Task-based language teaching as a possible alternative approach

Tentative interest in the possibility of TBLT as a viable approach within secondary school MFL teaching has grown during the period of this study, with the publication of articles by East (2014) and Bygate (2015). Task-based language teaching’s key characteristics were listed by Richards and Rodgers (2004:393) as the use of tasks as the core units of planning, real-world outcomes and a focus on lexis and speaking and the integration of skills.

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is widely used in teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL). It involves students planning and carrying out a task in the target language, such as conducting an interview or giving a presentation. Students access

vocabulary and learn grammar identified as necessary for the task. Having completed the task, learners review its success and incorporate feedback from the teacher and their peers into a second version of the task. TBLT is not without its critics (for a brief but full overview see Ellis, 2009). The global status of English (Lawes, 2007) and the concomitant differences in motivation among learners cannot be ignored as important contextual factors in the greater success of TEFL than of language teaching in English schools. However, there is some suggestion in the literature (East, 2014), based on initiatives in New Zealand, that introducing TBLT into secondary school MFL lessons might be feasible. However, in English MFL classrooms, the pattern of a lesson is likely to be based on the model of present, practice, produce (PPP) as this both fits the required pattern of a tripartite lesson and allows the teacher greater control. One of TBLT’s greatest exponents is Skehan (1998:94) who saw task-based language teaching as a necessary alternative to the traditional approach of presentation, practice, production which he calls “essentially a discredited, meaning-impoverished methodology.”

The pattern of a Task-based language lesson (Willis,1996) was likened by Klapper (2003) to PPP in reverse. Students first see or hear a model of the task then complete it using their existing knowledge. They only learn the additional language needed to complete the task once they have identified and planned what they need to learn. What is unclear from the model is how complete beginners would be able to approach this work but the work of Ur (2015) suggested that students are allowed to use their first language in the early stages of their course.

TBLT is more clearly supported by SLA theory than communicative language teaching (CLT), as discussed next.

2.12.1. Origins and Theoretical underpinnings of Task-based language teaching

The origins of Task-based language teaching (TBLT) are unclear. There are several definitions of “task”, so that in some ways TBLT is as ill-defined as Communicative Language Teaching. For example Ellis (2003) quoted nine definitions of task by different authors. Bygate (2000) acknowledged the variety in task-type, in terms of the task focus, the support available to students and the degree of teacher control or open-endedness and identified the common features as:

They consist of some kind of brief for learner action, the learner’s use of language in response to that brief, and the fact that they are undertaken in order to promote some aspect of learning.

Unlike Communicative Language Teaching, Task-based language teaching (TBLT) finds considerable theoretical support in the literature, in both cognitive and sociocultural theories of language acquisition. Ellis (2000:193) for example, described a psycholinguistic perspective in which “tasks […] provide learners with the data they need for learning” and the design of the task defines the learning opportunities. He went on to give a sociocultural account of TBLT in which “participants co-construct the ‘activity’ they engage in [……] and it is therefore difficult to make reliable predictions regarding […] language use”. Ellis (2000) compared the contributions of psycholinguistic approaches to pre-task planning and of socio-cultural approaches to improvisation during the task. VanPatten (2007) linked TBLT to Swain and Lapkin's (1995) Output Hypothesis. Both of these theories see a role for productive language in forcing the learner to pay attention to syntax where the interaction itself acts as a source of input.

Skehan (1998), from a cognitive perspective, reviewed a large number of studies from the literature on SLA, predominantly on information-processing models of language learning, as a precursor to his rationale for task-based instruction. Information- processing was envisaged in three stages, input, central processing and output. One of Skehan’s key tenets was the need for a “dual-mode system for second language learning” encompassing both learning by exemplar and learning from rules.

The complexity of the psycholinguistic processes which operate in developing an internal representation of language is shown in Skehan’s (1998) account, which included the need for a cyclical syllabus to allow learners to gradually build their internal representation of language and improve fluency, accuracy and pronunciation. It is arguably the antithesis of the behavioural outcomes approach embodied in the three part lesson where 45 minutes of activity practising a grammar point, wedged between the starter and the plenary, is expected to result in observable progress.

The reduced control of learning outcomes which TBLT offers, compared with the more traditional PPP model, might suggest limited scope to introduce it into school classrooms. Bruton (2005:66) saw the need for accountability in state education as incompatible with TBLT “because students need to receive the necessary input and relevant feedback from somewhere on a consistent and progressive basis”. Richards and Rodgers (2014:194) clearly articulated the tension between policy and theoretical knowledge when they described TBLT as less likely to be used “in contexts where teaching is linked to national or international tests” than by teachers who value it for its theoretical support and the opportunities it affords for learning through interaction. Ellis (2003) and Bygate (2015) considered the possibility of a task-supported syllabus in which TBLT complements

rather than replaces traditional teaching approaches. Interestingly, Harris et al’s (2001:4) research on spontaneous talk was peppered with references to TBLT, with no suggestion of boundaries between TBLT and CLT. Almost in passing, they mentioned the possibility that “a task-based approach might allow us to establish a possible route for progression for both pupils and their teachers”. However, on the preceding page, they had noted that teachers feel less comfortable with open-ended activities. Bygate (2015) reviewing the theoretical foundations and benefits of TBLT called for more longitudinal studies of its use in school MFL classrooms, with a view to making “gradual steps to explore its possibilities”. The issues of unpredictability and teacher control, particularly in a culture which prioritises observable behavioural outcomes, suggest that taking such “gradual steps” would require a level of autonomy for teachers and a shift in current practice.

2.13. Learners’ perspectives in the literature – language anxiety and willingness