Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Luiz Otávio Barros - Critique of Task-Based Learning
Luiz Otávio Barros - Critique of Task-Based Learning
luizotaviobarros@gmail.com
Most language teachers at some point in their careers will have had the
distressingly familiar experience of having exposed students to a new
language structure and witnessed near-perfect performance in formal
practice (in its broadest sense), just to discover that students were
subsequently unable to proceduralise the same language in other real
situations. This lack of transfer from the language lesson to natural
language use contexts has always been a major source of professional
concern for me, particularly so in the late 80s, when I was relatively
inexperienced in ELT. Still blissfully unaware of the role played by other
key elements such as attitude, aptitude and cognitive style, I was soon
drawn to the conclusion that the methodology was obviously flawed in
some way.
Almost fifteen years have gone by since the first experiments with Task-
Based Instruction (Willis J. 1996a: 52) and it has gained increased
respect amongst several scholars (Breen 1989; Crookes 1986; Duff
1986; Long 1985; Nunan 1989 cited by Kumaravadivelu 1993: 69).
Similarly, the theory underlying a PPP model seems to enjoy as little
credibility in academic circles as it did then. And yet, the PPP approach
is still arguably the most widely used framework for the teaching of
grammar. In a recent interview, Ellis made this point quite forcefully:
In this paper I will survey the work that has been done in that area and
tentatively imply that the problems I described above are to some extent
related to the current state of affairs in TBL pedagogy. I will begin by
examining the grounds on which a PPP methodology was discredited in
the mid 1980s (and TBL advocated). Then I move on to describe TBL in
the 90s and the research findings that lent support to a comeback of
grammar instruction. What follows is an overview of recent attempts to
integrate grammar and TBL. Luiz Otavio Barros.
A Under attack
The logical and empirical grounds for the above claims are based on a
number of studies, going back to Corder (1967, cited by Willis J. 1996a:
46) and continuing to this day3. But for present purposes I will very
briefly describe Krashen’s Monitor Model and the Morpheme Studies
carried out in the early 70s (Krashen 1982; Dulay and Burt 1973,
described in Larson-Freeman and Long 1991 and elsewhere).
C A Sigh of Relief
Clearly, any model of Task Based Learning viable for the 90s should
take those findings into account. In that respect, Willis J.’s (1996b: 11)
diagram is an excellent example of what instruction should consist of if
it is to be compatible with what has recently been discovered about how
people acquire second languages5:
The way in which modern language pedagogy has been trying to deal
with the “essential / desirable equation” is the prime concern of part 2.
By surveying the literature and drawing on my own professional
experience, I will tacitly imply that there might be a link between the
current state of affairs in TBL pedagogy and the negative teacher
perception I referred to earlier in this paper.
D Fuzzy Edges
Experience has shown me that when faced with such vague definitions,
teachers often have considerable difficulty in deciding whether any
given activity merits the label task. Fortunately, however, there are
more useful descriptions such as the one proposed by Skehan:
When examining the literature, one finds several sub categories of tasks,
classified according to the sorts of learning goals each one tries to
achieve. Nunan (1989: 40), for example, differentiates between pedagogic
and real-world tasks. He claims the former “are unlikely to be performed
outside the classroom but stimulate internal processes of acquisition”,
while the latter attempt to “approximate in class the sorts of behaviours
required in the real world.” Long (1990: 31-50) proposes a similar
division: pedagogic tasks and target (or real-world) tasks. He points out
Labels and jargon notwithstanding, the key issue which advocates of TBL
and most importantly – classroom teachers – have to contend with is the
degree to which production tasks should be related to specific language
structures. There seem to be two opposing views. While some would
claim that tasks should be designed and carried out without any sort of
linguistic agenda, (Willis J. 1996b and elsewhere), others seem to be in
favour of task design that in one way or another attempts to “trap” target
language structures (Ellis 1997; Loschky and Bley-Vroman 1993). I will
now examine each model in turn.
It will be recalled from the chart on page 6 that Willis J. does not dismiss
the importance of form-focused instruction. She recognises the potential
dangers of gaining fluency at the expense of accuracy (1996a: 55) -
which seemed to be, incidentally, a major flaw of the Bangalore Project.
Based on this notion and on Labov’s idea that accuracy and complexity
of language depend on whether discourse is private or public / planned
or spontaneous (1972 cited by Willis J. 1996a: 55), she created the
following framework for task- based instruction:
Exposure PRE-TASK
Introduction to topic
and task
TASK CYCLE
Use and exposure Task
Focus on form Planning Feedback
Use and exposure Report Feedback
Exposure and focus LANGUAGE FOCUS Feedback
on form Analysis and Practice
G Trapping Structures
A cursory look at the examples in the appendix reveals that even though
there is no risk of “conformity” in production (see page 4) or fossilisation
due to lack of “noticing”, there is still a relatively wide gap between the
sort of language processing that takes place during such tasks and the
real operating conditions under which unplanned language use is
thought to occur. Ellis’ model does not suggest ways in which this issue
can be addressed.
H Conclusion
As the reader will appreciate, this paper was an attempt to shed some
light on the following question:
I have attempted to show that there are at least three possible answers:
“ No, that way learners will fossilise. Try to devise communicative tasks
in such a way that students are likely to use a given structure. But be
careful! Keep students’ attention focused on meaning and use. They
shouldn’t feel they’re practising isolated bits of language.”
“ You can’t control what students say. It’s better to use tasks in which
learners are encouraged to think about the language, rather than
produce it.”
(4287 words)
1 The idea for this title was based on Peter Medgye’s thought-provoking article “ Queries from
a Communicative Teacher”.
2 In this paper the terms framework, approach, model and paradigm will be used
interchangeably when referring to PPP.
3 See Larsen-Freeman &Long (1991:81-113) for a comprehensive survey.
4 See Ellis 1997 (56-75).
5 Though one might wish to claim that these findings are debatable. For example, see Larson-
Freeman and Long 1991: 322.
6 Refer to Ellis 1997 for a discussion on how the classroom might not be the ideal setting for
grammar acquisition.
7 Please refer to the appendix.
Bereta, A. 1990 “Implementation of the Bangalore Project”. In Applied Linguistics 11(4), pp. 321-
37.
Crookes,G. and Long, M.H. 1992 “Three Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design”, in Tesol
Quarterly 26(1), pp. 27-56.
Ellis, R. 1997 SLA Research and Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Felix, S.W. 1981 “The Effect of Formal Instruction on Second Language Acquisition”. In
Language Learning 31(1) pp. 89-111.
Kumaravadivelu B. 1993 “The name of the Task and the Task of Naming: Methodological Aspects
of Task-based Pedagogy”. In Gass, S.M. and Crookes G.(eds). Tasks in a Pedagogical Context,
(pp 69-96), London: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. 1990 “Task, Group and Task-group Interactions”. In Anivan, S.(ed) Language Teaching
Methodology for the 90s.(pps 31-50). Singapore: Seameo.
Nunan, D. 1989 Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Medgyes, P. 1990 “Queries from a Communicative Teacher”. In Bolitho, R. and Ronner,R. (eds)
Currents of Change in English Language Teaching, (103-109), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prabhu, N.S. 1987 Second Language Pedagogy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. 1996 “SLA Research and Task-Based Instruction” In Willis, J. and Willis, D.(eds)
Challenge and Change in English Language Teaching (pp. 17-30). London: Heinemann.
Skehan, P. 1997 A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, D. 1996 “Accuracy, Fluency and Conformity”. In Willis, J. and Willis, D.(eds) Challenge
and Change in English Language Teaching (pp. 44-51). London: Heinemann.
Willis, J. 1996a “A Flexible Framework for Task-Based Learning”. In Willis, J. and Willis, D.(eds)
Challenge and Change in English Language Teaching (pp. 52-62). London: Heinemann.
Ur, P. 1989 Grammar Practice Activities. A Practical Guide for Teachers, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
1 The idea for this title was based on Peter Medgye’s thought-provoking article “ Queries from
a Communicative Teacher”.
2 In this paper the terms framework, approach, model and paradigm will be used
interchangeably when referring to PPP.
3 See Larsen-Freeman &Long (1991:81-113) for a comprehensive survey.
4 See Ellis 1997 (56-75).
5 Though one might wish to claim that these findings are debatable. For example, see Larson-
Freeman and Long 1991: 322.
6 Refer to Ellis 1997 for a discussion on how the classroom might not be the ideal setting for
grammar acquisition.
7 Please refer to the appendix.