Task-based instruction (TBI), when applied according to a cycle, can turn regular language learning activities into meaningful practice of real life scenarios. In Canada, the nation-wide Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) program, which follows the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB), has its curricula centered on 12 levels of “communicative competencies and performance tasks through which learners demonstrate application of language knowledge (i.e., competence) and skill (i.e., ability)” (Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks, 2012, p. v). As tasks are central to the CLB, this presentation will show how a simplified, pragmatic form of TBI can be incorporated into the classroom, both within a LINC context and beyond.

Task is a term that has relevance in the real world; therefore, finding a suitable definition for the language classroom is key. Three relevant explanations of task include the following: the CLB defines a language task as “a communicative ‘real world’ instance of language use to accomplish a specific purpose in a particular context” (Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks, 2012, p. ix); Nunan (2004) defines a pedagogical task as

a piece of classroom work that involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to express meaning, and in which the intention is to convey meaning rather than to manipulate form. (p. 4)

Willis (1996) defines a task as an activity “where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome” (p. 23). These three takes on task give subtle nuances to better understand how to approach tasks in the language classroom.

A common theme in TBI is that tasks allow for learners to engage in meaningful/purposeful activities using the inventory of language they already possess, exploiting what they already know, rather than following what could be described as prescribed, overly rehearsed target forms. In programs where real-world communication is the target, such as the LINC program, using a TBI model is a logical approach. However, some teachers believe the focus of the English-language classroom should be discrete language forms (e.g., vocabulary lists, grammar rules, and extended pronunciation practice). I believe that teachers can easily incorporate TBI models/methodologies and adapt their teaching practices to have tasks as the focal point of the lessons, with language focus as a follow-up that further supports successful completion of target tasks. For example, a task related to an audio recording of a weather report could have students planning what to wear or activities to do. The communicative task reflects what we normally do with weather reports in the real world. Follow-up language focus might include weather vocabulary, typical structure of weather reports, or listening to and understanding numbers.

Willis (1996), Ellis (2003), and Nunan (2004) provide well-known frameworks for TBI, and these will be reviewed in the presentation. Nonetheless, as a result of extensive discussion with LINC instructors, my colleague and I devised a simplified TBI framework: Task-Teach-Task (Rockwell & Williams, 2014). In this model (see Figure 1), similar to the aforementioned frameworks, we encourage teachers to lead in with the first “Task” for diagnostic and learner self-assessment purposes. The students’ level of success in doing the task then allows the instructor to determine which elements should be included in the “Teach” (i.e., language focus) phase to ensure more successful completion of the same or similar task. Finally, the teacher ends the cycle with a final “Task” phase, using the same or a similar task, to check if the task is completed more successfully and to give students tangible evidence of their learning. For example, the teacher may ask the students to write an email to their child’s teacher thanking them for coaching the basketball team. Students’ achievement of the task would determine what language needs development in the “Teach” phase, such as appropriate subject lines, salutations, formatting of the email message. To complete the cycle, in the final “Task” phase, the students might be asked to do a similar task—sending a thank you email to a neighbor for watering the garden—to assess if the learning objectives were met. The Task-Teach-Task framework is not indicative of a cycle that would be covered within one lesson, but a cycle that would be completed over a series of lessons.

Figure 1: Task-Teach-Task Framework

In TBI, assessment is embedded in the teaching cycle and it will inevitably be a “direct assessment” (Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004) approach. In other words, assessment is directly related to the “communicative behaviors [learners] will need to carry out in the real world” (Nunan, 2004, p. 139). In Task-Teach-Task, the intention is for the first Task to include learner self-assessment and teacher’s diagnostic assessment to determine the focus of the Teach phase. The final Task phase ideally includes a formal assessment, as a “check” for that particular task as it relates to a competency or learning outcome. What is not assessed in this framework, however, are discrete language points. A task is assessed within the framework of a set context and set criteria: Is the task achieved, and, what are the indicators of success? While a target task is based on a real-world task, the criteria for success must be calibrated for the learners’ level. While the eventual target competency might be a fluent, proficient speaker’s approach to a similar task, task assessment must be aligned to the outcomes for a particular level.

Both Ellis (2003) and Nunan (2004) provide caveats that TBI is not interchangeable with task-based assessment as assessment contexts allow for less teacher flexibility; in other words, when tasks are the basis for assessment, it is important that there are clear “criteria for assessing learner performance” (Nunan, p. 164) in order to adhere to reliability and validity as much as possible. While there are some issues with task-based assessment, both Ellis (2003) and Nunan (2004) agree formative assessment is an important part of TBI. Indeed, assessment for learning is embedded in Task-Teach-Task. For example, in the aforementioned thank-you email, when used as an assessment task, the students would have had prior practice writing emails, knowing what the important elements are, and they would know prior to the assessment task, what indicators or criteria will be measured.

In conclusion, the classroom and the “real world” can be bridged by ensuring the classroom is based on pedagogical tasks (modeled on real world tasks) and the teacher provides a context where learners can experiment with the language skills they already have to negotiate completion of a variety of tasks. In the task-based classroom, language focus is not ignored at the expense of practicing real-life scenarios, but supplements successful achievement of tasks. Further, assessment is not relegated to decontextualized language focus, but is directly related to the criteria needed for successful completion of the task. Finally, when real-world tasks are the focal point of the language classroom, a bridge naturally emerges, where classroom success might easily translate to success in “real life.”

REFERENCES

Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. (2012). Canadian language benchmarks: English as a second language for adults. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Rockwell, K., & Williams, S. (2014, July). Task-Teach-Task. MOSAIC PD Day. Paper presented at North Shore Multicultural Society, North Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Retrieved from http://www.intrinsicbooks.co.uk/titles/methodology/index.html.

Shawna Williams has a Master’s of Education from the University of British Columbia. She is a provincial instructional resource coordinator with the Language Instruction Support and Training Network in British Columbia, Canada, where she works with instructors across British Columbia engaged in settlement-language teaching in the Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada Program. She is also the president of the BC Association of Teachers of English as an Additional Language (BC TEAL), an affiliate of TESOL International.