Task-based or task-supported language teaching ? A view from the bridge

1. Task-based or task-supported language teaching?A view from the bridge William Littlewood wlittlewood9@gmail.com

2. Two sources of CLT since the 1970s • A view of learning: ‘learning through communicating’ • E.g. Stephen Krashen; N.S. Prabhu; Gertrude Moskowitz • A view of language: ‘doing things with words’ • e.g. J.L. Austin; Michael Halliday; Henry Widdowson • The two ‘streams’ from these sources often convey conflicting messages

3. Result: CLT’s identity problem • From the beginning there has been confusion between: • A ‘strong version’ of CLT: if people ‘learn by communicating’, students should communicate all the time (‘experiential’ learning) • A ‘weak version’ of CLT: people can also learn how to ‘do things with words’ through conscious learning and practice (‘analytic’ learning)

4. The ‘strong’ version of CLT According to Allwright & Hanks (2009): • The strong version stimulated the ‘radical re-think’ that language teaching needed. • However it was not commercially viable as it could not form the basis for published courses. • This ‘commodity problem’ was solved by the ‘much less challenging ideas’ of the weak version).

5. The ‘weak’ version of CLT • The weak version of CLT presents a more familiar framework for teaching: it includes familiar forms of controlled, analytic learning, e.g. grammar practice and exercises. • Thornbury (2011): ‘The old PPP model by another name’

6. Communication in the classroom • Both ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ versions involve the teachers in creating and organizing communicative activities for experiential learning. • In this respect ‘tasks’ are a category of communicative activity with special design features • They pose challenges for teachers and learners used to a more transmission–oriented approach.

7. CLT and TBLT: Some challenges • The challenges faced by many teachers include: • new organizational skills e.g. for group activities • unfamiliar roles in the classroom e.g. ‘facilitator’ not only ‘knowledge transmitter’ • classroom management esp. with large classes • students resorting to the mother tongue in tasks • students performing tasks with minimal use of language • excessive demands on their own language competence • conflict with educational traditions and conceptions of learning • incompatibility with public examinations (e.g. Butler, 2011, Jeon, 2009, Littlewood, 2007, Wang, 2007)

8. Strong’ and ‘weak’ versions of TBLT • ‘A strong version where learners choose whatever language forms they wish to convey the meaning required by the task’ • ‘A weak form of task-supported teaching (analogous to P-P-P) through which tasks provide opportunities to practise language items that have been introduced in a traditional way’ (Carless, 2009)

9. The variability of TBLT • There are many variations and choices for teachers to select from when they are carrying out TBLT.’ (Carless, 2012) • ‘There is no single way of doing TBLT.’ (Ellis, 2009)

10. The variability of TBLT (Ellis, 2009) • Ellis finds only two common features in the versions advocated by Ellis, Long and Skehan: • The role of tasks in creating contexts for natural language use; • The need to also focus on form. • That is: they recommend both experiential and analytic strategies but offer variation in how to do so.

11. Tasks and TBLT in postmethod pedagogy • This flexible conception of TBLT integrates easily into a ‘context-sensitive postmethod pedagogy’ (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 20). • We may look at TBLT and tasks in the broader context of postmethod pedagogy, in which tasks: • provide necessary contexts for communicative language use, which are part of both the strong and the weak versions of CLT and TBLT; • can also serve as focuses for attention to relevant form.

12. Tasks and TBLT in postmethod pedagogy Three views from the bridge: • The experiential – analytic dimension • The communicative continuum • Task-engagement

13. 1. Experiential and analyticlearning Communication tasks Focused tasks Enabling tasks ‘Strong’ versions of CLT / TBLT ← → ‘Weak’ versions of CLT / TBLT Task-based teaching ← →Task-supported teaching

14. 2. The ‘communicative continuum’

15. Authentic communication

16. Authentic communication

17. Structured communication

18. Communicative language practice

19. Pre-communicative language practice

20. Non-communicative learning

21. 3. Task engagement

22. The communication - engagement matrix • Field A: form-oriented and not engaging, e.g. a boring drill • Field B: form-oriented and engaging, e.g. a word puzzle • Field C: message-oriented and not engaging, e.g. a role-play not related to Ss’ interests • Field D: message-oriented and engaging, e.g. a personalized role-play or discussion

23. Task-based or task-supported teaching? • Neither (or both) • We need a broader, encompassing conceptual framework which will orient us in creating experiences that are: • real and meaningful to learners, and • help them towards fulfilling their communicative needs • The framework may be called ‘communication-oriented language teaching’ or ‘COLT’ (Littlewood, 2014) • meaningful and motivating, and • lead learners to fulfil their communicative needs • This broader approach may be called simply ‘communication-oriented language teaching’ or ‘COLT’ (Littlewood, 2014)

24. References • Allwright, D. & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing learner: An introduction to exploratory practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. • Butler, Y.G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific Region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36-57. • Carless, D. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT versus P-P-P Debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 49-66. • Carless, D. (2012). Task-based language teaching in Confucian-heritage settings: Prospects and challenges. On Task, 2, 1, 4-8. • Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 3, 221-246. • Estaire, S. & Zanon, J. (1994). Planning classwork: A task-based approach. Oxford: MacMillan Heinemann. • Harmer, J. (1987). Teaching and learning grammar. London: Longman. • Hiep, P.H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61, 3, 193-201. • Ho, W. K. & Wong, R.Y.L. (Eds.). (2004). English language teaching in East Asia today.Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. • Jeon, J.H. (2009). Key issues in applying the communicative approach in Korea: Follow up after 12 years of implementation. English Teaching, 64, 1, 123-150. • Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. • Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 3, 243-249. • Littlewood, W. (2014). Communication-oriented language teaching: Where are we now? Where do we go from here? Language Teaching, 47, 3, 349-362. • Ribé, R. & Vidal, N. (1993). Project work: Step by step. Oxford, Heinemann. • Thornbury, S. (2011). Language teaching methodology. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (185-199). London: Routledge. • Ur, P. (1988/2009). Grammar practice activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Vidal, N. (1996). Teach your teacher music. Madrid: Alhambra Longman. • Wang, Q. (2007). The National Curriculum changes and their effects on English language teaching in the People’s Republic of China. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 87-105). Boston, MA : Springer Science & Business Media. Online access via SpringerLink.

25. Appendix Some key issues for context-specific approaches to COLT • Optimal combinations of analytic and experiential strategies. • How to structure classroom interaction more effectively (also without direct teacher control). • How to deepen the content of L2 communication in the classroom.

26. Appendix (cont.) Some key issues for context-specific approaches to COLT • The role of the L1 as a resource in the language classroom • How to create a rich L2 environment in the classroom. • How to create better links between practice, theory and research.