Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T04:01:13.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Exploring the Nuts and Bolts of Task Design

from Part III - The Task Syllabus and Materials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Michael H. Long
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

This chapter presents two complementary sets of parameters for task design. These are contextualized within a dynamic collaborative process involving designers, teachers and learners, requiring both specialist knowledge, and specialist skill. To illustrate, we draw on accumulated insights from a range of empirical studies, including research into learner performance on tasks, research into the process of design, and classroom studies of teachers and learners working with tasks. We highlight relationships between design and implementation, and tensions between the task ‘on paper’ and what happens in the classroom, suggesting ways of addressing these through the preparation for task design that teachers might receive.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Further Reading

Erlam, R. (2016). I’m still not sure what a task is: Teachers designing language tasks. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 279–99.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. and Nielson, K. B. (2015). Evaluating TBLT: The case of a task-based Spanish program. Language Teaching Research, 19, 525–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (2003). Designing language teaching tasks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Chapter 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, B. T., Newton, J., and Crabbe, D. (2018). Teacher transformation of textbook tasks in Vietnamese EFL high school classrooms. In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K. and Bygate, M., eds. TBLT as a researched pedagogy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 5170.Google Scholar
Samuda., V. (2015). Tasks, design, and the architecture of pedagogical spaces. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 271302.Google Scholar

References

Andon, N. (2018). Optimal conditions for TBLT? A case study of teachers’ orientations to TBLT in the commercial EFL for adults sector in the UK. In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K. and Bygate, M., eds. In TBLT as a researched pedagogy. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 131–64.Google Scholar
Berben, M., Van den Branden, K., and Van Gorp, K. (2007). ‘We’ll see what happens’: Tasks on paper and tasks in a multilingual classroom. In Van den Branden, K. and Verhelst, M., eds. Tasks in action: task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 3267.Google Scholar
Breen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In Candlin, C. and Murphy, D., eds. Language learning tasks. London: Prentice Hall, pp. 2346.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1960/1977). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (1999). Quality of language and purpose of task: Patterns of learners’ language on two oral communication tasks. Language Teaching Research 3(3) 185214Google Scholar
Calvert, M. and Sheen, Y. (2014). Task-based language learning and teaching: An action-research study. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 226–44.Google Scholar
Coughlan, P. and Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different activities: analysis of SLA from an activity theory perspective. In Lantolf, J. and Appel, G., eds. Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 173–94.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education: The Kappa Delta Phi lecture series. Reprinted 1963. Toronto: Collier Books.Google Scholar
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In Lantolf, J. P., ed. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 2750.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. and Pica, T. (1986). Information gap tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly 10(2), 305–25Google Scholar
Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
East, M. (2012). Task-based language teaching from the teachers’ perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
East, M. (2018). How do beginning teachers conceptualise and enact tasks in school foreign language classrooms? In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., and Bygate, M., eds. TBLT as a researched pedagogy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 2350.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2015). Teachers evaluating tasks. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 247–70.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2017). Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching, 50(4), 507–26.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. and He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 285301.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. and Shintani, N. (2013). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2016). I’m still not sure what a task is: Teachers designing language tasks. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 279–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. and Smith, J. (1991), eds. Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in second language acquisition, 18(3), 299323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research,, 3(3), 21547Google Scholar
Gass, S.M. (1997). Input, interaction and the development of second languages. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. and Madden, C. (1985), eds. Input and second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury HouseGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M. and Nielson, K. B. (2015). Evaluating TBLT: The case of a task-based Spanish program. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 525–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (n.d.). The TBLT Language Learning Task Bank. https://tblt.indiana.edu.Google Scholar
Hillman, K. K. and Long, M. H. (2020). A task-based needs analysis for U.S. Foreign Service Officers, and the challenge of the Japanese celebration speech. In Lambert, C. and Oliver, R., eds. Using tasks in diverse contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 123–45.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (2003). Designing language teaching tasks. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
Lambert, C. (2010). A task-based needs analysis: Putting principles into practice. Language Teaching Research, 14(1) 99112.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In Lantolf, J. P., ed. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 126.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. and Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–78.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language training. In Hyltenstam, K. and Pienemann, M., eds. Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 7799Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. B., and Kramsch, C., eds. Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 3952.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. and Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S. M., eds. Tasks in language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 123–67.Google Scholar
Lynch, T. (2018). Perform, reflect, recycle: Enhancing task repetition in second language speaking tasks. In Bygate, M., ed. Learning language through repetition, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 193222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (1994). Communicative tasks: Handbook and tasks. Sydney: University of Sydney Language Acquisition Research Centre.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: an empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 21(4), 557–87.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2007), ed. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. and Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: recasts, responses and red herrings. Modern Language Journal. 82(3): 338–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K. and Mackey, A. (2000). Communicative tasks, conversational interaction and linguistic form: an empirical study of Thai. Foreign Language Annals 33: 8292Google Scholar
Müller-Hartmann, A. and Schocker, M. (2011). Teaching English: Task-supported language learning. Paderborn, Germany: Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh.Google Scholar
Müller-Hartmann, A. and Schocker, M. (2018). The challenge of integrating focus on form in tasks: Findings from a classroom research project in secondary EFL classrooms. In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., and Bygate, M., eds. TBLT as a researched pedagogy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 97130.Google Scholar
Newton, J. and Kennedy, G. (1996). Effects of communication tasks on the grammatical relations marked by second language learners. System, 24(3), 309–22.Google Scholar
Nguyen, B.T., Newton, J., and Crabbe, D. (2018). Teacher transformation of textbook tasks in Vietnamese EFL high school classrooms. In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., and Bygate, M., eds. TBLT as a researched pedagogy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 5170.Google Scholar
Nobuyoshi, J. and Ellis, R. (1993). Focussed communication tasks. ELT Journal. 47(3) 203–10.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2015). Thinking and acting programmatically in task-based language teaching: Essential roles for program evaluation. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 2758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogilvie, G. and Dunn, W. (2010). Taking teacher education to task: Exploring the role of teacher education in promoting the utilization of task-based language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 14(2), 161–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(4), 493527.Google Scholar
Pica, T. and Doughty, C. J. (1985). Input and interaction in communicative language classrooms: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In Gass, S. M. and Madden, C., eds. Input and second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 115–32.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., and Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S., eds. Tasks and language learning: integrating theory and practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 934.Google Scholar
Ribé, R. and Vidal, N. (1993). Project work step by step. Oxford: Macmillan Heineman.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2003). The Cognition Hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45105.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In Garcia Mayo, M. P., ed. Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 726.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 87122.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M.., eds. Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Pearson Education, pp. 119–40.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2005). Expertise in second language pedagogic task design. In Johnson, K., ed. Expertise in language teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 230–54.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2015). Tasks, design, and the architecture of pedagogical spaces. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 271302.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. and Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Seedhouse, P. (2005). Task as research construct. Language Learning, 55(3),533–70.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2018). Researching TBLT for young beginner learners in Japan. In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., and Bygate, M., eds. In TBLT as a researched pedagogy. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 199212.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 3682.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., eds. Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Pearson Education, pp. 167–85.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching 36, 114Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2015). Limited attention capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 123–56.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language teaching research, 1(3),185211Google Scholar
Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93120Google Scholar
Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: the influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In Ellis, R., ed. Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 193216.Google Scholar
Slimani-Rolls, A. (2005). Practitioner research: Rethinking task-based language learning: what we can learn from the learners. Language Teaching Research 9(2), 195218Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. and Madden, C., eds. Input and second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 235–53.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B., eds. Principles and practice in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 125–44.Google Scholar
Takashima, H. and Ellis, R. (1999). Output enhancement and the acquisition of the past tense. In Ellis, R. Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 173–88.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006), ed. Task-based language teaching: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2015). Task-based language education: From theory to practice … and back again. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 303–20.Google Scholar
Vandommele, G., Van den Branden, K., and Van Gorp, K. (2018). Task-based language teaching: How task-based is it really? In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., and Bygate, M., eds. TBLT as a researched pedagogy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 165–98.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×