. Provide any feedback you feel is necessary.

Further activities

The Get To Know Your Resources task sheet could be turned into a school competition entry form. Possible prizes could include a video or some readers.

Task Based learning TBL Methodology - “What is Task BasedLearning”?Task based learning is a different way to teach languages. It can help the student by placing her in a situation like in the real world. A situation where oral communication is essential for doing a specific task. Task based learning has the advantage of getting the student to use her skills at her current level. To help develop language through its use. It has the advantage of getting the focus of the student toward achieving a goal where language becomes a tool, making the use of language a neccissity. Why choose TBL as language teaching method? We haveto ask ourselves that question, because if we, as

language teachers, don’t know which method we are teaching according to or if we do not think about teaching methodology in relation to the different typesof learners, to levels, to materials and last but not least to the learning processes of the individual learner, we might as well not teach! Therefore, when we choose TBL, there should be a clear and defined purpose of that choice. Having chosen TBL as language teaching method, the teacher thereby recognizes that “teaching does not and cannot determinethe way the learner’s language will develop” and that “teachers and learners cannot simply choose what is to be learned”. “The elements of the target language do not simply slot into place in a predictable order” (Peter Skehan 19). This means that we, as teachers, have to let go of the control of the learning process, as if there ever was one! We must accept that we cannot control what each individual learner has learnt after for example two language lessons and as Peter Skehan says “instruction has no effect on language learning” (18). In TBL the learner should be exposed to as much ofthe foreign language as possible in order to merely observe the foreign language, then hypothesize over it,and that is individually, and finally experiment with it. One clear purpose of choosing TBL is to increase learner activity; TBL is concerned with learner and notteacher activity and it lies on the teacher to produce and supply different tasks which will give the learner the opportunity to experiment spontaneously, individually and originally with the foreign language. Each task will provide the learner with new personal experience with the foreign language and at this point the teacher has a very important part to play. He or she must take the responsibility of the consciousness raising process, which must follow the experimenting task activities. The consciousness raising part of the

TBL method is a crucial for the success of TBL, it is here that the teacher must help learners to recognise differences and similarities, help them to “correct, clarify and deepen” their perceptions of the foreign language. (Michael Lewis 15). All in all, TBL is language learning by doing.

“TASKS are activities where the target language is usedby the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome” As defined by Willis. That means a task can be anything from doing a puzzle to making an airline reservation.A Task-Based approach to Language• allows for a needs analysis to be matched to identified student needs• is supported by the research findings of classroom-centered language learning• allows evaluation to be based on testing referring to task-based criterion• allows for form-focussed instructionSo we should select topics that will motivate learners,engage their attention and promote their language development as efficiently as possible.

What are the advantages of TBL1. Task based learning is useful for moving the focus of the learning process from the teacher to the student.2. It gives the student a different way of understanding language as a tool instead of as a specific goal.

3. It can bring teaching from abstract knowledge to real world application.4. A Task is helpful in meeting the immediate needs of the learners and provides a framework for creating classes, interesting and able to address to the students needs.

The structural framework of TBLJust in order to see the TBL cycle, we are enclosing the following framework

Pre Task

Raise consciousnessIntroduction to subject and task.

Thorough introduction to topic by teacherUse of pictures, posters and demonstrations

Task Cycle

Working with and using the target language:Activities like pair work, group work

Exercises like information gap activitiesGradual increase in the importance of

Planning, Report, Presentation

Post Task

Selecting, identifying and classifyingcommon words and phrases.Practice of language andphrases in classroom.

Building personal dictionaries.

Let us have a brief explanation about the different phases:The pre-task phase introduces the class to the topic and the task, activating topic-related words and phrases

The task cycle offers learners the chance to use whatever language they already know in order to carry out the task, andthen to improve the language, under teacher guidance, while planning their reports of the task. In the task stage the students complete the task in pairs and the teacher listens tothe dialogues. Then the teacher helps to correct the completedtasks in oral or written form. One of the pairs performs theirdialogue in front of the class and once the task has been completed the students will hear the native speaking teachers repeat the same dialogue so they can compare it with their own. The last phase in the framework, language focus, allows acloser study of some of the specific features occurring in thelanguage used during the task cycle. The teaching techniques required for task-based learning are not very different from those of ordinary language teaching. The differences lie in the ordering and weighting ofactivities and in the fact that there is a greater amount of student activity, and less direct, up-from teaching.

Issues concerning task based learningIt is important to be aware of some pitfalls concerning the use of task based learning. Since it encourages students to use their own langauge and vocabulary, it is neccessary for the teacher to help students expand these. Otherwise students will not learn new phrases or words by them selves, but only increase skills in using the language the student already possesses. This can also be solved by having students change who they work with, so that the stronger students can work with the students who are at a lower level. Where the stronger student should be told to focus on using more advanced words and phrases. This does not help the stronger students though, for that they will need the aid of the teacher. Another very important thing to remember is that even though after the task cycle is complete, the learning process is not. The evaluation part is critical for the students to become self aware of the learning they have just gone through.Put crudely there are two parts in the learning process of task based learning of equal import. The first is to do the work and go through the tasks, the second is to get the student to think about what it is he or she has just gone

through. If you the teacher do not follow up in the post task,half of the task based learning process is wasted.

TBL activities - examplesGood advice• Use the foreign language as much as possible. • Use only mother tongue when necessary for explanation of exercises.• The pre-task is meant to help create a good atmosphere for learning without anxiety. Give words and supporting sentences for students to use.• The pre-task must supply words, phrases, ideas to support the individual student in the main task.• Remember that a pre-task can be anything from for example:

o audio text o a video clip o a brainstorm activity o a small exercise ( cloze, cross word

etc. )o photos (what do you see?)

o webpage ( what do you see?)

- Anything that will promote the foreign language and set theminds of the students into a certain context and atmosphere

.

• The main task must facilitate a process where each student can activate and use his/her own strategies.• Teacher role in the main task: monitoring the processes of the students working with the main task.• Remember the importance of the last step, the consciousnessraising activities: o Students repeat their process and their work with the main task – must be performed in class – the process willmake students realize that language is diverse and that many different structures and words give meaning and can be used for communication. o The teacher must pick up and draw attention to relevant grammatical and se mantic points in this last phase of the TBL-cycle.

Beginner’s level - English for special purposes – technical English

Tools: “What’s this device?”

Pre-task

Ask students to give names of tools. Write them on the blackboard. Add also standard sentences such as “this is a hammer”, “this is a spanner” etc.

Bring a tool box and show real tools to the student. Say or make students say “This is a hammer” and so on.

If you can, show a short instruction video, where some typicaltools are used and where the language is not too difficult. Let students add new names to the tools on the blackboard.

Prepare a memory game with selected tools (10-15). The memory game must consist of pictures and written names of tools.

Split the class into groups of 3-4 students and let two groupsplay against each other in the memory game. Do not play the game with only two students in the game. This may create a lotof fear and anxiety for the individual student who cannot remember all the tools and will do the contrary of what is intended with the pre-task – namely to create a good and safe learning environment.

Ruler Hammer

Screwdriver Saw

Pliers Tester

Jack Drill

Follow the memory game with a “What’s this device” exercise for the whole group. This exercise should be run by the teacher.Let the students see one sentence at a time. They should read and understand each sentence. Let one student read a sentence out aloud, and let others help in the translation, so that this becomes a joint exercise.When all sentences have been exposed, the students can hopefully guess the name of the device/tool.

Main TaskWhat’ this device?

1. This device is longer than it is wide2. This device can be held in your hand3. This device is made of wood and metal4. This device can have many different sizes5. This device is used to put other things in place6. You have to use energy for this device7. You have to lift your arm and make it fall to use this device8. You need this device to put something on the wall9. You use this device to hammer on things.

Try to guess the name of this device. The student should now be split into groups of two-three people. Each group must now produce their own “What’s this device” exercise. They have to choose a tool from the memory game. The teacher should leave help-sentences and phrases on the blackboard for students to use if they need to. The teacher monitors the process of the production in the different groups and helps only when it is really needed. The student exercise should be written down, so that it can be used as either an oral exercise or a reading exercise. When all groups have finished an exercise and are satisfied with the result, the groups must test the exercise with other groups.

Language consciousness activitiesWhen the groups have tried out their exercise several times with different groups, the teacher must ask for the attention in the class room again and take over the process. The teacher must now point out a group and ask the group to repeat their exercise and show each sentence on the black board. The aim is to give full attention to the languageproduction of this particular group, to look at the sentences,the choice of words and the grammatical structures. At this point the teacher can pick out good examples from the student production and can at the same time open up for specific grammatical points. Other groups can add suggestions and ask questions.

This is also the time and place for the teacher to draw attention to some things that have been monitored by the teacher during the group work. This activity should be repeated and at least two or three groups should be asked to present their exercise. In this way teaching grammar becomes alively and relevant activity for the students, because they have all delivered and taken part in the examples that are used for explaining grammatical rules.

Intermediate level – working with textsYou can easily use the method TBL for working with texts at anintermediate level. All you have to do is to be creative and to simply think of a way to turn text reading into a task for the students. Have a pair of scissors, glue, photos maybe and an open and creative mind ready.

Pre-task• audio text• a video clip• a brainstorm activity• a small exercise ( cloze, cross word etc. )• photos (what do you see?)

• webpage ( what do you see?)• matching exercise with new and difficult vocabulary from the text The most important thing in the pre-task is to focus on the preparation of the main task. To prepare the students for learning new vocabulary, new phrases, new contexts and areas of investigation. The pre-task should always make students feel ready and comfortable before working with the main task and when working with texts, it is always important to includethe main theme of the text and new vocabulary from the text inthe phase of the pre-task.

Main TaskNon fiction, example:Split the text into different sections and give the sections numbers. The sections must be divided according to the content. You must hand the text to the students with the marked sections and numbers. You must also hand out another piece of paper with a specific format, like the one below.You must read the text and fill in the format. Look at the sections in the text and write down the most important information from each section in the first column.Write down your own experience, opinion, knowledge about the information you find in the text in the second column.

The text Your own opinion/experience/knowledge

You can let the students work together or alone when they readand fill in the format. When everybody has finished with the text and the format, students should be given time to tell each other what they have chosen to write down in the format. The motivating element here is that it becomes a choice of thestudent which information to put into the format and that eachstudent will have to make a case for his/her choice when talking about the text in class.When students tell each other what they have chosen to put down in the format, they are also given a time to work with difficult words and phrases from the text. Here they can ask each other about meanings without being exposed to the attention of the whole class and they can ask the teacher about words and phrases that they did not understand fully in the reading process.The teacher can walk around in the class room and monitor the students reading and filling in the format and the teacher can

listen to the students when they talk about they own work withthe text. This phase leaves the teacher with a chance and opportunity to listen in and pick up good examples, but more importantly, to pick up problems and misunderstandings relatedto the text and the specific language.

Language consciousness activitiesYou can choose to let different students write their own result from the format on the black board. It should never be only one student alone at the black board. It must always be more than one student who delivers the examples for the consciousness raising activities. Remember that it is always motivating to see for yourself what other students have come up with – especially when you have chosen your own answers forspecific reasons and put an effort into it. You must use that feeling as motivation factor in your classes.You can also choose to do the same activity as an oral activity, where you ask students to read what they have written down in their format. You must then yourself write down some relevant examples on the black board.It is important to pick up the relevant grammatical points in this phase of the TBL cycle. This is a crucial moment for documenting the necessity of extra work with specific grammatical elements for the students at this level. And you have the full attention of the students, be cause they have delivered the examples that you work with jointly in class forlanguage consciousness raising activities

Fiction – short stories, example of:When you work with fiction and if a text has a straight forward plot, it is easy for you as a teacher to clip up the text and turn the text reading process itself into a common task between a group of students.The following example is meant to be a main task, but can be expanded with a task like the one described about, using a format for students to fill in. Obviously the following

example should not stand alone, but should be included into a full TBL-cycle, like the one described above.• Divide the text into small sections – logical in relation tothe story plot.• Take a pair of scissors and cut up the text into the sections you have chosen. It should not be more than 4-6 sections.• Mark each section with letters or numbers.• Divide the class into groups that match the number of sections.• Lay the pieces of text (the different cut up sections) on the table, text down, in front of each group and let each student in a group pick up one of the pieces. • Ask the students to read their own piece of text by themselves.• When all students in a group have read their own piece of text, they must give tell the rest of the group what the text says.• Everybody in a group must tell about his/her piece of text.• The group must now try to put the story into the right sequence.

Short story Adjectives/descriptive language

Main character

Other characters

Setting 1

Setting 2

Problems/Themes

A Task-based approach

This article presents an overview of a task-based learning approach (TBL) and highlights its advantages over the more traditional Present, Practise, Produce (PPP) approach.

In recent years a debate has developed over which approaches to structuring and planning and implementing lessons are more effective. 

Present Practise Produce The problems with PPP A Task-based approach The advantages of TBL Conclusion

Present Practise Produce (PPP)

During an initial teacher training course, most teachers become familiar with the PPP paradigm. A PPP lesson would proceed in the following manner.

First, the teacher presents an item of language in a clear contextto get across its meaning. This could be done in a variety of ways: through a text, a situation build, a dialogue etc.

Students are then asked to complete a controlled practice stage, where they may have to repeat target items through choral and individual drilling, fill gaps or match halves of sentences. All of this practice demands that the student uses the language correctly and helps them to become more comfortable with it.

Finally, they move on to the production stage, sometimes called the 'free practice' stage. Students are given a communication task such as a role play and are expected to produce the target language and use any other language that has already been learnt and is suitable for completing it.

The problems with PPP

It all sounds quite logical but teachers who use this method will soon identify problems with it:

Students can give the impression that they are comfortable with the new language as they are producing it accurately in the class. Often though a few lessons later, students will either notbe able to produce the language correctly or even won't produce it at all.

Students will often produce the language but overuse the target structure so that it sounds completely unnatural.

Students may not produce the target language during the free practice stage because they find they are able to use existing language resources to complete the task.

A Task-based approach

Task -based learning offers an alternative for language teachers. In a task-based lesson the teacher doesn't pre-determine what language will be studied, the lesson is based around the completion of a central task and the language studiedis determined by what happens as the students complete it. The lesson follows certain stages.

Pre-task:  The teacher introduces the topic and gives the students clear instructions on what they will have to do at the task stage and might help the students to recall some language that may be useful for the task. The pre-task stage can also often include playing a recording of people doing the task. This gives the students a clear model of what will be expected of them. The students can take notes and spend time preparing for the task.

Task:  The students complete a task in pairs or groups using the language resources that they have as the teacher monitors and offers encouragement.

Planning:  Students prepare a short oral or written report to tell the class what happened during their task. They then practise what they are going to say in their groups. Meanwhile the teacher is available for the students to ask for advice to clear up any language questions they may have.

Report:  Students then report back to the class orally or read the written report. The teacher chooses the order of when students will present their reports and may give the students some quick feedback on the content. At this stage the teacher mayalso play a recording of others doing the same task for the students to compare.

Analysis: The teacher then highlights relevant parts from the text of the recording for the students to analyse. They may ask students to notice interesting features within this text. The teacher can also highlight the language that the students used during the report phase for analysis.

Practice: Finally, the teacher selects language areas to practisebased upon the needs of the students and what emerged from the task and report phases. The students then do practice activities to increase their confidence and make a note of useful language.

The advantages of TBL

Task-based learning has some clear advantages

Unlike a PPP approach, the students are free of language control.In all three stages they must use all their language resources rather than just practising one pre-selected item.

A natural context is developed from the students' experiences with the language that is personalised and relevant to them. WithPPP it is necessary to create contexts in which to present the language and sometimes they can be very unnatural.

The students will have a much more varied exposure to language with TBL. They will be exposed to a whole range of lexical phrases, collocations and patterns as well as language forms.

The language explored arises from the students' needs. This need dictates what will be covered in the lesson rather than a decision made by the teacher or the coursebook.

It is a strong communicative approach where students spend a lot of time communicating. PPP lessons seem very teacher-centred by comparison. Just watch how much time the students spend communicating during a task-based lesson.

It is enjoyable and motivating.

Conclusion

PPP offers a very simplified approach to language learning. It is based upon the idea that you can present language in neat little blocks, adding from one lesson to the next. However, research shows us that we cannot predict or guarantee what the students will learn and that ultimately a wide exposure to language is the best way of ensuring that students will acquire it effectively. Restricting their experience to single pieces oftarget language is unnatural.

For more information see 'A Framework for Task-Based Learning' by Jane Wills, Longman; 'Doing Task-Based Teaching' by Dave and Jane Willis, OUP 2007.Also see www.willis-elt.co.uk

Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT)

 At any given time there are certain trends in second language education that influence both teaching and learning.   One of the latest trends inSLL approaches is task-based language teaching (TBLT), which emphasizes the use of authentic language through meaningful tasks.   In this sectionwe will explore task-based language teaching (TBLT),student and teacher roles with this method and some examples of tasks that can be used in the classroom.

What is task-based language teaching (TBLT)?Task-based learning focuses on the use of authentic language through meaningful tasks such as visiting the doctor or a telephone call.  This method encourages meaningful communicationand is student-centred.

Characteristics:

Students are encouraged to use language creatively and spontaneously through tasks and problem solving

Students focus on a relationship that is comparable to real worldactivities

The conveyance of some sort of meaning is central to this method Assessment is primarily based on task outcome TBLT is student-centered

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is the latest trend in SLL approaches.  Although it has produced very positive results in certaincontexts (eg small class sizes of immigrant children), like every method that has preceded it, TBLT is also revealing its weaknesses.  Broady (2006) notes that TBLT may not provide sufficient "Interaction Opportunities."  Bruton (2005) identifies other concerns:

There is no acquisition of new grammar or vocabulary features Everything is left to the teacher Not all students are or will be motivated by TBLT Some students need more guidance and will not or cannot `notice´

language forms (grammar) or other elements of accuracy Students typically translate and use a lot of their L1 rather

than the target language in completing the tasks.

back to top

What are the student and teacher roles in TBLT?Teacher Says

Teacher Does Students Says Student Does Why?

Presents task in the TL

Primes students withkey vocabulary and constructions

Students speak among themselvesto organize and complete task. Students presentfinal task (sometimes orally).

Students prepare either a written or oral report to present toclass.

Provides practical linguistic skill building.When tasks are familiar to students, they are more likely to be engaged and motivated.Students learn languages through problem-solving.

back to top

What are some examples of tasks that can beused in the classroom?David Nunan (2001) distinguishes between “real-world or target tasks, which are communicative acts that we achieve through language in the world outside the classroom, and pedagogical

tasks, which are carried out in the classroom. I subdivide pedagogical tasks into those with a rehearsal rationale and those with a pedagogical rationale” (Nunan, 2001). The goal of the language teacher is try to develop pedagogical tasks thatareas close to real-world tasks as possoble, thus creating activities that are meaningful and relevant to students.

Complete the activity below to explore ways to practice grammar and communication in a task-based manner. In your opinion, would these tasks be motivating for students? Why or why not?

Write the past tense form of these verbs: go, is, are, do, have,work, study, buy, pick, make, put, read.

Grammar Activity

Now think of four things you did yesterday. Write sentences in the blanks.First I got up and _____________________________________________Then, _______________________________________________________Next, _______________________________________________________Finally, ______________________________________________________

Communicative activity

Write three hobbies or activities you like / like doing.1. _______________________________________________________2. _______________________________________________________3. _______________________________________________________

Ask each person in your group what they like / like doing. Decide on a suitable gift for each person. (Exerices adpated from David Nunan, The English Centre, University of Hong Kong, December 2001)

How Far Do the Theories of Task-Based Learning Succeed in Combining Communicative and from-Focused Approaches to L2 Research Dr Huajing ZHAO Abstract: Debate about the importance of attention to linguistic form and accuracy in language learning has been a feature of language learning research and discussion for more than 20 years. Many have examined the relativemerits and efficacy of a focus on language form and accuracy as contrasted with a focus on meaning and fluency, in an attempt to determine the key to successful second language acquisition (Murphy, 2005:295). Researchers have pointed out there are cleardisadvantages to an extreme focus in either direction and the most sensible way to proceed would be covering both form and meaning, accuracy and fluency (Seedhouse,1997). Despite the broad consensus that is emerging on the beneficial effect of attention to form and the possibility of integrating this successfully into a communicative approach (Murphy, 2005), concerns remain about how best to achieve this. The purpose of this article is to investigate the role that task-based learning theories plays in combining communicative and form-focused approaches in L2 research by answering thefollowing five questions in a sequence: (1) What is

task-based learning? (2) What is the communicative approach and what is its relationship with task-based learning? (3) What is the form-focused approach and what is its relationship with task-based learning? (4) Why do we need to combine the communicative approach with the form-focused approach? (5) How do task-based learning and teaching succeed in combining communicative and form-focused approaches? Finally, in the conclusion section of the article, certain issues that might warrant our attention concerning thistopic are put forward according to the prior clarification. Key Words:Task-based learning, Communicative language teaching, Form-focused language teaching

INTRODUCTION An enormous growth of interest in task-based language learning and teaching has been seen in recent years (e.g., Ellis, 2000, 2003; Skehan; 2003b and Littlewood,2004). The reasons for such a phenomenon may be complexand one of the reasons, according to Willis (1996, in Swan, 2005:378), may be that it offers the possibility of combining ‘the best insights from communicative language teaching with an organized focus on language form’ and thus avoiding the drawbacks of more narrowly form-centred or communication-centred approaches.

A number of researchers have highlighted the importanceof prompting learners to ‘notice’ or attend to languageforms, or to promote each other to do so (e.g., Doughtyand Varela, 1998; Murphy, 2005) whether within or outside the formal teaching environment. Foster and Skehan (1999:216) notethat form-orientated approaches have largely been replaced by an emphasis on meaningful tasks seeking to balance attention to both accuracy and fluency.

However, they also point out that ‘learners have limited attention capacities an d that different aspects of comprehension and language production, i.e.accuracy, complexity and fluency, compete for these capacities’. Van Patten (1990; 1996, in Ellis, 2001:8) suggests that learners have difficulties in attending to form and meaning at the same time and often prioritize one at the expense of the other. According to Lightbown and Spada (1993:105), ‘classroom data from a number of studies offer support for the view that form-focused instruction and corrective feedback provided within thecontext of a communicative program are more effective in promoting second language learning than programs which are limited to an exclusive emphasis on accuracy on the one hand or an exclusive emphasis onfluency on the other.’

TASK-BASED LEARNING 1.1 What is a task? Tasks hold a central place both in current second language acquisition research and in language pedagogy (Ellis, 2003). This is evident in the large number of recent publications relating to task-based learning andteaching (e.g., Willis 1996; Skehan 1998; Ellis, 2003).Then, what exactly is a ‘task’? It should be acknowledged from the start that in neither research nor language pedagogy is there complete agreement as towhat constitutes a task, which makes the definition problematic. Ellis (2003) lists a number of definitionsof task in his book, which address the following dimensions: (1) the scope of a task; (2) the perspective from which a task is viewed; (3) the authenticity of a task; (4) the linguistic skills required to perform a task; (5) the psychological processes involved in task performance, and (6) the outcome of a task. In this article, I’d like to adopt

Littlewood’s (2004) viewpoint on the definitions of task and clarify it further with those definitions listed by Ellis.

According to Littlewood (2004:320), ‘definitions of task range along a continuum according to the extent towhich they insist on communicative purpose as an essential criterion.’ There are three points along the continuum, from the least emphasis on focus on meaning to the most: • For some researchers, communicative purpose is not an essential criterion at all. Breen (1987, in Ellis, 2003:4), for example, defines a task as ‘a structured plan for the provision of opportunities for the refinement of knowledge and capabilities entailed in a new language and its use during communication’. He specifically states that a ‘task’ can be ‘a brief practice exercise’ or ‘a more complex workplan that requires spontaneous communication of meaning’. Estaireand Zanon (1994: 13) work with this broad definition but distinguish two main categories of task within it: ‘communicative tasks’, in which the ‘learner’s attention is focused on meaning rather than form’, and ‘enabling tasks’, in which the ‘main focus is on linguistic aspects (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation,functions, and discourse).’ • Moving along the continuum, some researchers do not go so far as to define tasks purely in communicative terms but clearly think of them primarily as involving communication. Thus Stern (1992:195) associates tasks with ‘realistic language use’ when he writes that ‘communicative exercises...provide opportunities for relatively realistic language use, focusing the learner’s attention on a task, problem, activity, or topic, and not on a particular language point’.

• Moving still further along the continuum, some researchers wish to restrict the use of the term to activities where meaning is primary. Take Nunan’s (1989) definition for example, in his opinion, ‘a task is a piece of classroom work which involves learners incomprehending, manipulating, producing, or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focus on meaning rather than form. The taskshould have a sense of completeness, being able to stand alone as a communicative act in its own right’. Besides, Skehan (1996) also points that ‘a task is an activity in which meaning is primary; there is some sort of relationship to the real world; task completionhas some priority; and the assessment of task performance is in terms of outcome’. However, no matterhow restricted the definitions are pointed to the communicative purpose, most researchers do not deny thenecessity of focusing on form when learners engage in tasks. As Ellis (2003:5) points out: When learners engage in tasks they do not always focus on meaning and act as language users .... While a task requires a learner to act primarily as a language user and give focal attention to message conveyance, it allows for peripheral attention to be paid to deciding what forms to use. Also, when performing a task, learners’ focal attentionmay switch momentarily to form as they temporarily adopt the role of language learners... the extent o which a learner acts as language user or language learner and attends to message or code when undertakingtasks

1.2 What is task-based learning? Task-based language learning was defined by Breen (1987:23) as ‘any structured language learning endeavour which has a particular objective, appropriate

content, a specified working procedure, and a range of outcomes for those who undertake the task.’ In this view, ‘task’ is assumed to refer to all kinds of work plans that have the overall purpose of facilitating language learning, from the simple and brief exercise type to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem solving or simulations and decision making (Wesche and Skehan, 2002). In this article, the terms ‘task-based learning’ and ‘task-based approach’ are used interchangeably and all of them are used in a strictly circumscribed sense, following R. Ellis (2003). According to Ellis (2003), there are two ways of using tasks in language teaching, they are task-supported language teaching (tasks are incorporated into traditional language-based approaches to teaching) andtask-based language teaching (tasks have beentreated asunits of teaching in their own right and whole coursesare designed around them). In both cases, tasks have been employed to make language teaching more communicative. Tasks, therefore, are an important feature of communicative language teaching. In other words, task-based learning and teaching places the task centrally, as the unit of syllabus design, with language use during tasks as the driving force for language development (Wesche and Skehan, 2002). This interpretation is linked to second language acquisition research that suggests that ‘interlanguage development will come about, not throughcontrol and practice, but through the meaningful use oflanguage and the engagement of more naturalistic acquisitional processes’ (Skehan and Foster, 1997:186).Ellis (2003) points out that the overall purpose of a task-based approach is to create opportunities for language learning and skill development through collaborative knowledge building. Hence while proponents of task-based teaching naturally vary in their emphases and beliefs, there is broad agreement on

several principles. For example, once we look through the principles proposed by Willis (1996) and Skehan (1998); Ellis (2003) and Swan (2005), the following common principles can be obtained: • Instructed language learning should primarily involve ‘natural’ or ‘naturalistic’ language use, based on activities concerned with meaning rather than language. • Instruction should motivate learners to engage in language use rather than teacher control. • Students should be primarily focused on meaning whenthey carry out a task. • There should be opportunities for focusing on form. • Formal pre- or post-task language study will be useful.

From these principles, we may conclude that task-based teaching is ready to combine form- and meaning-based approaches. As referred to at the very beginning, researchers in recent years have shown particular interest in task-based approach. Wesche and Skehan (2002:218) state that ‘task-based instruction is particularly interesting because it is associated on the one hand with considerable research activity and on the other with active pedagogic investigation and materials preparation’. Ellis (2003) identified a number of rather different approaches to use tasks in language pedagogy, such as task-based teaching associated with humanistic language teaching and the ‘process syllabus’advocated by Breen and Candlin (1980). He finally pointed out that these kinds of approaches to task-based teaching reflect the issues that figure prominently in current discussions of language pedagogy, such as the role of meaning-focused activities, the need for more learner-centred curricula, the contribution of learner-training, and the need for some focus-on-form. Hence, task-based

pedagogy provides ‘a way of addressing these various concerns and for this reason alone is attracting increasing attention’ (Ellis, 2003:33).

2. COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH 2.1 What is communicative language teaching? Communicative language teaching (CLT) aims to develop the ability of learners to use language in real communication. It is directed at enabling learners to function interactionally and transactionally in an L2. In this respect, the goal of CLT is not so different from that of earlier methods such as the audiolingual or oral-situational method, which also claimed to develop the ability to use language communicatively. The difference, then, lies in that CLT drew on very different models of language (Ellis, 2003:27). To adoptWiddowson’s (1978) terms, whereas structural approachesto teaching focus on usage, i.e. the ability to use language correctly, communicative language teaching is directed at use, i.e. the ability to use language meaningfully and appropriately in the construction of discourse.

Over the past several decades, CLT has evolved in response to changing views on the nature of communicative language use and the abilities that underlie it. Nevertheless, from the beginnings of CLT to the present, it has been possible to distinguish a ‘weak’ version of it from a ‘strong’ one. According to Howatt (1984), the weak and strong versions of CLT share the same objectives but reflect different assumptions about how second languages are learned. Theformer is based on the assumptions that the components of communicative competence can be identified and systematically taught. It essentially implies that there is a set of classroom practices that describes

and exemplifies relationships between form a nd meaning(Wesche and Skehan, 2002). In contrast, the strong version of CLT rests on the assumption that communicative language ability is mainly acquired through communication. Therefore, instruction is organised around situations, oral and written texts, skill or knowledge domains, or tasks that require communicative language use of various kinds. Though task-based teaching is not the only way of achieving a strong version of CLT, it has been an interesting development of CLT (Ellis, 2003). The current situationof CLT is complex, as the weak forms have increasingly appropriated elements of communicative language use into the classroom, and the strong forms have increasingly sought ways to incorporate a focus on formand language awareness into classroom practice (Wesche and Skehan, 2002). We can see then, the distinction between a weak and a strong version of CLT parallels the distinction between task-supported language teaching and task-based language teaching. Tasks in theweak version are viewed as a way of providing communicative practice for language items that have been introduced in a more traditional way. They are only a necessary while not sufficient basis for a language curriculum. In contrast, the strong version regards tasks as both necessary and sufficient for learning. They are a means of enabling learners to learn a language by experiencing how it is used in communication (Ellis, 2003).

2.2 Communicative language teaching and task-based learning On the one hand, as referred to above, task-based language teaching constitutes a strong version of CLT. Actually, communicative language teaching is the originof task-based language teaching (Skehan, 2003b). Duringthe 1970s there were considerable moves within language

teaching to embrace the communicative approach. At thattime, the assumption seemed to be that it was not enough in language teaching to focus only on language structure, but that this needed to be accompanied by a concern to develop the capacity to express meanings (Widdowson, 1978). The implications of these pedagogic developments were widespread, and influenced the design of syllabus, the methodology and assessment of language teaching and an early and influential proposal for the use of task-based approaches (Skehan, 2003b). On the other hand, communicative language teaching may be increasingly replaced in some contexts by approaches comparable in principle but different in degree or in contextualization. Task-based language teaching could be considered simplya more thoroughgoing version of CLT. It may be that versions of task-based teaching with clear provision for focus on form will show that continued progress is possible in promoting accuracy and complexity, as well as fluency (Wesche and Skehan, 2002).

3. FORM-FOCUSED APPROACH 3.1 What is form-focused instruction? The area of form-focused instruction (FFI) has attracted considerable attention over the last 30 years. Initially, it was conceptualised in relation to method, a little later as a type of exposure distinct from natural exposure, a little later still as a set ofclassroom processes, and, increasingly, as a set of psycholinguistically motivated pedagogic options (Ellis, 2001:12

Current interest in focus on form is motivated, in part, by the findings of immersion and naturalistic acquisition studies that suggest that when classroom second language learning is entirely experiential and meaning-focused, some linguistics features do not

ultimately develop to target like levels despite plentiful meaningful input and opportunities for interaction (Ellis, Basturkmen and Loewen, 2001). What’s more, on the basis of the classroom research work which indicates that pedagogical interventions embedded in primarily communicative activities can be effective in overcoming classroom limitations on SLA (second language acquisition), a strong claim has been made that ‘focus on form may be necessary to push learners beyond communicatively effective language toward target like second language ability.’ A somewhatweaker claim is that, ‘even if such a focus may not be absolutely necessary, it may be part of a more efficient language learning experience in that it can speed up natural acquisition processes’ (Doughty and Williams, 1998:2). As far as the term of FFI is concerned, there exist broad and narrow definitions. Ellis (2001) used ‘FFI’ as a cover term to refer to any planned or incidental instructional activity that is intended to direct language learners to linguistic form. It, thus, includes both traditional approaches to teaching forms based on structural syllabi and more communicative approaches, where attention to form arises out of activities that are primarily meaning-focused. In contrast, Long (1988) holds the idea that there is nothing to be gained by attempting to systematically teach isolated linguistic forms in accordance with a structure syllabus—an approach he characterizes as ‘focus on forms’. However, he does not deny the necessity of some attention to form and argues that attention to form needs to be incorporated into meaning-focused activity, an approach that he mentions as ‘focus on form’. He defines this term as follows: Focus on form...overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication. (Long, 1991:45-46)

Focus on form often consists of an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features-by the teacher and / or one or more students-triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production. (Long & Robinson, 1998:23) Two essential characteristics of focus-on-form can be identified according to the above definition: (1) the overriding focus in a form-focused classroom is meaningor communication, and (2) attention to form arises incidentally in response to communicative need (Ellis, 2001). However, we should also be careful that focus on forms and focus on form are not polar opposites in the way that form and meanings have often been considered to be. Instead, we must kept it in mind that ‘the fundamental assumption of focus-on-form instruction is that meaning and use must already be evident to the learner at the time that attention is drawn to the linguistic apparatus needed to get the meaning across’ (Doughty and Williams, 1998:4).

Comparing to Long’s categorization of FFI, Ellis (2001:16) conceptualises it in terms of three types according to (1) where the primary focus of attention is to be place and (2) how attention to form is distributed in the instruction. They are ‘focus-on-forms’, which is characterised by a primary focus on form and intensive treatment of preselected forms; ‘planned focus-on-forms’ which also involves intensive attention to preselected forms, but the primary focus of attention lies on meaning rather than form; and ‘incidental focus-on-form’, which distributes attention to a wide range of forms that have not been preselected, though its primary attention is also to meaning. Clearly, these three types of FFI rest on the distinction between focus on form and focus on meaning. Actually, it is mainly the relationship between focus on form and

focus on meaning that make us think how task-based learning theory combine communicative and form-focused approach in L2 research.

3.2 Form-focused instruction and task-based learning Some researchers, for example Stern (1990), take the view that FFI contrasts with MFI (meaning-focused instruction). In his opinion, the former describes instruction where there is some attempt to draw learners’ attention to linguistic form, which he calls ‘analytic strategy’. The latter refers to instruction that requires learnersto attend only to the content of what they want to communicate, which he names ‘experiential strategies’. However, Widdsowson (1998, in Ellis, 2001) has cristicised this distinction. In his opinion, the so-called form-focused instruction has always required learners to attend to meaning as well as form, whereas meaning-focused activities still require learners to process forms in order to process messages. For him, the key difference lies in the kind of meaninglearners must attend to—whether it is semantic meaning,as in the case of language exercises, or pragmatic meaning, as in the case of communicative tasks. Similaropinions can be found from Ellis (2001) who argues thatthe essential difference between form-focused and meaning-focused instruction lies in how language is viewed (as an object or as a tool) and the role of the learner is invited to play (student or user). In his opinion, ‘form’ involves some more than grammar, and those attentions to lexical forms and the meanings theyrealize, where words are treated as objects to be learned, can all constitute form-focused instruction. Various options at the pre-task, during-task, and post-task phases of a lesson have been proposed for achieving a focus on form in Ellis’s (2003) book. There he argues

that attention to form is both possible and beneficial in the during-task phase and need not conflict with oneof the principles of task-based teaching, that is ‘ensure that students are primarily focused on meaning when they perform a task’ (2003:277).

4. WHY DO WE NEED TO COMBINE THE COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH WITH THE FORM-FOCUSED APPROACH? It is argued that current language teaching theory views a ‘dual’ focus on form and accuracy as well as meaning and fluency. As Swan (2005:376) argues, ‘the polarization of meaning-based and form-based instruction is unconstructive, and reflects a recurrentpattern of damaging ideological swings in language teaching theory and practice.’ Spada (1997a) also concludes that form-based and meaning-based approaches need not be in opposition to each other but can operatesynergistically. According to Wesche and Skehan (2002),Spada’s conclusion seems to be the most realistic current judgment. In short, the goal of foreign language teaching is ‘to extend the range of communication situations in which the learner can perform with focus on meaning, without being hindered by the attention he must pay to linguistic form’, according to Littlewood (1981:89).

4.1 From the perspectives of communicative approach In the past twenty-five years, communicative language teaching in the broad sense has undoubtedly representedthe most interesting development in language teaching (Wesche and Skehan, 2002). One of the heated debates arises around the issues of whether meaning-focused language pedagogy is sufficient to ensure success in acquiring an L2. As a whole, though few educators or researchers would deny the importance of meaning-focused instruction, such as Prabhu (1987:2) who has

argued that attempts to focus learners’ attention on grammatical form is ‘unhelpful’ and that instruction should instead be concerned with creating conditions for coping with meaning in the classroom by following a task-based syllabus, many now recognize that it needs to be complemented with form-focused instruction of some kind(Nassaji, 2000; Ellis, 2003; Sken, 2003b; William, 2004). They argue that to develop an accurate knowledgeof the language in question, some kind of form-focused activity needs to be incorporated into communicative contexts, for the reason that activities which focus merely on message are inadequate. The disadvantage of an extreme focus on meaning and fluency is clear. According to Wesche and Skehan (2001:227), CLT by its nature can not solve the syllabus problem. It can by no means lend itself to ‘organized, accountable, easy-to-teach textbooks and evaluative tools in the way that other syllabi and methodologies may’. Though it encompassed a wide range of formats, serving different clienteles and purposes, none of which can claim to be a complete solution to how language should be taught. Besides, as far as earlystrong versions of CLT are concerned, in spite of their success in developing highly functional L2 skills in learners, they have not led to matching accuracy in production. The assumption that ‘talking to learn’ would be sufficient is no longer taken for granted. What’s more, Wesche andSkenhan also point out that merely engaging in languageuse is not enough and some degree of focus on form is needed. This is best done within communicative activities, rather than independently. Long (1996) took the view that instruction that includes focus on form has at least two advantage over purely meaning-focused instruction:(1) It can increase the salience of positive evidence; and (2) it can provide often essential negative

evidence, in the form of direct or indirect negative feedback. There is converging support for this positionfrom both laboratory research and classroom-based studies. For example, descriptive research of immersionand core French classrooms using the Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching Observation Scheme (COLT) (Wesche and Skehan, 2002:211) suggested that, in classrooms that included language analysis as an integral part of communicative activities, learners achieved higher accuracy in speaking and writing. 4.2 From the perspectives of form-focused approach As implied in the previous section, in the last 10 years, new perspectives advocate a more form-focused approach to language teaching, arguing that a totally message-based approach is inadequate for efficient second language acquisition, some kind of form-focused activity needs to be incorporated into communicative classroom contexts as a compensation for this inadequacy. Barnes (1988) remarks that although schooling should be brought closer to the real world experience, theoretical and formal knowledge should notnecessarily be abandoned as a result. However, the disadvantages of extreme form-focused classroom activities are also apparent. In such kind ofa classroom, the learner highlight s the lack of correspondence between the forms practiced and any kindof real-world meaning; there is no scope for fluency development in such a rigid lockstep approach; and the discourse is ‘unnatural’ in that such transformation sequences do not occur outside the classroom etc (Seedhouse, 1997:337). It is also suggests that focus on form is more effective when it is directly related to meaningful communication, whether it be through manipulation of materials and tasks to highlight given language features, communicative feedback to the learner, or explanation when communicative problems arise (Spada, 1997b).

As far as task-based approach is concerned, Swan (2005)points out that, the best strategy for most teaching situations is not to limit oneself to one type of activity, but to draw on all the resources and techniques available. In such an approach, tasks of various kinds will take their place as components of what Ellis (2003) calls ‘task-supported’ instructional programmes, alongside a variety of other procedures which will range from the most ‘natural’ to the most ‘unreal’, traditional and allegedly ‘discredited’,from the most learner-centred to the most teacher-centred, as complementary components of a multi-faceted syllabus (Cook 2000:172). Bygate also states that (2001:3) ‘only by integrating form- and meaning-centred approaches, can teachers maximize their chances of successfully teaching all those aspects of language that learners most need to master, and thus meeting the central challenge for language teaching...to develop learners’ communicative language ability through pedagogic intervention.’

5.HOW DO TASK-BASED LEARNING AND TEACHING COMBINE COMMUNICATIVE AND FORM-FOCUSED APPROACHES?5.1 Theoretical justification for combination Before starting to discuss how task-based learning combines communicative and form-focused approaches, I would liketo provide a theoretical justification for it by drawing on two influential theoretical perspectives briefly: interactive and cognitive theories of L2 learning. According to the interactive perspective, language learning is enhanced ‘particularly when they (the learners) negotiate toward mutual comprehension ofeach other’s message meaning’ (Pica, Kanagy and Falodun, 1993:11). While from the cognitive perspective, second language learning is a complex

cognitive skill, the acquisition of which involves several cognitive stages.

Anderson (1995) for example, offers a three-stage modelof the skill-learning process: declarative stage when learners acquire knowledge that can be described or declared; procedural stage when learners acquire knowledge that makes them capable of doing something under circumstance; and automatised stage. Dekeyser (1998) later argues that learners develop declarative knowledge first through some language-based activities.They must then assimilate and internalise this knowledge through ample practice before they can use itautomatically in real communication. Combining these two theoretical perspectives, we may find the reason why the idea of focus on form in communicative contextsis currently supported by both theory and research. However, many educators believe that focus on form and focus on communication should be treated as separate learning activities, as attempts to emphasise form may cause negative reactions on the part of the learners who are engaged in expressing their meaning. While Nassaji (2000:244) believes that ‘the most effective way of addressing this problem is to consider activities that result in attention to form while maintaining meaningful communication and using form forcommunication.’ Focus on language forms in the context of communication may encourage learning, and the forms may be much easier to remember when students need them in future similar contexts (Lightbown, 1998). Then in the classroom context of task-based learning, how can we integrate a focus on form into communication activities?

5.2 Strategies for incorporating a focus on form into communicative classroom contexts There are two principal ways of attempting to include a specific focus on form into task-based teaching according to

Ellis (2003): by means of tasks that have been designedto focus attention on specific properties of the code, which has been referred as ‘focused tasks’ and secondlyby incorporating a focus on form methodologically into the performance of linguistically unfocused tasks, which entails incidental attention to form and can be accomplished pre-emptively.No matter which one is concerned, for a task-based syllabus that incorporates a specific focus on form to be successful it must be compatible with interlanguage development. Besides, Ellis also points out two possible goals for incorporating a focus on form into a task-based syllabus—the development of implicit and explicit knowledge. Here, implicit knowledge refers to ‘that knowledge of language that a speaker manifests in performance but has no awareness of’. Explicit knowledge refers to ‘knowledge about language that speakers are aware of and, if asked, can verbalise’ (Ellis, 2003:105). Different types of tasks work differently during such an integration process. According to Ellis (2003), the kind of tasks needed to develop implicit knowledge willbe either structure-based production tasks (tasks whichcan be designed to incorporate a specific target language feature), or interpretation tasks (tasks whichare based on the assumption that acquisition occurs as a result of input-processing). In the case of explicit knowledge, consciousness-raising tasks (tasks which aredesigned to cater primarily to explicit learning and make language itself the ontent) are needed. He concludes that where implicit knowledge is concerned, course designers cannot determine in advance exactly which forms, or range of forms, should be addressed nor can they stipulate when they should beaddressed. All that is possible is a checklist of itemsand procedures for deciding when a particular item can usefully be addressed. Such kind of a checklist can be

used by classroom teachers to help them establish whichforms their students have and have not mastered and, most importantly, which forms they are in the process of currently mastering. This is precisely the approach that focus-on-form researchers have adopted. In contrast, if the goal is explicit knowledge, a syllabusof linguistic properties can be more easily constructed. Such a syllabus ‘delineates the content ofconsciousness-raising tasks, which serve the dual purpose of focusing attention on specific forms and providing opportunities to communicate’ (Ellis, 2003: 237). There are probably two ways of incorporating a focus onform into communicative activities in classroom contexts, mentioned by Ellis (2003). They are the ‘integrated approach’ and the ‘modular approach’. The integrated approach for incorporating a focus on form originates in work on content-based instruction school contexts with ESL learners. In the integrated syllabus recommended by Snow, Met and Genesee (1989), content and form are closely interwoven by identifying the content-obligatory and content-compatible language of each topic area in the curriculum. Such an approach reflects mainstream thinking about the importance of teaching form and meaning conjointly (Doughty, 2001). In contrast, in the kind of modular approach, no attempt is made to integrate content and form. The syllabus is conceived of as two entirely separate modules—a communicative module and a code-based module.Of which, the communicative module constitutes the maincomponent of such a syllabus. In such a module, no attempt is made to predetermine through the design of atask which forms learners will attend to. Learners quite naturally focus on form while they are performingunfocused tasks. The code-based module consists of a checklist of linguistic features that

are potentially difficult for learners to learn and serves a ‘remedial’ purpose by helping learners to acquire features that prove resistant to learning ‘naturally’ (Ellis, 2003:236). Such kind of modular syllabus is broadly applicable to all teaching situations since it, in some ways, is morepracticable than the integrated approach as it avoids the learnability problem. Other than Ellis, Nassji (2000) in his work also mentions two similar ways. One way is by design: that is, communicative activities can be designed with an advanced, deliberate focus on form. The other is by process: that is, by incorporating focus on form naturally in the process of classroom communications. As Doughty and Varela (1998:114) say that‘a quintessential element of the theoretical construct of focus on form is its dual requirement that the focus must occur in conjunction with—but must not interrupt—communicative interaction.’

CONCLUSIONS From the above discussion, we may find that SLA researchers into task-based instruction are looking forways to ensure that there is, within a task-based approach, sufficient focus on form (Skehan, 2003a). As Seedhouse (1997) claims, many interactions that occur inside the classroom will be neither entirely form-focused nor meaning-focused but a combination of both, although achieving a dual focus is not easy. Task-based learning and teaching is frequently promoted as an effective approach, superior to ‘traditional’ methods, in that it pays great attention to combining form-focused approach with communicative approach. It is difficult to predict how task-based learning, communicative language teaching, and form-focused instruction will develop in the future. The

manner in which each links with research perspectives means that they will not be easy to ignore; they already influence the ways in which methodologies and syllabuses should be evaluated. Each has limits to its application, but all have been shown to be effective under suitable circumstances (Wesche and Skehan, 2002). It is likely that each will continue to develop once the underlying principles of SLA become better understood and are incorporated into teaching. Finally, let’s look at some issues that warrant attention and potentially further research on this topic: (1) The growing concern that a focus on form needed to be incorporated into communicative language teaching does not mean a revival of ‘old ways’ of language teaching-tradition grammar-based syllabuses, pattern drills and the like (Swan, 2005). (2) The oversimplified version of the communicative approach has, in general, tended to imply that learnerswill find meaning-focused activities meaningful and form-focused activities meaningless (Seedhouse, 1997). It is vital for us not to simply claim that the communicative approach or the form-focused approach is superior to the other, but what we need to do is to combine them as effectively as possible. From this point of view, task-based approach has much to offer. (3) There is a general perception among language teachers and educators that task-based instruction is mainly directed at improving students’ abilities to usethe target language rather than at enabling them to acquire new linguistic skills (Samuda, 2000). However, we should remember that we are dealing not with clear-cut distinctions when we talk about a focus on meaning and a focus on form, but with proper shifts of emphasis. Within task-based learning and teaching,

there is a calling for complementarity between a focus on form and a focus on meaning. (4) As referred to above, form- and meaning-based approaches should be integrated within task-based learning and teaching. However, empirical support for this claim is sparse Swan, 2005), which requires more empirical research on this topic, and pedagogically involving not only researchers but also teachers whose teaching goals may go well beyond simply demonstrating some kind of experimental effect and are likely to be integrated with some extended pedagogic sequence (Skenhan, 2003).

REFERENCES [1]Anderson, J., 1995,Rule of the Mind, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [2]Barnes, D., 1988, Knowledge as action, In The Word for Teaching is Learning: Essays for James Britton, eds., Lightfoot, M. and Martin, N., London: Heinemann Educational Books. [3]Breen, M. P., 1987, Learner contributions to task design, In Language Learning Tasks, Englewood Cliffs, eds.,Candlin and Murphy D.F.,NJ: Prentice-Hall. [4]Breen, M., and Candlin, C., 1980, The essentials of a communicative curriculum for language teaching, Applied Linguistics, 1, 89-112. [5]Bygate, M., 2001, Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language, In Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching andTesting, eds.,Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., Harlow: Longman. [6]Cook, G., 2000, Language Play, Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [7]DeKeyser, R. M., 1998, Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar, In Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, eds.,Doughty, C. & Williams, J., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[8]Dought, C., 2001, Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form, In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, ed.,Robinson, P,.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.[9]Doughty, C., and Varela, E., 1998,Communicative focus on form, In Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, eds.,Doughty, C. & Williams, J.,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [10]Doughty, C., and Williams, J., 1998, Issues and terminology, In Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition , eds.,Doughty, C.,and Williams, J., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [11]Estaire, S. and Zanon, J., 1994, Planning Classwork: A Task-Based Approach, Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann. [12]Ellis, R., 2000, Task-based research and language pedagogy, Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 139-220. [13]Ellis, R. (2001) ‘Introduction:Investigating Form-Focused Instruction’, Language Learning, 51(1), 1-46. [14]Ellis, R., 2003, Task-based Language Learning and Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University

Brent’s presentstionTask-based LearningA sequence of meaning-based language tasks ending with form-based tasks

What is a task?● 1 Does the activity engage learners’ interest?● 2 Is there a primary focus on meaning?● 3 Is there an outcome?● 4 Is success judged in terms of outcome?● 5 Is completion a priority?● 6 Does the activity relate to real world activities?

Engaging tasksEngagement: ... without engagement,without genuine interest, there can be nofocus on meaning or outcome. Learners have to want to achieve an outcome, they have to want to engage in meaning.(Willis & Willis, 2007).

A Typical Task SequenceIntroduction to topic [teacher] PRIMINGSurvey [individual] PREPARATORYGroup discussion [group] TARGETClass discussion [teacher-class]Reading activity [individual]Discussion of reading [group]Form-based task(s) [?] FORM

Group TasksA learning task that requires two or more students to complete interdependently● Optimal number is four● Grouped for mixed ability● Cooperative or collaborative

● Group and individual assessment

Why task-based learning?The research … has shown that second language learners benefit from form-focused instruction which is providedwithin communicative contexts. The challenge is to findthe right balance between meaning based and form-focused activities.(Lightbown & Spada, 2006 cited in Willis & Willis, 2007)

Why groups?● zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 103)● use of cooperative group-learning correlates with higher achievement scores(Frey, Fisher & Everlove, 3)● enhanced social skills (ibid.)

Effective Group Tasks in TBL● Contribute to overall sequence of tasks● Begin small● Require positive interdependence● Group and individual assessment

Positive InterdependenceReduce threatIncrease reward (Frey et al. 25)Positive answers for process and content learning questions:I am a contributor.We are a team.We are making progress toward the goal!

Questions and DiscussionBreak into groups and discuss how to implement group tasks in your classroom.Remember:You are a contributor!

We are a team!We are making progress towards raising the level of English in Kazakhstan

BibliographyFrey, Nancy, Douglas Fisher, and Sandi Everlove. ProductiveGroup Work: How to Engage Students, Build Teamwork, andPromote Understanding. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2009.Print.Lightbown, P., and N. Spada. How Languages Are Learned.3rded. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. Print.Vygotskiı̆, Lev S. Thought and Language. Cambridge: M.I.T.,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1962. Print.Willis, Dave, and Jane Lockyer Willis. Doing Task-basedTeaching. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. Oxford Handbooks forLanguage Teachers. Kindle.

Task-Based Learning (TBL)

2.1 Introduction and clarification of terms This section provides the theoretical background to Task-Based Language Learning(TBLL); a framework for TBLL with

explanations; factors to consider when implementing task-based language learning; and finally a concrete example of a task.

It shows how adapted versions of task-based approaches to languagelearning are well suited to the non-formal context of learning inthe framework of European language programmes. This method reliesheavily on learners’ involvement and their world knowledge. Itplaces emphasis on the value of the information and experienceswhich participants bring to the language learning sessions.As participants share their knowledge, experience and opinions,they will also be using their existing language, be exposed to newlanguage and develop a variety of strategies for improving theirlanguage skills. TBLL also allows the facilitator to use authentictopic material, which is relevant to the participants’ needs andencourages the development of skills necessary for the successfulcompletion of real-life tasks

Clarification of termsLinguistic jargon is notorious for its ambiguity. Different terms mean different things to different people. So for clarification, some of the key terms used in this publication are listed below, together with an explanation.• Activity Doing something which can be seen as a step towards achieving the task; one part of the process; work in progress.• Collaborative learning Working together and supporting each otherto maximise learning and task outcomes. It is the opposite of competitive learning where each learner is trying to be better thanhis companions.• Language facilitator The person who has a native speaker competence in the language being learnt and can provide all the necessary linguistic input to facilitate the activities and task achievement.• Learner–centred Describes an approach to classroom methodology which puts learners needs and interests at the centre of the learning programme.Learning styles/strategies A range of ways of studying and learning, along the spectrum from experiential to studial. (See Section 1.2 Roles of learners and facilitators).• Materials Anything which is used to form the basis of a language learning activity or task.• Task The end product to a planned process a completed piece of work• Topic Any subject which provides contextualised language learning

2.2 Task-Based Language Learning (TBLL)2.2.1 Background to Task-Based Language Learning

Language acquisition and learning: How is it done? There is no definitive model for learning alanguage or indeed for the acquisition of language by children. Research has suggested thathuman beings are born with a device which enables them to organise the language they are exposed to (their mother tongue) and form rules which can be used to generate more language and be applied indifferent situations (LAD: language acquisition device and Universal Grammar , Chomsky 1965). Yet there is also research to show that even without the stimuli of exposure to a language, deaf children develop language which displays similar features of a formal language structure (Goldin-Meadow 1990). This has also been shown through the study of Pidgin languages – languages that are formed by people who have no common mother tongue but who need to communicate among themselves and so form another language. The first intrepid explorers and international traders relied on pidgin communication. When pidgins are used as a native language by the next generation,they develop into a Creole language (Bickerton1984) and a new language is formed by people who were exposed to a language which did not display a full range of structures. This is known as poverty of stimulus (Gleason and Ratner 1998). Some theories also relate the cognitive development of children to their language acquisition. This is another major difference between mother-tongueacquisition and learning a second language which is usually undertaken after childhood cognitive development is complete. (Bates 1979, Piaget 1926).

This is a very cursory dip into this area to demonstrate that nothing is finite in language learning or acquisition theory. Also, it must be remembered that we are attempting to develop ideasfor language learning not language acquisition. It is therefore important to bear in mind the difference between language acquisition of mother tongue and second language learning later in life. As mentioned in Section 1.1 Language learning and language teaching, there have also been many theories of language learning, which have been reflected in approaches and methodologies in language teaching.

Learner-centred approachesLearner-centred approaches draw knowledge from the learner, workingthrough their needsand interests and selecting materials, activities and tasks accordingly. At all stages, negotiation between facilitators and learners is encouraged. Learning is seen as a collaborative enterprise. Any approach must consider the context in which it is to be used and consequently the possible reaction of learners to the methodology. Are learners going to accept the choice of methodology with open arms? If the proposed methodology is unfamiliar or greeted with foreboding, facilitators will need tonegotiate with learners to ensure that they are motivated and happyto learn in that way.The learners will then be stakeholders in the approach. Of primary concern therefore is thatfacilitators take into account the learning environment they are working in and manage newapproaches sensitively . (See Section 1.2 Roles of learners and facilitators.)

2.2.2 Task-Based Language LearningIn Task-Based Language Learning (TBLL), learning is fostered through performing a series ofactivities as steps to wards successful task realisation. The focusis away from learning language items in a non-contextualised vacuumto using language as a vehicle for authentic, real-world needs. By working to wards task realisation, the language is used immediatelyin the real-world context of the learner, making learning authentic. In a TBLL framework the language needed is not preselected and given to the learners who then practise it but rather it is drawn from the learners with helpfrom the facilitator, to meet the demands of the activities and task.

TBLL relies heavily on learners actively experimenting with their store of knowledge and using skills of deduction and independent language analysis to exploit the situation fully. (See Section 2.4 Concrete example of task –Preparing a meal.) In this example, the aim of the session is to work together to prepare a meal where everyone can contribute. By doing this, a great deal of language will be activated under the theme of food. As can be seen by the example, menus have to be

discussed, food has to be bought and jobs allocated. The participants are prepared for the task, so that they will be aware of the language they need in order to carry it out successfully.

In this approach, motivation for communication becomes the primary driving force. It places the emphasis on communicative fluency rather than the hesitancy borne of the pressure in more didactic approaches to produce unflawed utterances. Exposure to the target language should be in a naturallyoccurring context. This means that, if materials are used, they arenot prepared especially for the language classroom, but are selected and adapted from authentic sources. (See Section 4 Selecting and using materials.)

The Task-Based Learning Framework shown below has been adapted fromthe Willis frame-work (1996). In the adapted framework, the focus of attention is upon a final task. This taskis defined as an undertaking that is authentic to the needs of the learners.

In the case of European youth work programmes, these tasks will relate to the work of participants and will reflect the tasks and situations they find themselves involved in. An explanation of thisframework follows the diagram.

2.2.3 Task-Based Methodology

Task-Based Methodology Framework (Adapted from Willis, Jane 1996A Framework for Task-Based Learning, Oxford : Longman)

DEFINITION OF THE TASK