Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)

Task-based language teaching, TBLT, is an approach that uses “tasks” as the main organizer of language material and instruction (Richards and Rodgers, 2001) and aims to develop the communicative competence (CC) of L2 learners through providing natural contexts to use the L2 and enough opportunities and a suitable environment for meaningful interaction through tasks (Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Ellis and Shintani, 2014). Long (1985) defines task as:

the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between. Task are the things people will tell you they do if you ask them and they are not applied linguists (p. 89).

For Prabhu (1987), a task is:

an activity which required learners to arrive at an outcome from given information through some process of thought, and which allowed teachers to

According to Nunan (1989b), although definitions imply that tasks involve communicative language use and focus on meanings rather than forms, these definitions have not differentiated between communicative tasks, or pedagogic tasks and other forms of tasks, such as social or everyday tasks. Accordingly, Nunan (1989b) identified and proposed a communicative task which he defines as:

a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehension, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather form (p. 10).

In addition, Willis (1996) and Bygate et al. (2001) argued that the definition of task will depend on the purpose of task and those who employ it and so they distinguished between tasks which can be classified as exercises, such as grammar exercises or practice activities, and tasks that are used to promote language use and achieve a particular. Thus, Willis (1996) describes tasks as any activities “where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome” (p. 23). Bygate et al.

(2001) add that a task is an activity that:

requires learners to use language, with the emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective, and which is chosen so that it is most likely to provide information for learners and teachers which will help them in their own learning (p. 9).

However, TBLT focuses not only on the development of the L2 learners’ fluency in the communicative process but also the development of L2 learners’ linguistic competence and interactional competence (Ellis and Shintani, 2014). As a result, Ellis (2003) and Nunan (2004) elaborated a definition that summarises the main principles of tasks and incorporates most aspects of CC. For them, a classroom task requires L2 learners to employ their linguistic competence to convey meaning through interaction in the target language and to focus on the improvement of their fluency and accuracy as the end goal (Ellis 2003 and Nunan 2004). The above argument around the type and function of tasks and the development of various definitions of task led to the development of today’s TBLT approach and syllabus.

Originally, TBLT was developed by Prabhu (1987), an Indian applied linguist, who concluded that although communicative language teaching (CLT) and Functional/Notional Syllabus contributed much to language teaching, CLT could not tackle the problem in his country that Indian learners could not learn structures through structurally-based language teaching. Prabhu (1987) found that these approaches failed to help the Indian learners to

produce correct sentences in situations outside the classroom even though they could do so inside the classroom and it did not ensure the Indian learners’ sustainability of language competence. In other words, these methodologies failed to prepare the Indian language learners to achieve real life tasks and effective communication outside the classroom.

Therefore, Prabhu (1987) undertook the Bangalore Experiment or the Communicational Teaching Project in which he designed a language teaching programme based on tasks rather than lists of language items and produced a task-based syllabus or procedural syllabus aiming to help Indian learners to be able to use the language effectively inside and outside the classroom for real communication.

According to Richards and Rodgers (2001), TBLT views language as a means of making meaning and draws on the structural, functional and interactional principles about language discussed in Section 3.1 above. TBLT employs language structures as a means of accomplishing communicative tasks and focuses on fluency rather than accuracy, as I will explain later in this section, and draws on Long’s interaction hypothesis (see Section 3.1 above) that language is best learned through learners’ interaction with each other while attempting to accomplish the task regardless of the language they use (Prabhu, 1987;

Nunan, 1989b; Skehan, 1996; Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Ellis, 2003). The view of learning in TBLT is based on the general assumptions underlying CLT discussed above but, in addition, TBLT views learning as a subconscious process of communicative development through conveying meanings without necessarily conscious learning of language forms and structures (Nunan, 2004). In summary, TBLT considers activities that involve real communication as fundamental for language learning with activities that involve meaningful language and real communication promoting language learning (Richards and Rodgers, 2001).

Since TBLT draws on the principles of CLT some of its proponents, such as Willis (1996), consider it a pedagogical development of CLT. Willis (1996) developed a three-stage framework through which a typical TBLT classroom could be approached: pre-task, task cycle and language focus, or post-task, all of which may involve sub-stages when implemented in the classroom. The pre-task stage aims to introduce the topic/lesson to learners, highlighting key words and phrases, helping the students to understand the task requirement and preparing the students for the task. This can be achieved by, for example, using pictures, watching short videos, listening to audio extracts, reading a text or asking the students about their own experience (Willis, 1996). The task cycle is divided into three sub-stages: task, planning, and report. This cycle aims to involve learners with the actual

task by, for instance, preparing an oral or written account of the task including how they did the task and what they decided or discovered, and a written or oral report to the whole class (Willis, 1996). Finally, the post-task stage aims to provide a focus on specific features of the text or language and new vocabulary and structures found in the task, that is a focus on language form and use (Willis, 1996). These TBLT principles draw on the cognitivists’ views that language material and content need to be developed around tasks that L2 language learners might be expected to carry out in real life (see Section 3.1.2). In addition, TBLT builds on Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal (or Potential) Development (ZPD) theory that provides effective support for language learners to achieve learning tasks beyond their level with appropriate support from peers or teachers (see Section 3.1.3.2).

Last but not least, TBLT draws on Long’s interaction hypothesis and negotiation of the meaning hypothesis which assumes that pair and group work activities foster language learning through learners’ interaction and the negotiation of meaning between learners (see Section 3.1.3.2).

Willis’ framework of TBLT is very helpful in providing a step-by-step systematic process for the adoption and implementation of TBLT in diverse language classrooms with a range of learners and situations, including in the Libyan context. For example, Willis (1996) states that although TBLT is normally adopted in small classes, it could be used with large classes, but the only problem would be that the teacher might not have enough time to provide feedback to all students or to monitor all groups. Despite this, Littlewood (2007) shows that TBLT might not be feasible in some contexts, such as Libya, where the students and teachers study English as a school subject rather than a means for communication.

Vásquez et al. (2013) also argue that TBLT could be unsuitable for low-level students, and Ellis and Shintani (2014) state that several advocates of the TBLT still believe that TBLT might be difficult for some teachers to adopt into their classroom. In the Libyan context, TBLT has never been explored extensively and little, if any, mention of it is made in previous studies. I had never been taught or even heard of TBLT until I studied in the UK.

However, Abosnan (2016) did implement some aspects of TBLT to teach English as Foreign Language (EFL) reading skills to some Libyan EFL university students and reported some difficulties as summarised below (Abosnan, 2016).

the students’ first language, the idiosyncrasies of the English language, the teacher training and continuing professional development of teachers, the students’ lack of vocabulary and their difficulties with grammatical functions such as phrasal and prepositional verbs, forms which do not exist in Arabic, mean that REFL (reading in English as a foreign language) will always be challenging (p. iv).

Having noted this, I still believe that some aspects of TBLT could be successfully implemented in Libya, especially by English as Second Language (ESL) and English as Foreign Language (EFL) teachers. When I started teaching at university in 2011, I adopted some of the practical principles of the TBLT with my students in speaking, writing and linguistics classes despite having large classes of fifty students or more.

In Sections 3.1 and 3.2, I explored major language and learning views and teaching methodologies. The development in learning views meant that teachers are required to adapt their methodologies and techniques in accordance with linguistic and second language acquisition research. In addition, any development in learning and teaching entails that language teachers require certain forms of knowledge and skills to be able to help their students to learn the language effectively and improve their language skills. In the next section, I shall focus on these knowledge types and discuss their relevance to the Libyan English as Foreign Language University Teachers (LEFLUTs).