Willis's and Skehans versions of task-based learning: A critical examination

Jamel Abdenacer ALIMI e-mail: jamel_alimi@yahoo.com 15 June, 2006.

A Framework for Task-Based Learning is a complete guide to the methodology and practice of task-based language teaching. For those who wish to adopt a genuinely learner-centred approach to their teaching, it offers an alternative framework to the "presentation, practice, production" model. This book is based on sound principles of language learning and combines the best insights from communicative language teaching with a systematic focus on language form.

Willis (1996: blurb; emphasis mine)

Over the past two decades or so, the field of English Language Teaching (ELT) has seen a marked shift towards task-based learning and teaching (Richards and Rodgers 2001:51; Prabhu 1987; Nunan 1988, 2004; Skehan 1996a, 1996b; Long and Crookes 1992). This has resulted in various conceptions and frameworks, the major trends of which could perhaps be best captured in J. Willis (1996)'s and Skehan (1998)'s model. Given their wide-ranging disparity in both emphasis and focus, these approaches, including much more relevantly the two ones just referred to, have, unfortunately, posed genuine challenges for a firm and exhaustive grasp of their respective areas of focus and emphasis thus requiring yet further efforts for a critical scrutiny of them all. The present paper is in line with such ongoing endeavour. It will specifically concern itself with investigating Willis's 1996 task-based approach and, then, with comparing it with Skehan's 1998 own version as, respectively, elaborated in A Framework for TaskBased Learning and A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. To this end, we propose to divide the remainder sections as follows: Section One provides a broad introduction to the main features and tenets of TBLT. Section Two outlines and, then, critically examines Willis's 1996 model. Section Three compares the approach just referred to with Skehan (1998)'s. Section Four will discuss both versions with exclusive consideration to their immediate congruence with, and applicability to, Sultanate of Oman's EFL context.

1- TBLT: A BRIEF BACKGROUND TBLT is generally regarded as one of the logical developments of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach. The common philosophy between such TBLToriented proposals as Prabhu (1987)'s, Long and Crookes (1992)'s, and Nunan (2004)'s or as will be detailed later Willis (1996)'s and Skehan (1998)'s is their yet more pressing concern for achieving true message-focus in the classroom in comparison with the latter approach (Johnson 1998:314; Willis 1996; Richards and Rodgers 2001:223-43; Willis and Willis 2001:174). This directly implies, inter alia, a solid option for totally eschewing a form-focused type of instruction as traditionally brought about through a teacher-led, "Presentation-Practice-Production" sequence1 (Harmer 2001; Johnson 1998: 251-3). Alternatively, an optimum student-centred learning environment, which revolves around a series of pedagogic tasks2 and is basically created, in Willis (op.cit: 10-17)'s own terms, owing to exposure, use of language, motivation and instruction (see Figure 2 below), is offered as the antithesis to any structurally- or situationally-inspired, Type A model3 of classroom instruction (White 1988: 44-5; Wilkins 1976). As could be inferred from the four conditions italicised above, TBLT relates the rationale and aims of the real-world tasks it professes right to recent second language acquisition (SLA) findings, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and classroom-based insights. This multi-discipline background offers it, as Doughty and Long (2003) assert, ample potential for making course design responsive to learners precisely specified communicative needs, for developing functional foreign language proficiency without sacrificing grammatical accuracy, and for harmonizing the way a language is taught with what SLA research has revealed about how languages are learned (50). These sources of interest apart, it is worthy of notice, from the outset, that there is currently no consensus over the notion of task (Nunan 1989:5; Foster 1999). Nor is there a similar agreement about what each of the definitions provided now and then practically amounts to "in our search for relationships between task types, cognitive complexity and second language acquisition" (Nunan 2004: 91). Due to either case, TBLT still continues to generate yet more frameworks and angles of perspectives. The significance and impact of the latter assertion are highlighted in further details in the following two sections and elsewhere in the essay, with chief regard to Willis's (1996) and Skehan's (1998) model.

2- WILLIS'S (1996) TBLT VERSION: The present Section is divided into two separate parts. The first will provide a brief descriptive outline of the major assumptions which underpin A Framework for TaskBased Learning. The second will attempt to examine the perspectives advanced in the said framework from a critical angle.

2.1 A Brief Account of the Model:

Willis (1996:1) sees task-based learning as developing out of the CLT approach. She advances the following as key points of departure: a- Practice of language forms does not necessarily make perfect. b- People cannot learn a language without plenty of opportunities for real language use. c- The language that learners are exposed to and that they use has to reflect the kind of language that they want to learn. d- Too much emphasis on small group communication without any call for accuracy may result in some learners' grammar fossilizing combined with the risk of developing fluency at the expense of accuracy. e- Language acquisition is best achieved when combining the above insights with a focus on form (ibid).

Within this general type of givens, she defines a task as a goal-oriented communicative activity with a specific outcome, where the emphasis is on exchanging meaning not producing specific language forms (36). She considers its use as the central focus in a supportive methodological framework, with the twofold aim of creating a real purpose for language use and of providing an optimum learning environment for language study. Accordingly, as illustrated in Figure 1 below,

The TBL Framework Pre-task: Task cycle: Introduction to topic and task Task Planning Report Students hear task recording or read text Analysis and practice Review and repeat task

Language focus:

Figure 1:

The TBL Framework (Willis 1996:132)

Students prepare for the task, report back after the task and then study the language that arises naturally out of the task cycle and its accompanying materials (ibid:1). The cycle in question (see Figure 2) proposes six different categories of tasks: Listing, ordering and Sorting, Comparing, Problem solving, Sharing personal experiences, and Creative tasks (ibid: 26-27). The success of its implementation, as is maintained throughout, depends on parameters of exposure, use of language, motivation and instruction (focused on language form), as explained in Figure 2 below:
Conditions for Language Learning Essential Use of the Desirable Instruction in language (i.e. chances to to focus form) on

Exposure to a rich but comprehensible input of real spoken written language in use and

Motivation to and the language and listen read

language to things (i.e. exchange meanings) do

speak and write (i.e. process and the exposure) use it to

Figure 2:

Conditions for Language Learning (Willis 1996: 11)

These four requisites have, necessarily, to be jointly fulfilled by the teacher and learners, as shown in the Summary Chart in the Appendix Section. As hoped, this will ultimately yield the following results: real communication in the target language learners' exposure to a rich but comprehensible language in use through listening and reading provision of opportunities for both spontaneous and planned speaking and writing.

The above Section was by no means intended to be exhaustive or complete in scope. It was rather meant to capture the most pertinent assets and perspectives in Willis's 1996 version of TBLT4. The Section to follow will attempt to critically examine the proposal at hand from three distinct, yet intertwined angles. 2.2 Critical Examination: The present sub-section aims to provide a critical examination of J. Willis's 1996 taskbased framework. It will specifically look into the said model at the level of (a) its ideological bases and aims, (b) its characterisation of task, and (c) its purported immediacy to its target student audience. (The fourth issue surrounding its applicability and relevance to instructional contexts across the world will be dealt with separately in Section Four with exclusive reference to the Sultanate of Oman). 2.2.1 Ideological bases and objectives The model at hand betrays strong affinities with the overarching principles of the process-oriented mode of teaching (White, Op.Cit.: 4). It thus adheres to a recently developing school of thought in ELT which advocates a shift away from a top-down, "teacher-knows-best" type of instruction and towards greater recognition of the students' non-passive role in the learning equation (Nunan 1989). This view of pedagogy is deeply ingrained in the yet broader Progressivist perspectives on the nature and purpose of education, which are concerned with "doing things for" or "doing things with" the learner (Davies 1976: 32, cited in White 1988:25)5. This is said, it is worthy of notice that the framework as thus put forward neither posits nor even stands on a well-defined theory of language, as certainly do, for instance, its Audiolingual-inspired counterparts (Richards and Rodgers 2001: 226). It rather draws on, and identifies itself with, a weak version of the CLT approach6 in addition to an unequivocal pronouncement in favour of the principle of focus on form "a term referring to the incorporation of implicit grammar instruction within communicative ESL lessons" (Fotos 1998:301). In so doing, it simultaneously departs from the linguistic and psycholinguistic precepts associated with the Structural view of language, endorses a variation of the Functional view, and, ultimately, proposes task as a viable vehicle for effective teaching and learning. The characterization of this very construct is looked into in some details in the subsequent part. 2.2.2 Characterization of Task At its basis, the framework here examined views task, within the three-stage cycle described in Figure 1 above, as a stimulating unit of instruction in general and, in our case, as an effective catalysis of English language acquisition. As Willis (1996:23) stresses, the concept in question should always be taken to be an activity "where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome". This characterization, when examined, promptly yields several crucial remarks which chiefly concern the considerably close affinity the framework demonstrates with earlier and then ongoing views of task, comprised consecutively of (a) preparation, (b) core, and
5

(c) follow-up activities, with (a) and (c) as internal stages of a task and (b) as central to the whole process of language learning and teaching (Cameron 1997:347). The demarcation from formally-oriented English lessons where "exercises" move along a rigid "Presentation-Practice-Production" continuum, more often than not with little sensitivity to learners' cognitive, metacognitive and linguistic levels and needs (Nunan 1989; Harmer 2001; Moon 2002:5). The belief that ESL/EFL acquisition is best achieved through a type of input not necessarily highly dependent on the teacher. Instead, this very input is, as it were, generated "live" by the learners and his/her interacting peers over an extended period of time depending, of course, on the task assigned. The care it shows for attending to learners' interlanguage deficiencies as they actually arise, and not as discrete, decontextualized components of a pre-ordained language lesson. This position, it should be stressed, echoes the conclusions reached by extensive research on this area, which recommend the development of learners' accuracy via consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form (Fotos Op.Cit.:302).

In the face of the four observations above, the framework's characterization of the construct of task very much echoes the insights deriving from CLT in its revised, post1980s version (See points ae in Subsection 2.1 above). The stance it itself tends to take up, it should be reiterated, is in favour of a weak interpretation of CLT which acknowledges the need for a focus on form (Nunan 2004: 9). This perspective, as Willis and Willis (2001) report, concurs with recent research which suggests that while communicative language use is the driving force for language acquisition we also need to focus at some point on language form if acquisition is to be maximally efficient (174). The translation of both parts of this quotation into practical classroom tasks is at the heart of Willis (1996)'s version of TBLT. Its acceptance of the second section is very much in line with pleas for a prominent place for formal noticing, detection, and awarenessraising so as to " prompt L2 learners to recognize their linguistic problems and bring relevant aspects of the L2 to their attention" (Izumi and Bigelow 2000: 239). It, as yet, happens to clash with some other data-driven conclusions which, in part, question the much-acclaimed function of noticing (See, for example, Thornbury 1997; Harmer 2003 and Izumi and Bigelow (Op.Cit) for recent discussions). It equally happens, as will be explained later on, to show a quite number of differences in many an area when compared with Skehan's 1998 model.

All in all, the Willis approach, as so far examined at the level of its ideological underpinnings and its characterization of the concept of task, tends to show a deal of assumptions about the expected learner role therein. The latter issue will be turned to here below.

2.2.3 Relevance to TBLT-taught Learners The framework's attempts at laying a sound basis for relevance to L2 learners are just more than obvious. This may be easily evidenced, in part, by the broad, foundational principles which, in short, view the learner as a creative and intelligent partner in the L2 learning/teaching process (see Subsection 2.2.1). The same assertion may equally be confirmed by the very characterization of task, whereby there is no room allowed for regurgitating transmitted knowledge, mim-mem or rote-learning that are notoriously reminiscent of the pre-CLT era. (See Richards and Rodgers 2001 for an excellent review of the Grammar-Translation Method and the Audio-Lingual Method alluded to here). This relevance, while undeniably secured against the two criteria above, is, nonetheless, open to question. To start with, there seems to be too much idealization of the nature and competence of the learners not only as individuals but also as co-partners in talk-ininteraction settings. In either case, there is an overly tendency to visualize each of them as capable of demonstrating high levels of psycholinguistic performance and predisposition to lead each and every single task assigned to its successful happy ending, that of outcome. It is just extremely unlikely that students will invariably show the same motivation and competence as they move higher up the "graded" six-task pyramid (mentioned in Subsection 2.1). Closely related to the above point is the strong impression that the said framework pledges too much on the homogeneity factor in students' grouping while engaging in the core task and/or when reacting to the teacher's intentions. That might simply prove a matter of wishful thinking. For personal experience as well as empirical insights derived from many classroom-driven data worldwide do belie that assumption (e.g., Carless 2004; Cameron 2001; Moon 2002:5; Kumaravadivelu 1991) Last but not least, the Framework seems to foremost address students at secondary schools and, therefore, of a relatively advanced age. In so doing, it largely overlooks a not less important segment of the student community, that of young learners. It is perfectly true that Chapter 8 is entirely allocated to beginners and young learners, including even those from a non-Roman background. But, curiously enough, the wellargued advocacy for TBLT in the previous chapters just happens to lose its initial grounding and consistency. For Willis (Op.Cit: 117) briskly shifts the discussion towards an adapted version of TBLT, arguing that that best suits this very category of students. The end result, in my view, is not an "adapted" version of TBLT, as obviously intended, but, rather, a model of the Lexical approach to ELT (Lewis 1993, 1997; Willis 1990). The shift in opinion from a primarily Type B framework to a Type A-verging one, its motives notwithstanding, dangerously undermines the claims in the Introductory quotation above, to say the least. The above critique will be extended with a brief comparison with a not less influential model advanced by Skehan (1998). 2.2.4 Comparison with Skehan (1998)'s Model of TBLT A perusal of both A Framework to Task-Based Learning and A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning yields a great deal of intersections and divergences in both perspectives and priorities. What follows are a few points which illustrate some of the key areas of overlapping or lack of it in relation to views of TBLT, in general, and of the construct of task, in particular.
7

2.2.4.1 Views of TBLT One of the first aspects to notice here is the belief which the two versions here concerned strongly share about the promising role of TBLT in L2 instruction. The reasons they each advance in this regard are claimed to be justifiable on grounds of empirical research results and data relating to Language Theory, SLA and Cognitive Psychology. Based on incoming insights from such various bodies of theory, they jointly argue for the need to base in-class teaching and learning around a series of pedagogic, communication tasks which have to be in close connection with beyond-the-class activities. 2.2.4.2 Views of Task The convergences in views just pointed out also concern though only to a certain degree the perspectives on the notion of task. Indications of similarity are evident, inter alia, in the prerequisite aspects of the said construct whereby, as Skehan (Op.Cit.) argues, meaning is primary; there is some communication problem to solve; there is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities; task completion has some priority; (and) the assessment of the task is in terms of outcomes (95). The five criteria set above are of primordial importance in Willis (Op.Cit.)s own definition of task, too (See relevant quotations in Sections above). This, however, should by no means suggest the existence of a total fusion of opinions across the two frameworks. For cases of discrepancy soon become more and more evident once the common points of departure are taken over. For one thing, Skehan appears more concerned with proposing a TBLT approach that is based on information processing. In contrast, Willis tends to lay stress more on the practically outer learning/teaching roles of task than on the latters inner or psycholinguistic underpinnings and development with regard to students interlanguage hence, her interest in providing practical suggestions for dealing with the usual four language skills. 3- DISCUSSION Following the details in the preceding Section, one could hardly stifle the impression that Willis (1996)s and Skehan (1998)s approach to TBLT would most appropriately concern post-intermediate or adult contexts (Carless 2004:641; Cameron 2001:21).The fact that the former framework includes a whole section for the sake of L2 beginners/ young learners is worth of eulogy in its own right. But that would really do little to dispell the overwhelming sentiment that it, too, has been developed with the generic standard learner in the preconceived standard classroom in mind. More centrally, it explicitly concedes the existence of a mini-framework embedded within it, the rationale and objectives of which could but strongly recall those associated with product-oriented, non-TBLT proposals (Long and Crookes 1992; White 1988 :45-6; Nunan 1988). It is this
8

very deviation in concern which, in my view, destabilizes the coherence in Willis 1996 framework and makes her TBLT version regarding young learners just a misnomer. Insofar as the second proposal is concerned, it is imperative to acknowledge the pain it takes to explain students various cognitive processes involved when engaged in the pre-, during-, and post-stages of the task. The three evolutionary phases in the development of language processing (i.e., lexicalization, syntacticalization, and re-lexicalization) are of tremendous pedagogic significance, too. For they, among other things, help TBLTpractising teachers not only to cope with but also improve their students current state of English or interlanguage. And so do, it is believed, the three task-related goals of fluency, accuracy, and complexity 7. This version of TBLT is not totally unproblematic, though. For instance, Cook (year not supplied) finds it self-reductionist in the sense that it ties itself to a single teaching method and that it fails to encompass a wide range of students, situations and languages. Spolsky (1989; quoted in Cook (Op.Cit.)) would also find fault with it given his axiom whereby any theory of second language learning that leads to a single method must be wrong. My own contention, in short, is that it tends to be too well-formulated to be fully true, relevant or applicable in such EFL settings as Oman, where Basic Education students overall level at English is ostensibly mediocre. As hinted at just now, the impact of either version at hand cannot be discussed for long without touching upon their expected relevance to, and compatibility with, their target end-users around the world. Insofar as the Sultanate of Oman is concerned, the teaching packages currently in use explicitly reveal their designers awareness of the pedagogic implications, including, most likely, those of the two models at issue here. That awareness by no means equals endorsement, though. For the methodology, as officially stated English Language Curriculum Department (2001-2002), is based on an integrated, multi-layered approach to language learning, with functional and grammatical aspects of the language, skills, vocabulary, pronunciation and learning strategies developed through key topics (vi).

The message hidden behind this excerpt is simply this: TBLT versions, whatever their merits, must constitute only one fraction of the total approach in effect. This pro-Type A stance, based on the instructional particularities here prevailing, shows more commonsense when downplaying Willis (1996)'s and Skehan (1998)'s advocacy for tasks as the sole means for L2 learning. Equally, the decision made for adopting an allinclusive, eclectic view of language learning and teaching is clearly in line with similar views in the ELT field in connection with TBLT. These, in addition to the concerns raised in Subsection 2.2 and Section 3 above, draw due attention to the following main points: The most likely imminent lack of suitability of TBLT for all cultural contexts given the fact that the choice and definition of any framework for L2 instruction will critically depend on
9

influences [that] are less to do with what has been demonstrated by theory and associated research than with what is based on custom, belief and convenience (White Op.Cit.: 109) The multi-faceted problems associated with task type, task complexity, task difficulty, task planning and task production (Foster and Skehan 1996; Robinson 2001; Mori 2002; Luo and Skehan 2005). The call for reconceptualizing the construct of task, based, as Littlewood (2004: 319), for instance, argues, on the suggestion that rather than accept the common "communicative" definition, we should return to a broader definition and then focus on key dimensions that distinguish (from the learner's perspective) different types of task, notably degrees of task-involvement and degrees of focus on form or meaning (319).

4- CONCLUSION The present paper has attempted to provide a critical examination of J. Willis's 1996 approach to TBLT as voiced out in A Framework foe Task-Based Learning and in comparison with the model proposed by Skehan (1998). The scrutiny, most importantly, yielded the following points of interest: The positive, healthy impact which the Willis version of TBLT exerts on our frames of reference through its adherence to Progressivism, its characterization of task, and its representation of the L2 learner. The pitfalls that the said framework may very well suffer, especially, as a result of (a) its idealization of the psycholinguistic capabilities of young learners in EFL settings, (b) its over-capitalization on task as the unique medium of L2 instruction, and (c) its potential mismatch, and thus clash, with the educational policies en vigueur in many parts of the world. The overall impression was that the model at issue, in contrast to Skehan's 1998 information processing model, is a major step forward in approaching TBLT in less abstract, vague terms. Other concrete moves in the same direction are to follow suit, though. The most pressing one of these would be to confirm the benefits it claims for the three-task cycle with tangible evidence in the form of holistic lesson transcripts (Seedhouse 1999). In so doing, it is hoped, all future discussions on the merits or demerits of TBLT will be less dubious. 5- END NOTES 1-According to Skehan (1996a),

10

A PPP [Presentation-Practice-Production] approach looks on the learning process as learning a series of discrete items and then bringing these items together in communication to provide further practice and consolidation. A task-based approach sees the learning process as one of learning through doing it is by primarily engaging in meaning that the learner's system is encouraged to develop (20.) 2- Nunan (2004:1) draws a clear distinction between real-world (or target) tasks and pedagogic tasks. The former refer to "uses of language in the world beyond the classroom; (the latter) are those that occur in the classroom". 3- Type A /Type B models:
Type A Interventionist; giving priority to the pre-selection of linguistic or other content or skill objectives . external to the learner . other-directed . determined by authority c- Teacher/student roles . teacher as a decision-maker Type B Non-interventionist; experiential; "natural growth" approach to the learning process . internal to the learner . inner directed or self- fulfilling . negotiated between teachers and learners . learner and teacher as joint decision-makers . teacher doing things to the learner d- Language content . content = what the subject is to the expert . content = a gift from the teacher or knower . teacher doing things for or with the learner . content = what the subject is to the learner . content = what the learner brings and wants . content is subordinate to learning processes and pedagogical e- syllabus objectives defined in advance procedures described afterwards (Adapted from White 1988:44-5)

a- Syllabus orientation to learning process b- Attitude towards the learner

4- See Chapters 5 through 7 and Appendix C on pages 156-68 in the Willis framework for five sample task-based lesson outlines.
11

5- See White (1988: 132) for a Table showing the relationship between ideology, curriculum and innovation. According to Krashen and Terrell (1983:55; quoted in Nunan 2004:21) "language is -6 best taught when it is being to transmit messages, not when it is explicitly taught for ."conscious learning 6- According to Skehan (1996b), accuracy is concerned with a learner's capacity to handle whatever level of interlanguage complexity s/he has currently attained. Complexity, and its attendant process, restructuring, relates to the stage and elaboration of the underlying interlanguage system. Fluency, finally, concerns the learner's capacity to mobilize an interlanguage system to communicate meaning in real time (46).

7- REFERENCES

English Language Curriculum Department (2001-2002), Basic Education 5A English for Me (Teachers Guide), Muscat, Oman: Ministry of Education. Cameron, L. (1997), "The task as a unit for teacher development", ELT Journal 51, 4:345-51.

Cameron, L. (2001), Teaching Languages to Young Learners, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carless, D. (2004), Issues in teachers reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools, TESOL Quarterly 38, 4: 639-62. Carter, R. and D. Nunan (Eds) (2001), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, V., Review of Peter Skehan, A Cognitive Learning Language, OUP, 1998, 324. [12 June, 2006] <phttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/Vivian.c/Writings/Reviews/SkehanRev.ht.>. Davies, I.K. (1976), Objectives in Curriculum Design, London: McGraw Hill.

12

Doughty, C. and H.M Long (2003), "Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning", Learning and Technology Language 7, 3: 50-80. Foster, P. (1999), "Key concepts in ELT", ELT Journal 51, 3: 69. Foster, P. and P.Skehan (1996), "The influence of planning on performance in task-based .learning", Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 3: 299-324 Fotos, S. (1998), "Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom", ELT Journal 52, 4: 301-7. Harmer, J. ( 2001), The Practice of English Language Teaching, 3rd edition, Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited. ________ ( 2003), Do your students notice anything?, Modern English Teacher 12, 4: 5-14. Izumi, S. and M. Bigelow (2000), Does output promote noticing in second language acquisition?, TESOL Quarterly 34, 2: 239-76. Johnson, K. (1998),"Presentation-practice-practice". In K. Johnson and H. Johnson (Eds), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Blackwell, 251-3. __________ (1998),"Task-based teaching". In K. Johnson and H. Johnson (Eds), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Blackwell, Johnson, K. and H. Johnson (Eds), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Blackwell, Krashen, S. and T. Terrell (1983), The Natural Approach, Oxford: Pergamon. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991), Language learning tasks: teacher intention and learner interpretation. English Language Teaching, ELT Journal 45, 2:98-107. Lewis, M. (1993), The Lexical Approach, Hove: Language Teaching Publications. ________ (1997), Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice, Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Littlewood, W. (2004), The task-based Approach: some questions and suggestions, ELT Journal 58, 4: 319-26. Long, H.L. and G. Crookes (1992), "Three approaches to task-based syllabus design", TESOL Quarterly 26, 1: 27-55 [20 September, 2005] <http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/tesolonline/texts/longcrookes/>.
13

Luo, S. and P. Skehan (2005), Re-examining Factors that Affect Task Difficulty in TBLA. [13 June, 2006] < http://www.tblt.org/download/luo_skehan.doc>.

Moon, J. (2002), The use of communication tasks in the young learner classroom. CATS: The IATEFL Young Learners SIG Newsletter , 5-8. Mori, J. (2002), "Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-interaction: an analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom", Applied Linguistics 23, 3: 32347. . Nunan, D. (1988a), The Learner-Centered Curriculum, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. _________ (1988b), Syllabus Design, Oxford: Oxford University Press. _________ (1989), Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. _________ (2004), Task-Based Language Teaching: A Comprehensive Rvised Edition of Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prabhu, N. (1987), Second Language Pedagogy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T. S. (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, P. (2001), "Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring interactions in a componential framework", Applied Linguistics 22, 1:27-57. Seedhouse, P. (1999), Task-based interaction, ELT Journal 53, 3, 149-56 Skehan, P. (1996a), "Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction". In J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching, Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann. ________ (1996b), A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction, Applied Linguistics 17, 1, 38-62 _________ (1998), A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press Splosky , B. (1989), Conditions for Second Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14

Thornbury, S. (1997), Reformulation and reconstruction: tasks that promote 'noticing, EL T Journal 51, 4: 326-35. White, R.V. (1988). The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation and Management. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wilkins, D.A. (1976), Notional Syllabuses, Chapter One: "Approaches to syllabus design", Oxford: Oxford University Press [20 September, 2005] < http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/tesolonline/texts/Wilkins/>. Willis, D. (1990), The lexical syllabus: A new approach to language teaching, London: Collins COBUILD. Willis, D. (1990), The lexical syllabus: A new approach to language teaching, London: Collins COBUILD. Willis, J. (1996), A Framework for Task-based Learning, London: Longman Willis, J. and D. Willis (Eds) (1996), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching, Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann. Willis, J. and D. Willis (2001), Task-based language learning. In R. Carter and D. Nunan (Eds), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 173-9.

8- APPENDICES Appendix One: Summary Chart of J. Willis's 1996 TBLT Framework

15

PRE-TASK (INCLUDING TOPIC AND TASK) The Teacher introduces and defines the topic uses activities to help students recall / learn useful words and phrases ensures students understand task instructions may play a recording of others doing the same or a similar task The Student note down useful words and phrases from the pre-task activities and /or the recording may spend a few minutes preparing for the task individually

TASK The Students do the task in pairs/small groups. It maybe based on a reading/listening text

TASK CYCLE PLANNING

REPORT

The Students The Students prepare to report to the present their spoken class how they did the reports to the class, or task and what they circulates/ discovered/ display their written decided reports rehearse what they will say or draft a written version for the class to read The Teacher ensures the purpose of The Teacher acts as chairperson, the report is clear selecting who will acts as language speak next, or ensuring adviser all students read most helps students rehearse of the written reports oral reports or may give brief organize written ones feedback on content or form may play a recording of others doing the same or similar task LANGUAGE FOCUS

The Teacher acts as monitor and encourages students

ANALYSIS

PRACTICE

16

The Students do consciousness-raising activities to identify and process specific language features from the task text and/or transcript may ask about other features they have noticed

The Teacher conducts practice activities after analysis activities where necessary, to build confidence

The Teacher reviews each analysis activity with the class brings other useful words, phrases and patterns to students' attention may pick up on language items from the report stage

The Students practise words, phrases and patterns from the analysis activities practise other features occurring in the task text or report stage enter useful language items in their language notebooks

(Source: Willis 1996: 155)

17

18