The Long road to TBLT

Author(s):  
John M. Norris

Abstract Michael H. Long was one of the earliest proponents of task-based language teaching, and his groundbreaking work on multiple dimensions of the proposal helped establish TBLT as a fertile locus for innovation at the intersection of research and practice. His work on TBLT over four decades led the way to robust research programs on syllabus design, needs analysis, methodological principles for teaching, pedagogic procedures including focus on form and negative feedback, task-based assessment, and program evaluation, among others. This article provides a review of some of Long’s major contributions to TBLT, addressing not only the theoretical and empirical aspects of his work but also the implementation of his ideas in practice and a few associated challenges.

EL LE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilisa Birello ◽  
Enrico Odelli ◽  
Albert Vilagrasa

This article aims to: present a literature review about Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) for practicing teachers and teachers in preparation; set up a link between TBLT and the guidelines of the Action-Oriented Approach described in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages; and bring together current theory, research and practice. In this paper we define the notion of ‘task’ and we discuss the relationship between TBLT and a communicative language teaching. We also describe a TBLT syllabus, we analyse different instructional sequences, we outline our own framework according to the TBLT criteria and we argue which place the Focus on form must have in it. Additionally we explore which possibilities the Web 2.0 provides to this methodology. The text is illustrated with examples in order to bridge the gap between theory and practice.


1989 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Elizabeth M. Guthrie ◽  
Karl Krahnke

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Baralt ◽  
Marcela López Bravo

AbstractContrary to common belief, there is a place for grammar teaching in task-based language teaching (TBLT). It is still an unresolved debate, however, what the most effective timing of grammar teaching is around a task. Citing theory, some methodologists argue against grammar in the pre-task phase (e. g., Willis 1996. A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman; Willis and Willis 2007. Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press), while others argue for it (e. g., DeKeyser 1998. Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 42–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Lightbown 1998. What have we here? Some observations on the influence of instruction on L2 learning. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith & M. Swain (eds.), Foreign language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch, 197–212. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters and Nunan 2004. Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Still other methodologists have suggested that a pre-task grammar explanation renders TBLT more culturally appropriate in Confucian-heritage teaching contexts (e. g., Carless 2007. The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. Schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System 35. 595–608; Luk 2009. Preparing EFL students for communicative task performance: The nature and role of language knowledge. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 19. 67–90). None of these claims have been tested empirically. The present paper attempts to contribute to that gap by reporting on a case study that took place in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom in the United States. We examined how a Chinese teacher’s grammar teaching in the pre- versus post-task phase differentially affected the task outcome, as well as the teacher’s and learners’ beliefs of which was most effective. One Chinese teacher and 12 learners participated in the study. Results showed that the task outcome was comprised of more language production, accuracy, and modified output, as well as 15 times more interactional turns, when the grammar was explained in the post-task phase. However, the teacher overwhelmingly valued a grammar explanation in the pre-task phase. Learners were equally divided. We discuss how the methodological timing of grammar shaped discourse differently for the pragmatic ends of tasks, and make suggestions for Chinese teachers new to TBLT.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document