A Task-Based Approach to Language Teaching

8/3/2019 A Task-Based Approach to Language Teaching

1/10

Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 8 (1995): 91-100

A Task-Based A pproach to Language Teaching:The Case for Task-Based Grammar Activities

Mara Rosario Cuesta CuestaInstitute of Education, University of London

ABSTRACTProduct and process approaches to the teaching of grammar have been enormouslyinfluential in language teaching. However, it would appear that not too strict an adherenceto either product or process perspectives will prove satisfactory. In view of this, the issueis how to achieve a balance between a controlled approach to language development andthe learners' direct involvement in the discourse process. The purpose of this paper is toexplore ways of fashioning tasks in the classroom which control learner language whilegiving her opportunity for self-expression and creativity. The dangers of taking task-basedteaching approaches to an extreme will also be analysed.The key with task-based learningis how to ensure a measure of regulation over learner activity, so that the acquisition offluency is not developed at the expense of accuracy and interlanguage restructuring.

In recent years, some co nception of task has been selected as the basic unit of analysis indifferent approaches and there has been a steady increase of interest in the use of task-based alternatives to second language teaching. Three new, task-based syllabus typesappeared in the 1980's. These are (1) the Procedural Syllabus, (2) the Process Syllabus,and (3) Task-Based Language Teaching. They are all analytic, type B syllabuses (forreview, see White 44-112). With the adoption of task-based approaches, the emphasis islaid on learning processes rather than on the end producs of these processes. Suchapproaches will be, therefore, means- rather than ends-based.The term "task-b ased" certainly covers many different interpretations. So Lon g definesit as "a piece of wo rk undertak en for oneself or for others, freely or for som e rewa rd. Thu s,examples of tasks include painting a fence, dressing a child, filling out a form, buying apair of shoes . . . In other wo rds, by 'ta sk ' is meant the hundred and one things people doin everyday life, at wo rk, at play, and in betw een" ("Role for Instruction" 89). Richards,Platt and Platt offer the following definition: "an activity which is designed to help ach ievea particular learning g o a l . . . such as using the telephone to obtain information, drawing


2/10

92 Revista Alicantina de Estudios Inglesesmaps based on oral inst ru cti on s.. ." (373). In contrast, Ca ndlin's emphasis on the learners'learning preferences (as opposed to the language or language learning processes) and hissocial and prob lem-so lving orientation leads him to the following notion of taslc: "on e ofa set of differentiated, sequenceable, problem-posing activities involving learners andteachers in some joint selection from a range of varied cognitive and communicativeprocedures applied to existing and new knowledge in the collective exploration andpursuance of foreseen or emergent goals within a social milieu" ("Towards Task-BasedLangu age Learn ing" 10). At the basis of Prabhu's definition, however, are tasks whichengage the learner in thinking processes: "an activity which requires learners to arrive atan outcome from given information through some process of thought, and which allowsteachers to control and reglate that process" (24).

Similarly, different approaches to the selection of tasks have been proposed. ThusLong (see Long, "Role for Instruction"; Crookes and Long, "Three Approaches"), whopostulates a form of needs identification to be conducted as the starting point, considersthe following steps for developing a task-based syllabus:1. Conduct a needs analysis to obtain an inventory of target tasks.2. Classify the target tasks into task types.3. From the task types, derive pedagogical tasks.4. Select and sequence the pedagogical tasks to form a task syllabus." ("Rolefor Instruction" 91)

Candlin ("Towards Task-Based Language Learning" 9-10), however, offers pedagogiccriteria for judging the quality of what he calis "good" language learning tasks. Anillustration of such criteria follows. He claims that good tasks should:- promote attention to meaning, purpose, negotiation- draw objectives from the communicative needs of learners- involve language use in the solving of the task- allow for co-evaluation by learner and teacher of the task and of the performance ofthe task- promote a critical awareness about data and the processes of language learning.

In contrast, Prabhu points out that tasks should be selected and graded in terms ofcognitive complexity. The examples of tasks include completing "whodunit" stories andanswering questions about dialogues, calculating distances, giving directions, writing acurriculum vitae. Prabhu's approach lacks a needs identification. Activities are presetpedago gical task s and are not linked up with a set of target tasks determined by an analysisof a particular grou p of learne rs' purposes. In this sense, "one possible criticism . . . is thatno guidanc e is provided on the selection of problem s and tasks, or how the se might relateto the real-world language needs of the learners. In other words, the focus is exclusivelyon learning processes and there is little or no attempt to relate these processes tooutcomes" (Nunan, Syllabus Design 44).


3/10

A Task-Based Approach to Language Teaching 93Th e rationale for task, as well as its definition, varie s among different syllabusdesigners. But proponents of task as the organizational unit justify it especially onpedagogic and psycholinguistic grounds. Indeed, Long ("Task, Group") arges that task-

based approaches represent an advantage for those advocating an integrated approach tocourse design; they allow for information to be collected through needs analysis.Moreover, task-based approaches are compatible with communicatively orientedmethodology. The development of Communicative Language Teaching has prompted achange in perspective in relation to the traditional distinction between methodology andsyllabus design. Methodology becomes primary. In type B or analytic syllabuses, thesyllabus is a set of methodological statements of how to teach and stimulate learning. Insome process syllabuses, we only get a syllabus at the end as a record of what was donein the classroom . Some applied linguists even deny that process or task-based syllabusesare syllabuses at all, since the "wh at" and the "h ow " are intertwined. As Widdo wson (120)points out, "the relevan ce of the syllabus has been redefined or called into question, evento the extent of denying the need for it altogether as a projected plan of work." In thissense, Candlin ("Syllabus Design" 35) suggests a "retrospective" syllabus, determined bythe process of negotiation bu ilt into each com ponent of the syllabus . Nunan arges that theseparation of syllabus design and methodology becomes increasingly problematical withthe use of tasks, since "on e needs not only to specify both the content (or ends of learning )and the tasks (or means to those ends) but also to intgrate them. This suggests a broadperspective on curriculum in which concurrent consideration is given to content,methodology and evaluation" (Designing Tasks 15).Long also notes that materials involving tasks are "stimulating, intellectuallychallenging . . . especially those of a problem-solving nature . . . of a kind which seemmeaningful to teachers planning and implementing lessons" ("Task, Group" 7). In otherwords, tasks are considered to be a more salient unit of planning for teachers thanobjectives. Further, such task-based approaches usually imply assessment of languageachievement by means of criterion-referenced tests.

Breen and Candlin provide an educational and philosophical rather than a linguisticrationale for the Process Syllabus they have put forward. Thus, Candlin explains howeducational goals can be made the focus of language learning tasks, and asserts that"targets for language learning are all too frequently set up externally to learners with littlereference to the valu of such targets in the general educational development of the learner.Beca use w e are concerned w ith language learning, it is very easy to forget that we shouldbe equally if not more concerned with the developing personalities of our learners"("Towards Task-Based Language Learning" 16-17). There is a significant coincidencebetween Breen and Candlin's approach to education and progressivism, with theiremphasis on exploration, growth and development. Breen and Candlin draw onStenhouse's philosophy, associated with the Humanities Curriculum Project.Task-based approaches, it is claimed, assume a model of language acquisitionsupported by research findings on language learning. The Process Syllabus shows directinfluence from studies on the way learners approach learning. In comparison, theProcedural Syllab us, with its focus on the learn ers' cog nitive pro cesses, bases the rationalefor its proposals on SLA theory and research. Following Krashen, Prabhu (70) maintains


4/10

94 Revista Alicantina de Estudios Inglesesthat linguistic structures are acquired subconsciously through "the operation of someinternal system of abstract rules and principies" when the pedagogic focus is on taskcom pletion ( i.e. me aning ), instead of on the languag e used in the proc ess. With regard tothe kind of input learners we re exposed to, this wa s mainly teacher talk (i.e. the lan guagethat teachers address to L2 learners, which is not always finely tuned to the level of thelearner in the one-to-many classroom situation). In relation to errors, Prabhu (61)advocates "inciden tal," rather than "system atic" correction.

Task-Based Language Teaching incorporates findings from SLA research, mostparticularly studies exploring the effects of instruction and comparing classroom andnaturalistic learning. Crookes and Long stress that the evidence of positive effects forinstruction should lead teachers to use tasks and other pedagogic tools which drawlearn ers' attention to features of the L2. As C rookes and Long (27) suggest, "when the tasksyllabus is combined with a focus on form in task-based language teaching, the taskreceives m ore support in SLA research as a viable unit around wh ich to organize languag eteaching and learning oppo rtunities."All three approaches to syllabus design reject synthetic, type A syllabuses andlinguistic eleme nts (such as wo rd, structure, notion or function) as the unit of an alysis. Intype A approaches, syllabus content is determined by an analysis of the language to belearnt. As Crookes and Long explain, "SLA research offers no evidence to suggest thatnativelike ex emp lars of any of these synthetic units are meaningful acquisition u nits, thatthey are . . . acquired separately, singly, in linear fashion, or that they can be learnt priorto and seprate from language use" (34).Parallelling the grow ing concern with the learner has been the reassessmen t of the roleof error in both first and second language learning. Instead of being considered asdeviations from the norms in traditional models, errors are now viewed by the above-mentioned proposals for syllabus design as an integral part of the language learningprocess. Learners are constantly forming and reformulating hypotheses about the targetlanguage. This hypothesis-testing process seems to be the most relevant explanation ofsecond languag e learning . Wh en facing a problem in the target langu age, a L2 learner willinfer from the L l system and from her know ledge of L2. The potential errors resulting canbe due to different reasons, and teachers should be aware of these processes whendesigning tasks. Apart from these psychological/cognitive factors, one can distinguishsocial/communicative reasons which may also account for errors. That is, learners areoften encouraged to start using the language and concntrate on the communication ofmeanings, at the expense of accuracy. As Widdowson (111) summarizes, "errors havegenerally been attributed to cognitive causes, evidence of the learner's psychologicalprocess of rule formation. But they can also be seen as communicatively motivated, therealization of available resources to get a message across." One could arge that there isno easy solution to the problem of errors. How ever, attention has been paid to an rea thathad been previously neglected in language teach ing. I wou ld agree with those who dem andmo re flexibility wh en considering errors at different stages in the learning p roces s. In myopinin, teachers and learners will discuss in the classroom the difficulties that emergedfrom a specific activity and will try to compnsate for them.


5/10

A Task-Based Approach to Language Teaching 95Whether the focus is form, function or skills, product approaches segment the targetlanguage into discrete linguistic tems for presentation one at a time. The assumptionbehind such approaches seems to be that language is analysable into a finite set of rules

which can be combined in various ways to make meaning. Moreover, these approachesrely "on learn ers' assumed ability to leam a language in parts . . . which are independentof one another, and also to intgrate, or synthe size, the pieces whe n the time co m es to usethem for communicative purposes" (Crookes and Long 28). Rutherford (4) calis this the"accum ulated entities" view of languag e learning. Produc t approache s focus on what is tobe learned (i.e. L2), on the know ledge and skills which learners should gain as a result ofinstruction.Product approaches to grammar teaching obviously suffer from some problems, butthey also have their streng ths. Product appro aches, it is argued, can faciltate the learning

of grammar by providing opportunities for learners to notice and structure grammar.How ever, gramm atical forms are unlikely to becom e internalized unless p roceduralizationcan take place. Noticing and structuring grammar are not enough. This is where the thirddimensin of language learning comes in. Following Ellis {Understanding LanguageAcquisition), a distinction can be drawn between two types of L2 knowledge: declarativeand procedural. The former refers to what the learner knows about the language, i.e.internalized L2 rules and memorized chunks of speech. The latter is "how to" knowledge;that is, it comprises "the strategies and procedures employed by the learner to process L2data for acquisition and for use" (Ellis Understanding Language Acquisition 164).Proced uralizing refers to the men tal organization of know ledge , so that accessing is m adeeasy. Competent language users' knowledge of the language seems to be stored in themind ready for use, already assembled for imm ediate access. This prefabricated speech h asboth the advan tage of more efficient retrieval from me mory and of perm itting speakers todevote their attention to the larger structure of the discourse (see Bolinger and Pa wley andSyder). In short, the mechanism of proceduralization "refers to the embedding of factualknowledge into productions so that the producs of frequently executed productions canbe retrieved directly from memory and declarative knowledge need not be activated inworking memory for their execution" (Schmidt 363).However, there is a second dimensin which is sometimes referred to as "proceduralskill" (Batstone, Schmidt). If proceduralized knowledge is concerned with the formationand storage of knowledge, procedural skill relates to the accessing and efficientperformance in language use (e.g. being economical and avoiding undue repetition orexcessive pausing, controlling pace, engaging strategies to be fluent). So learners needplenty of practice to proceduralize grammar in real-world language use. Without regularopportunities to put their grammar into action more or less autom atically wh en nego tiatingmean ings, much of the gram mar learners may have noticed and structured through productwork w ill gradually disappear. Fu rtherm ore, learners are likely to revert to a mo re lexicallanguage system , which predisposes to fossilization and lack of intellectual develop me nt.Therefore, grammatical forms will never become part of the learners' proceduralknow ledge u nless they are encouraged to have access to their know ledge of the system inlanguage use. So they will proceduralize a much richer system, encounter new languageand stretch their own possibilities. In fact, requiring learners to engage in task-based


6/10

96 Revista Alicantina de Estudios Inglesesgrammar activities may well help them to use language creatively and develop the skillsand strategies necessary to negotiate meanings in the discourse process. Tasks will bedesigned w hich will be concerned w ith langu age skills as real cotnmu nication in real time,in the classroom . The em phasis will be on comm unication and the aim is to have learne rscommunicate effectively.Teac hers, however, should be aw are of the difficulty som e learners find in learning tocommunicate in L2 and should also teach communication strategies, where learners areexpected to parap hrase, borrow or invent word s, use gesture, ask for feedback, simplify,etc. In this respect, E llis (Understanding Language Acquisition) points out that languageuse involves, on the one hand, production and reception strategies and, on the other,communication strategies. Both native speakers and L2 learners use the same strategies,but they differ on the frequency. Production/reception strategies are concerned with theunproblematic use of the language and can be divided into planning and correctingstrategies. In contrast, communication strategies can be defined, in Ellis' words, asfollows: "Com mun ication strategies are psycholinguistic plans which exist as part of thelanguage use r's com municative com petence. They are potentially conscious and serve assubstitutes for produc tion plans which the learner is unable to implem ent" (UnderstandingLanguage Acquisition 182). Their main role is to keep the channel open in realcommunication situations. Ellis' typology of communication strategies includes reductionstrategies (attempts to avoid the problem ) and achievem ent strategies (aimed to overe methe problem, such as code-switching, literal translation, substitution, paraphrase,restructuring, etc.).It can be argued that, with task-based approaches, learners are given the opportunityto practise all those strategies needed for productive language use and the negotiation ofmeaning. Likewise, learners are expected to develop the necessary skills for spokeninteraction (e.g. how to turn take, hold or pass the floor, ch ange the topic, enter and leaveconversation, refuse without appearing rude). They are present in the conversationalspeech of most people and they are, in a sense, part of what m akes conv ersation w ork. Werecognize them as ways of negotiating the intricate business of social interaction vialanguage. Research in this rea of discourse has revealed different expectations ofconversational interaction. This is especially relevant in ESL and EFL contexts, sinceeulture-specifie rules and mechan isms of, for examp le, turn-taking may bring about seriousmisunderstanding and breakdown of communication. The significance of a task-basedapproach for the learner in this rea is conside rable, as opposed to the traditional languag eclassroom, "where turns are patiently organized and controlled by the teacher . .. Indeedthe teacher who constantly interrupts the stud en ts' discourse to correct every gram maticalmistake not only violates usual turn-taking procedures but may also hinder the students'acquisition of them" (Cook 5 7).

Co mm unication , therefore, involves handling various aspeets together, usually at highspeed. Competent language users approach discourse in a top-down way and this is whata successful language learner must eventually b e able to do . A distinction is usually draw nbetw een tw o basic mode s of information p rocessing, which incorprate a balance betweenthe degree of background knowledge or schema and the amount of language we need tobring to it. These are called bottom-up and top-down processing. Working under task-


7/10

A Task-Based Approach to Language Teaching 97based conditions, learners are expected to gain control over the systems of language andcommunication operating as a whole. In other words, learners will find themselvesinterpreting discourse through top-down processing. Following Carrell and Eisterhold(557), "top-down processing . . . occurs as the system m akes general predictions based onhigh level, general schemata and then searches the input for information to fit into thesepartially satisfied, higher order schemata. Top-down processing is, therefore, called'conce ptually d riv en .'" In contrast, bottom -up processing interprets "the lowest-level un itsfirst, then proceeding to an interpretation of the rank above, and so on upwards" (Cook156). Thus, bottom-up processing is "data driven" (Carrell and Eisterhold 557). Bothmo des of information processing occur at all levis simultaneou sly: it is again a matter ofdegree. The more familiar the general topic or situation, the less reliance needs to beplaced on the lang uage . Conversely, the less you can bring your existing know ledge of thewo rld, the mo re you w ill need to attend to the text. In the former case, the tendency willbe to process top-down (which is much more orientated towards schem atic know ledge).In the latter, the reverse situation is found: your un derstanding will be given by attentionto the systemic knowledge (i.e. bottom-up processing).The top-down approach can be a very productive strategy for L2 learners. Yettextbooks have ignored top-down processing. As Cook (83) asserts, "a good deal oflanguage teaching has followed a bottom-up approach, in that it has considered only theformal langua ge system, often in isolated senten ces, without dem onstrating or dev elopingthe way that system operates ?n context." Textbooks do not usually build on the learners'personal know ledge. Learners are just given words and phrases to mem orize, which leadsthem to a bottom-up approach to language. Comm unicative skills are widely assum ed tobe in a subsidiary position to language sk ills. Ne vertheless, I wo uld ag ree with Coo k wh enhe points out that "attention to discourse does not necessarily entail sacrificing thetraditional emphasis on pronunciation and writing, grammar and vocabulary. These areessential elements in com mu nication, and discourse is realized through them . . . Discourseand formal skills are interdependent and must be developed together" (79).The terms "top-do wn " and "bottom -up" are somewhat misleading, since they seem totrigger some kind of opposition. The difference, however, lies in the degree of consciousattention to language. It is again a dynam ic continuum . In som e situations, one w ill haveto be more consciously aware of the language system than in others. But as I arge later,it is not always easy to get the balance between a top-down and a bottom-up approach.

It follows from the characterization of the task-based approaches proposed in thepreceding part of this paper that grammar will emerge naturally out of communication indiscourse. Rather than considering grammar as a static product, what we have here is adynam ic view of gram mar. In Ru therford's wo rds (57), "in one interpretation of the natureof language we have the 'machine' concept yielding a language 'product' whose primemanifestation is a language 'construct. ' In our other... interpretation we have the'organism' concept embodying language processes among which is all-important'grammaticization.'" Grammar, therefore, has a side to it that can properly be called"organic." Learners are encouraged to cali on grammar as a necessary resource for thecreation of meanings in the discourse process. Similarly, Widdowson observes (97) that"language learning is essentially learning how grammar functions in the achievement of


8/10

98 Revista Alicantina de Estudios Inglesesm ean ing." Hene e the contribution of conversational interaction to SLA . Som e researchers(see Hatch) point out the possibility that it is through participating in conversations in aL2 that one learns the L2 syntax. Gramm ar will evolve out of engagem ent in collabo rativediscourse. In this way, task-based grammar provides learners with a language-richenvironment and recurring opportunities to notice, structure and proceduralize grammarin real-life language use.It can be argued that these are the best conditions for gram m ar tea ching . Our focus isto guide learners into self-expression without losing sight of the gram ma r. Unfortunately,there are reasons why this beneficial process m ight not be so certain to oceur. The personalexperience of countless teachers will show that learners tend to avoid any eng agem ent w iththe language system when focusing on the negotiation of meaning. Instead, they seem torevert to lexis. As Skehan (205) puts it, "language users and learners bypass syntax anduse lexical strategies to enable them to keep up with communication in real-time whenconstrained by a limited capacity information-processing system." Consequently, manylearners fail to reach target language competence and fossilization may oceur. Learnersstay at the lexical stage, and proceduralize an extremely impoverished language system,which is gram matically fossilized, since they believe that they do not need to develop theirinterlanguage any further in order to com mu nicate effectively wh atever they want to . Thus,such learners may have procedural skill, but very little development of proceduralknowledge. They may achieve fluency, but not aecuracy. Skehan's article (205) is againrelevant in this regard, expressing that task-based gram ma r "runs the risk of consolidatingthese pressures for lexicalised communication, and as a result will underplay the role ofaecuracy and of interlanguage restructuring."This is the key issue connected with natural language use. Widdowson (163-64)summarizes his view in the following terms: "We do not want our learners to bypasslanguage when they use it, as it is natural for native speakers to do, because they do nothave the systemic knowledge as a backup resource to rely on. This is precisely what wewant them to acquire and it is the purpose of pedagogy to assist them in acquiring it." Inother words, native speakers are used to operating top-down. The emphasis is on payingas little attention as possible to language w hen they are dealing with som ething familiar.In a way, the systemic knowledge is put to the service of the schematic knowledge. Butthis is the dange r: if a L 2 learner interprets information through top-dow n process ing, shemay dispense with elements of grammar, as stated earlier, and fail to stretch herinterlanguage . In contrast, we may find learners who are unw illing to take linguistic risksand are over-attentive to form. They are so cautious that they will never become fluent.These learners may have considerable procedural knowledge, but they cannot access thatknow ledge efficiently and automatically (i.e. they lack procedural skill).In view of this, one might arge that the effectiveness of top-down processing has beenoverstressed, since it makes language to some extent redundant. The case for certaindegrees of bottom -up processing may begin now. In my opinin, task-based gram ma r workshould enco urage learners to achieve both kinds of processing, and approach discourse inone way or the other depending on the specific circumstances.Conseq uently, we will have to fashion our tasks very carefully. L earners m ay be givenopportunities to use language in the task-based class. But unless regulated, learners will


9/10

A Task-Based Approach to Language Teaching 99procedu ralize a language system that is very reduced, and which may lead to fossilizationand lack of interlanguage developmen t. In Skeh an's wo rds, "requiring learners to engag ein task-based learning may well, if not balanced by other activities, lead to the use ofcomprehension and communication strategies, and encourage a performance-orientedapproach to learning, with the result that fluency and synthesis are developed at theexpense of accuracy and restructuring" (196).It follows from this that the key issue is to direct that procedura lization. Th is raises animportant question for language teaching . How do we set up opportunities for languageuse in the classroom that take advantage of interaction, while at the same time they havean element of directioning, so that we can reglate learne rs' activity towards accuracy andfluency? The answer, once again, would lie in the achievement of balance between thecompeting requirements of both extremes. I would arge that there is a continuum in termsof teaching. In an extreme product approach, everything is under control, whereas inextreme process teaching, learners seem to have total initiative. In my opinin, neitherextreme is satisfactory. We aim at a degree of balance: teachers can keep some control,wh ile learners are using language in meaning-focused discourse. Learners are involved intasks that direct them to negotiate mean ing, that push them to crate and take risks , whilealso encouraging them to work with grammar. As Batstone points out, these seem to bethe ideal conditions for learners to notice, restructure and, particularly, pro ceduralize theirgrammar. In general terms, this is a position which is shared by a number of appliedlinguists, including S kehan, wh o conc ludes that "the key with task-based learning is howto preserv e a controlled app roach to language developm ent, and ensu re that the acqu isitionof fluency is not at the expense of developmen t in structure" (19 7).In this paper, I have sought to provide a rationale for a task-based approach tolanguage teaching. Yet we have seen that there are dangers from taking such an approachin unrestrained form. In view of this, I have argued for the need of a judic ious balancebetween the various goals in the teaching of grammar discussed earlier. If "the potentialof task-based language teaching for harnessing instructional and learning strategiesconsistent with second language acquisition research findings" (Long, "Task, Group" 20)is to be realized, careful attention, I believe, should be paid to the issue of the regulationof learner language through task design.

W orks CitedBatstone, Rob. Grammar. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994.Bolinger, Dwight. "Meaning and Memory." Forum Linguisticum 1.1 (1976): 1-13.Candlin, Christopher. "Syllabus Design as a Critical Process." General English Syllabus Design.Ed. Christopher J. Brumfit. Oxford: Pergamon, 1984. 29-46.. "Towards Task-Based Language Learning." Language Learning Tasks. Ed. Christopher

Candlin and Dermot F. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1987. 5-22., and David Nunan. Revised Syllabus Specifications for the Om ani School EnglishLanguage Curriculum. Muscat: Ministry of Education and Youth, 1987.


10/10

1 00 Revista Alicantina de Estudios InglesesCarrell, Patricia L. and Joan C. Eisterhold. "Schem a Theory and ES L Reading Pe dago gy." TESOL

Quarterty 11A (1983): 553-7 3.Cook, Guy. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989.Crookes, Graham, and Michael Long. "Three Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design."TESOL Quarterfy 26.1 (1992): 27-47.Ellis, Rod. Instructed Second Language Acquisition: Learning in the Classroom. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell , 1990.. Understanding Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1985.

Hatch, Evelyn Marcussen, ed. Second Langu age Acqu isition: A Book of Readings. Rowley:Newbury House, 1978.

Krashen, Stephen. Principies and Practice in Second L anguage Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon,1982.

Larsen-Freeman, D iane, and Michael H. Long. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition.London: Longman, 1990.Lon g, M ichael H. "A R ole for Instruction in Second Lang uage Acq uisition: Task-B ased Lan guag eTraining." Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition. Ed. Kenneth Hyltenstamand Manfred Pienem ann. Clevedon: Multil ingual M atters, 1985. 77-99 .

. "Task, Gro up, and Task-Group Interaction s." University ofHawaii Working Papers in ESL8.2 (1989): 1-26.

Nunan, David. Designing Tasksfor the Com municative C lassroom. Cam bridge: Cambridge UP,1989.

. Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1988.Pawley, Andrew, and Franc s H. Syder. "Tw o Puzzles for Linguistic Theo ry: Nativelike Selection

and Nativelike Fluency." Language and Communication. Ed. Jack C. Richards and RichardW. Schmidt. London: Longman, 1983. 191-226.

Prabhu, N. S. Second Language Pedagogy: A Perspective. London: Oxford UP, 1987.Richa rds, Jack C , Joh n Platt and Heidi Platt, eds . The Longma n Dictionary of Language Teaching

and Applied Linguistics. Harlow: Longman, 1992.Rutherford, William E. Second Language Granvnar: Learning and Teaching. Harlow: Longman,

1987.Schmidt, Richard. "Psychological Mechanisms Underlying Second Language Fluency." Studies

in Second Language Acquisition 14.4 (1992): 357-85.Skehan, Peter. "Second Language Acquisit ion Strategies and Task-Based Learning." ThamesValley University Working Papers in ELT 1 (1992): 178-208.White, Ronald. The ELT Curriculum. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988.Widdowson, Henry G. Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1990.

A Task-Based Approach to Language Teaching

Documents

Transcript of A Task-Based Approach to Language Teaching