Scholars, such as Kumaravadivelu (2007: 7), Kim (2009: 254), Rahimpour (2010: 1662-1663) and Wang &Skehan (2014: 155), are of the view that there is an increasing interest in task-based approaches to language instruction as well as language performance (see, for example, Ellis
2009b:212, on similar views). According to Ellis (2014: 144), the possible justifications for the above view in relation to task-based language teaching is because TBLT nurtures real communicative abilities in L2 learners if the educational goals are for learners to achieve such abilities. For example, Van den Branden et al. (2009: 2) agree with Ellis (2014: 144) on the view that the purpose of teaching L2s is to provide learners with opportunities to use L2 purposely in their communication agendas. In order to fulfil learners’ agendas, according to Van den Branden et al. (2009: 4), TBSs provide social interactions in the classroom that depict what learners engage in while outside the classroom.
On one hand, Zhang (2007: 68-70), Steenkamp and Visser (2011: 11), Ur (2011: 508) and Ellis (2013: 141-142), hold the view that task-based approaches to language teaching and learning are internationally recognised approaches that facilitate in SLA and language pedagogies. Building on the above view, L2 researchers (including, Prabhu 1987, J. Willis 1996, Long & Doughty 2009; Butler 2011), from the sub-fields of ALs, as well as, L2 instruction and pedagogy, widely use the task-based approach and its related issues, in informing their scientifically evidenced decisions mainly in relation to, (i) the modification and developments of language theories and models, (ii) language programmes and syllabus designs, as well as in the advancements of pedagogical practices. This underscores the importance and relevance of task-based approaches to SLA and pedagogy.
In order to justify the above views, available studies with regard to different components of TBLT theories, reveal that TBLT approaches are increasingly carried out from a range of learning grades/levels and institutions, for example, in the pre-primary (Pinter 2007), primary (Zhang 2007), secondary (Van Gorp & Bogaert 2006, Tavakoli & Foster 2011), technical and vocational schools (Bogaert, Van Gorp, Bultynck, Lanssesns & Depauw 2006; Van den Branden, Van Gorp & Verhelst 2007b) as well as, in other tertiary institutions (Ogilvie & Dunn 2010; cf. East [2014: 261]). The increase in researching task-based approaches and its related principles reveal that task- based aspects are significantly influential in SLA and language pedagogy in a range of learning contexts.
In addition, with reference to Richards (2006: 29), Littlewood (2004: 350) agrees with Dim (2013: 123) on the views TBLT as a renovation within CLT. For instance, according to Littlewood (2004: 350), CLT is a development in language teaching and learning that dates back to the 1970s. Similarly, according to Skehan (2014: 1), CLT is a representation of a drastic change in goals and methodological strategies in language teaching and learning. Skehan is of the view that the origin of CLT dates back between the 1970s and 1980s. For Skehan, CLT is an alternative to structured–
domination of learning goals and methods of teaching the language. Skehan maintains that CLT presses emphasis on language use and its meaning (see further, Willis & Willis 2007: 178), for instance, in textbooks, instructional methods, assessment criterion and general goals of language teaching as well as teacher development. In addition to Skehan’s observations, Samuda (2009: 380- 381) emphasises that features of CLT, such as learning task(s), need to be incorporated into teacher training programs as well as in the development of language instructional materials.
While Byomantara and Mace (1997: 91) point out the view that CLT is enjoyable and effective for both L2 learners and their teachers, Benati (2013: 18-19) maintains that CLT is an alternative/shift from the traditional approaches of language teaching and learning. Benati stresses the view that CLT is premised on the assumptions which intend to develop L2 learners in linguistic as well as communicative competencies of the target language (L2). Similarly, in relation to the above views, Breen (2001: 153) maintains that TBSs evolved from SLA research mainly from Steven Krashen’s views in the 1980s. According to Breen, Krashen maintains that L2 is best learned when L2 learners are provided with sufficient input that leads L2 learners to focus upon on the meanings of the input provided. According to Breen, such views by Krashen are still influential and significant in searching for the processes on how L2 learners interact to negotiate meaning in the target language(s).
In relation to Breen’s (2001: 153) view above, Larsen-Freeman (2011: 159) argues that TBSs also referred to as meaning-based syllabuses, emphasise the need for meaningful communication across L2 classrooms. According to Larsen-Freeman, meaning-based syllabuses, and their related issues focus upon and encourage L2 learners to communicate in order to be able to negotiate meaning in the target language from both within and outside L2 classrooms. In other words, Larsen-Freeman views the application and use of TBSs to communicate as both the means and process as well as the product or desired outcome in SLA. Similarly, Robinson (2001a: 291) and Rahimpour (2010: 1662) refer TBSs as performance-based syllabuses that engage L2 learners in accumulative performances of various tasks in order to realize development in learners’ target language.
On the similar note, Breen (2001: 153) proposes that the way the learning process (means) is done and what L2 learners are learning (content) can never be separated as it is with traditional approaches to L2 teaching and learning. In this case, Breen (2001: 153) agrees with Schleppegrell (2004: 148) on the view that other than focusing on the meaning of the target language, TBSs also focus on the linguistic forms of the target language(s). According to Breen, the relationship between the two language components i.e. meaning and form, are significantly influential in the teaching and
learning of a language in the classroom. According to Breen, the combination of the meaning and form leads to the facilitation of the acquisition processes of the target language.
In addition, Breen (2001: 153) is of the view that for the integration of both the language content and the language learning processes to systematically occur, there is a need to adopt task as a major constituent and significant unit in the organisation of L2 syllabuses as well as in the classroom implementation of such syllabuses. Thus, in agreement with Breen’s views above on task, Breen et al. (1979), Prabhu (1984), Long (1985), Candlin and Murphy (1987) and with reference to Breen (2001: 153), Long and Crookes (1992) stress the view that TBSs use tasks as organisational units/components. Hence the advent of TBSs as mentioned above. Therefore, for an in-depth understanding of TBSs, the subsequent section discusses the organisational principles with regard to TBSs.