Task-Based Language Teaching
What if the task came first and the grammar followed?
Task-based language teaching builds lessons and courses around meaningful tasks with real outcomes, and attention to language grows out of, and serves, the work of completing them.
In a class in Đà Nẵng, pairs have five minutes to plan a weekend for a visiting cousin, but each partner holds only half of the bus timetable and weather forecast. No structure has been assigned, yet they must compare times, make suggestions and decide. That is task-based language teaching (TBLT): the task, not the grammar point, is the main unit of planning and teaching.
Rod Ellis (2009) gives a widely used definition of a task with four criteria. The main focus is on meaning; there is a gap to close; learners rely mainly on their own resources; and there is a clear outcome other than using language for its own sake. In N. S. Prabhu’s Bangalore project in southern India, children learned English through problem-solving tasks instead of a grammar syllabus. Michael Long argued for building courses around the tasks learners need to do outside class. A common lesson shape comes from Jane Willis (1996): a pre-task, then a task cycle of task, planning and report, then a language focus.
TBLT is not grammar-free: in Long’s version, attention to form arises during tasks through focus on form. This differs from task-supported teaching, where tasks simply practise items taught first, as in PPP. Critics such as Michael Swan (2005) argue that the research base is thinner than claimed and that low-exposure settings need more systematic input. Ellis (2009) replies that many critiques misunderstand what a task is. A meta-analysis of 52 programme studies found a large overall positive effect (Bryfonski & McKay, 2019). Butler (2011) shows how exams, classroom conditions and local values shape TBLT across Asia.
In actionA two-way information gap
- S1
- My bus leaves at 8.15. What about yours?
- S2
- Mine is 8.40, but it rains in the morning.
- S1
- So we go to the museum first?
- S2
- Good idea. And the beach after lunch.
The outcome is a plan, not a sentence pattern. The teacher notes forms worth attention, such as it’s going to rain, for the language focus after the task.
In the classroom
- 1
Start from needs: ask learners which real tasks they face, such as ordering online or giving a group report, and build a unit around one.
- 2
Give short planning time before a task and a public report stage after it, so learners have a reason to attend to accuracy as well as fluency.
- 3
Save a language focus for the end: note three useful phrases or recurring errors you heard, then work on them with the whole class.
Myth and reality
Task-based teaching means no grammar teaching.
Most versions build in attention to form before, during or after tasks. The difference is that grammar serves the task, rather than the task existing to practise a pre-selected grammar point.
Reflect
If you deleted the grammar heading from your next unit plan, what task could hold the unit together, and what language would learners need to complete it?
Worth a minute before your next lesson, or a conversation in the staffroom.
SourcesChecked against Crossref and library records
Prabhu’s book reports the Bangalore/Madras Communicational Teaching Project (1979–84), an early large-scale attempt to teach through tasks. Long (1985) proposed basing courses on the real-world tasks learners need to perform, an idea later developed into a syllabus model with Crookes (1992).
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246.
Defines a task with four criteria and answers the main criticisms point by point. The best single starting place.
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27–56.
Compares procedural, process and task syllabuses and argues for tasks combined with focus on form.
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376–401.
The sharpest critique of TBLT’s evidence base, especially for low-exposure classrooms. Read it alongside Ellis.
Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. H. (2019). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 603–632.
Synthesises evaluations of whole TBLT programmes, not just single tasks, and what moderated their effects.
Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36–57.
Directly relevant to Asian classrooms: the conceptual, classroom and exam-system constraints, and options for local adaptation.
ConnectionsSee it in the graph
- Communicative Language Teachingnot yet writtenTBLT is often described as a development, or strong version, of CLT.
- The Interaction Hypothesisnot yet writtenLong’s rationale for tasks: negotiating meaning draws attention to language.
- Presentation–Practice–Productionnot yet writtenThe item-first lesson shape TBLT reverses.
Communicative Competence, The Idiom Principle, The Output Hypothesis
Know a teacher who’d like this?
Send them the card. It’s made for Facebook, Zalo, LinkedIn and Instagram, and links back here.