Clare Maas

2018-07-02

While the history of approaches to teaching ELT has witnessed many ideas come and go, Communicative Language Teaching (henceforth CLT) has stuck around for a while. Not without its critics, though! This article by John Klapper (2003) explores some criticisms of CLT put forward by proponents of Task-Based Language Teaching approaches (henceforth TBLT) and evaluates TBLT ideas that aim to counteract these, though do not manage to do so without encountering their own problems.

Some criticisms of CLT

  • unclear what constitutes 'communication', which is both the aim and also the means of learning
  • no prescribed techniques for use in classroom
  • little consensus on methodology or theoretical basis
  • few links to SLA  or general learning research findings
  • heavy focus on transactional language for performing limited number of functions
  • little attention to form or cognitive views of language learning
  • over-reliance on topics / contexts pertaining to imagined future use in English-speaking country
  • problematic P-P-P lesson framework often associated with CLT

Task-Based Language Teaching

In contrast to CLT, TBLT sees accuracy-focussed instruction as essential in supporting foreign language acquisition. In this approach, 'task' is taken to mean activities that are based on meanings relevant to learners' needs and current environments, and that lead to a genuine outcome such as having solved a problem or decided on a compromise. Completing the real task successfully has priority in a TBLT classroom. After they have done so, learners are then guided to focus on the accuracy of the language forms they used.

The focus on language accuracy within TBLT often involves incidentally 'noticing' and 'awareness raising' of the formal aspects of the language used to complete the meaning-based task. Specific activities may include highlighting examples of a certain form, classify affixes, compare/contrast usage of different forms. Including a focus on form in this way (as opposed to focus on formS, see Long 1991), TBLT thus aims for a balanced or work on fluency, accuracy and complexity, justified by reference to how L1 speakers acquire and use language (see Skehan 1996) and cognitive views of learning in general.  Although there is no one prescribed lesson framework for TBLT, a 'pre-task - task cycle - post task language focus' framework is common , as described by Edwards (2003).

Some criticisms of TBLT

  • P-P-P is easier for novice teachers to work with
  • learners may be exposed to large amounts of incorrect language use during work on tasks, or language which is not complex enough to serve as useful input for further learning
  • huge assumption that non-explicit correction and noticing activities is sufficient to move learners towards developmental readiness for learning a language point
  • hard to provide evaluate 'successful' task completion and generally assess language during task activities.
  • is it possible to design a task-based syllabus for use in mainstream education?
  • teenage and adult learners may not be as receptive to inductive grammar teaching

Conclusion

TBLT is supported by more SLA research insights than many other language teaching methodologies. Still, until TBLT has been shown to actually be more effective than these other methods or approaches, perhaps a more sensible way to move forward is to aim to combine it with CLT, which also enjoys a wealth of support among language teachers. Klapper suggests that the task phase in TBLT  could be seen as something akin to the 'production' stage of a P-P-P lesson in CLT. If the P-P-P framework were then reconfigured so that presentation and practice could follow on from, rather than preceding, production, we could create a pedagogical sequence more in line with what SLA research tells us about how langauge learning happens: This hybrid model would include plentiful exposure, meaningful interaction, and systematic skill development with both declarative and procedural knowledge.

Klapper's closing comments are things I would wholeheartedly agree with.  'Good' teachers are reflective and able to adapt their teaching when new insights become available from their own experience or from research in related fields. The moderate, hybrid approach suggested here by Klapper takes account of the latest research in SLA and psychology, and would thus seem a positive, as well as easy-to-implement, change for language teachers to make.

References

Edwards, C. (2003) 'Task-based language learning.' DELPHI staff development module. Available at: http://www.delphi.bham.ac.uk (forthcoming)

Klapper, J. (2003) Taking communication to task? A critical review of recent trends in language teaching, Language Learning Journal, 27:1, 33-42, DOI: 10.1080/09571730385200061

Long, M. H. (1991), 'Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology.' In: de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. and Kramsch, C. (eds) Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 39-52.

Skehan, P. (1996b) 'A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction', Applied Linguistics 17, 1, 38-62.