A Brief History of Task-based Language Teaching

Introduction

The first edition of Richards and Rogers Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching was published in 1986. It included 'Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)' but not 'Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT)' in the list of methods/approaches it considered. However, in the second edition, published in 2001, 'Task-based Language Teaching' was now listed under the general heading 'Current Communicative Approaches'. Between 1986 and 2001, TBLT emerged as a sufficiently well-defined approach to warrant separate treatment by Richards and Rogers.

In this chapter, I will first consider the major influences on the emergence of TBLT followed by an account of the proposals for a task-based approach that appeared in the 1980s. I then examine how TBLT subsequently developed, focusing on key issues relating to the design of a task-based syllabus and the methodology for implementing tasks. I will also briefly consider how TBLT has been adapted to computer-mediated environments and take a look at task-based assessment. The chapter concludes with an account of what evaluations of task-based programmes have shown about the effectiveness of TBLT.

Background to the Emergence of TBLT

The importance of including tasks in a language curriculum was affirmed in the CLT movement of the 1970s and 1980s. TBLT grew out of this movement with further inputs from early research in second language acquisition (SLA).

Communicative language teaching

CLT drew on theories of language that viewed language not just as a set of formal structures but as a means of communication. Hymes (1971) outlined a theory of communicative competence that accounted for both what is formally possible in a language (i.e. grammatical) and what is feasible and acceptable in terms of performance. Halliday's (1973) model of language took as its starting point the functions that language served rather than the formal properties of a language. He distinguished three broad functions (the ideational, interpersonal and textual), each of which was elaborated into a series of semantic networks which were then related to their linguistic exponents. Hymes and Halliday's theories fed directly into the recognition that 'there is more to the business of communicating than the ability to produce grammatically correct utterances' (Johnson, 1982) and to proposals for teaching language as communication.

Wilkins (1976), drawing on Halliday's theory of language, proposed replacing the traditional structural syllabus with a notional syllabus consisting of an inventory of language functions (e.g. expressing agreement or disagreement), semantico-grammatical categories (e.g. expressing time, quantity and space) and modal-meaning categories (e.g. expressing certainty and commitment). He argued that a notional syllabus provided a basis for an 'analytic' way of learning. That is, learners pass through a series of approximations to the target language, gradually accumulating the linguistic resources required to perform the various notions. In this respect it differed radically from the traditional 'synthetic' approach where linguistic items are taught and mastered incrementally and not synthesized until the final stages. A notional approach was seen as having high 'surrender value' as it helped learners to communicate from the start. It also afforded an ideal means for defining learners' communicative needs and therefore appealed to course designers concerned with specific purpose teaching (e.g. Swales, 1987). Wilkin's ideas informed the work of the Council of Europe's unit/credit system for teaching foreign languages at different levels of proficiency (e.g. the Threshold Level and Waystage Level), where each level was specified in terms of notions and the linguistic exponents for expressing them. This led ultimately into the Common European Framework (Council of Europe, 2011) in which different levels of proficiency are described in functional (i.e. 'can do') rather than linguistic terms.

First attempts at developing teaching materials based on a notional syllabus (e.g. Abbs & Freebairn, 1982) utilized the existing techniques and procedures of structural courses. That is, the linguistic forms for expressing each notion were presented in situations and then practised in mainly controlled exercises. Thus, although the organizational framework of a language course had changed, the methodology had not. It was still what White (1988) called 'Type A' – it was 'other directed'. There was, however, a growing recognition of the need for a communicative methodology reflecting White's 'Type B' approach, where the emphasis is on the process of communicating and on 'doing things with or for the learner'. Johnson (1982), for example, advocated what he called the deep-end strategy, where 'the student is placed in a situation where he may need to use language not yet taught' so as to activate 'the ability to search for circumlocutions when the appropriate language item is not known' (1982: 193).

Publications began to appear with ideas for communicative tasks (e.g. Klippel, 1984). Describe and Draw, for example, involved students working in pairs with Student A attempting to draw a picture or diagram described by Student B. These tasks were to be judged not in terms of whether learners used language correctly but in terms of whether the communicative outcome was achieved (i.e. whether Student A succeeded in drawing the picture/diagram accurately). Tasks had arrived as a major tool for language teachers.

At this time, it was common to distinguish two types of language work depending on whether the focus was on 'accuracy' or 'fluency', with both seen as important (Brumfit, 1984). Providing opportunities for students to use their linguistic resources freely by performing communicative tasks in small group work catered to 'fluency', which Brumfit defined as 'the maximally effective operation of the language system acquired by the student so far' (1984: 57). However, Brumfit also stressed the importance of accuracy work involving more traditional types of instruction. The question that then arose was how to combine fluency and accuracy work in a language curriculum. Johnson (1982) suggested the answer lay in a 'communicative procedure' consisting of three stages. In Stage 1 the students...