Task-based L2 pedagogy from the teacher’s point of view


Published on

Task-based L2 pedagogy from the teacher’s point of view - this paper reports on research with teachers in private language schools on thier understanding and use of task-based language teaching

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • As already mentioned, shared interest. But could be any current approach and provides a case of (SLA) research into practiceNo intention to argue that teachers should take more notice of TBLT - The public knowledge about task-based learning is regarded as potential uptake for language teachers. The concern here is the use teachers make of this knowledge, and the ways in which teachers decide to “do tasks” and to implement TBLT. Now mature approach
  • Criterial features of tasks. CAVEAT – doing tasks ≠ doing TBLT, nor does defining tasks = defining TBLT. Refer to Nina Spada’s talk
  • Rationales for TBLT – can trace back to Krashen, Prabhu, Allwright 1984
  • only number 3 above relates to tasks as knowledge creating, although number 1 could be related to the idea of learners drawing on language they are starting to be aware of.
  • combined rationales from a number of sources including interviews I did with teachers as part of a pilot study. Motivation, change of pace, something to do on a Friday afternoon seemed to be most important reasons teachers gave
  • Why research this context – see notesBana-tesep
  • Why teachers at this stage in their careers. How they were selectedRange of positions – not necessary to keep in mind as variables because in spite of different positions, practices and underlying principles broadly similar
  • Partly emerging from the data.
  • Nevertheless the main tasks he used were roleplays
  • Sometimes no presentation of outcomes or forms. Perhaps due to small naTime as the main factor citedSuggest teachers place less importance on thisLinked to broader question of the value placed on tasks and the lack of beief that learning is taking place during task
  • Graham is also aware that learners do not learn what teachers teach (Allwright 1984b), and that not every student in the class is going to learn the same things from a task, as the following quote illustrated: Each person can take from it what they, what they, I mean I might hammer home one thing but a lot of things, they can take from it what they, want, you know. (Graham)
  • So for example he uses what his students bring to class as a starting point (dogme) for designing mini-tasks (TBLT), and at various stages in the task cycle he combines his lexical view of language with his principle of instant correction to provide a kind of focus on form.
  • There are, therefore, a number of differences in the way tasks are used in research and in pedagogy. This is understandable given the different aims of task-based research and task-based pedagogy, but it is clear that researchers and teachers are working along very different lines. Most task-based research is cross-sectional, removed from normal classroom contexts, and examines and compares single tasks in isolation. At the same time there is an interest in whether tasks are knowledge creating, how that aspect of tasks can be enhanced, and how the process of language acquisition through tasks can be accounted for. This implies an interest in how tasks work on their own, and various strategies for providing a focus on form are seen as part of the task. To these ends, researchers gather data on task performance, but rarely try to measure any learning that may have taken place. In contrast, tasks in the practices of these four teachers generally occurred within series or chains of linked tasks, combined sometimes with direct intervention types of activities and pre-planned expectations of what was to be learned. Teachers are always more interested in the longer term development of their learners, rather than just what language might have been used in today’s lesson. The focus is on learning over time, and not just performance during the task cycle. Lastly there was no evidence that the teachers formally or systematically gathered data on learners’ performance (or their learning). Instead, it seems that they react intuitively to performance, correcting errors and perhaps making a mental note of strengths and weaknesses and errors for future reference.
  • Provisional and separate/discrete specifications
  • I’d like to acknowledge the support of my late colleague Johannes Eckerth for his support with many things including the final stages of my PhD thesis (here he is at my graduation last July). This presentation is partly based on an article we collaborated on which is coming out in the next issue of INJAL
  • Task-based L2 pedagogy from the teacher’s point of view

    1. 1. TESOL 2010 - Boston<br />Task-based L2 pedagogy from the teacher’s point of view<br />Nick Andon<br />KING’S COLLEGE LONDON<br />nick.andon@kcl.ac.uk<br />
    2. 2. Aims of this paper<br />Report on case studies with 4 experienced teachers of EFL to adults which aimed to shed light on teachers’ understanding, attitudes and beliefs towards TBLT as a language teaching approach, and their classroom practices related to tasks and TBLT. <br />Similarities and differences between the teachers’ understanding and use of tasks and the research-based and teacher development literature <br />Try to account for differences between the teachers’ use of tasks and published accounts<br />Implications for teachers, teacher educators and researchers.<br />
    3. 3. TBLT in “normal” classes<br />Wealth of research data on effects of task use<br />Far fewer studies on implementation of TBLT, & most focus on deliberate innovations (e.g. Edwards & Willis 2005; van den Branden 2006; Carless 2002, 2004)<br />What conceptions of task-based L2 pedagogy are held by teachers who are not participants in curriculum innovation projects involving TBLT?<br />To what extent has TBLT, “the current orthodoxy” (Littlewood 2004) filtered down to the normal lives of teachers?<br />Part of the broader question on the relationship between applied linguistics in general and pedagogically oriented SLA research in particular and language teaching (Bartels 2005, van Lier 1996, Kerekes 2001, MacDonald et al 2001)<br />
    4. 4. Why TBLT?<br />Tasks - shared interest of researchers and language teachers (Bygate et al 2001)<br />Large number of books and articles on TBLT in the academic literature, teacher development books and on courses, recent ELT coursebooks<br />Widespread and officially sanctioned in many countries (Carless 2004, 2002, 1999; Littlewood 2007, Nunan 2003). <br />Contested by teachers and applied linguists (e.g. Bruton 2002a, 2002b; Sheen 1994; Swan 2005). <br />Different versions of the approach with different sets of underlying principles (e.g. Ellis 2000)<br />
    5. 5. TBLT = current orthodoxy<br />The task-based approach has achieved something of the status of a new orthodoxy: teachers in a wide range of settings are being told by curriculum leaders that this is how they should teach, and publishers almost everywhere are describing their new textbooks as task-based. Clearly, whatever a task-based approach means, it is a good thing. (Littlewood 2004: 319)<br />
    6. 6. Defining task<br /> A task is an activity in which:<br />meaning is primary;<br />there is some sort of communication problem to solve;<br />there is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities;<br />task completion has some priority;<br />assessment of the task is in terms of outcome (Skehan 1998: 95). <br />
    7. 7. Defining task (2)<br />The definition above is rather broad and there has been <br />some concern to distinguish between tasks and exercises. <br />Skehan’s list of what tasks are not (based on Willis 1996) <br />is helpful here: Tasks ...<br />do not give learners other people’s meanings to regurgitate;<br />are not concerned with language display;<br />are not conformity-oriented;<br />are not practice–oriented;<br />do not embed language into materials so that specific structures can be focused on (Skehan 1998: 95).<br />
    8. 8. Defining TBLT as an approach<br />Defining tasks does not in itself shed light on what TBLT is as an approach: while there is a clear consensus in the literature on the concept of task, there is less clarity and a greater variety in the way TBLT as an approach is conceptualised. Using tasks is not the same as doing TBLT.<br />On one level TBLT is an approach in which tasks form the basis of what is planned and implemented in lessons, but it is more helpful to define TBLT by looking at underlying rationales<br />
    9. 9. Rationales for TBLT<br /> From a research point of view, key aspects of the rationale for using tasks include the following:<br />Language acquisition is a natural, unconscious process in which the acquisition of particular language items is outside the immediate direct control of learners and teachers;<br />Tasks lead learners to negotiate meaning, elicit comprehensible input and produce output, which is seen as having a number of essential roles in providing conditions for language learning;<br />Tasks can be manipulated to provide for “noticing” and focus on form.<br />Tasks as knowledge creating – new language can be acquired by transacting tasks (with or without some focus on form)<br />
    10. 10. Pedagogic rationale for TBLT<br />It gives learners confidence in trying out whatever language they know<br />It gives learners experience of spontaneous interaction <br />It gives learners a chance to benefit from noticing how others express similar meanings<br />It gives learners chances for negotiating turns to speak<br />It engages learners in using language purposefully and cooperatively<br />It makes learners participate in a complete interaction, not just one-off sentences […] it is likely that discourse skills such as these can only be gained through interaction.<br />It gives learners chances to try out communication strategies <br />It helps learners gradually gain confidence (Willis 1996)<br />
    11. 11. Carrying out communicative tasks is considered to trigger second language acquisition or drive forward second language development. Investigating this aspect is the main focus of much of the research into TBLT<br />In addition to the possibility that learners may notice and start to acquire items that are considered new to them (knowledge creation), participating in tasks may also push students to make use of language they are just starting to be aware of.<br />As learners do not learn what teachers and textbooks set out to teach, tasks set up the conditions that will allow learners to acquire what they are ready to notice and understand and integrate into their developing interlanguage, rather than predetermining language content to be learned.<br />Tasks can be used to consolidate language already introduced, to promote fluency, and fluent use of language already focused on<br />Tasks relate to real-world uses of the target language and prepare students to transfer learning from the classroom to the world outside.<br />Tasks provide opportunities to develop confidence in interaction with peers and provide motivation for students. <br />Tasks provide enjoyment, variety, relaxation and hence motivation in the classroom<br />Teachers can use tasks to assess what learners can and cannot do in order to diagnose problems and plan subsequent language-focused input.<br />
    12. 12. A case study on the use of TBLT by teachers in private language schools<br />Private language schools in London<br />Purposeful, motivated and well-educated learners<br />Up to 15 hours a week of classes<br />Exposure to English outside of lessons<br />Small group sizes, multilingual groups<br />Highly trained teachers, well-resourced classrooms<br />BANA as opposed to TESEP context (Holliday 1994), where teachers have relative freedom to develop methodology to suit the needs of learners<br />If any teachers are doing TBLT, surely these ones are<br />
    13. 13. The teachers<br />
    14. 14. Data collected<br />An initial semi-structured interview to gather background data on the teacher-participant.<br />Non-participant observation of one of the teacher’s lessons. Lessons ranged from 1 to 3 hours in length.<br />A second semi-structured interview including a stimulated recall protocol consisting of verbally walking the teacher through a description of the lesson to elicit comments on key issues that had been identified. <br />A second classroom observation, but with focus on issues identified earlier.<br />A third interview including stimulated recall with focus on issues identified earlier.<br />
    15. 15. Aspects of TBLT focused on<br />Tasks as meaning-focused and goal-oriented communication<br />Authenticity – situational, interactional, personal<br />Tasks as knowledge creating, or as a focus for language work vs. tasks as practice/consolidation<br />TBLT combined with other approaches<br />Other aspects of TBLT reflected in teachers stated principles and their observed practices<br /> NB my approach was not normative, nor was it related to any TBLT intervention.<br />
    16. 16. Communication & meaning<br />All four teachers plan learner-centred lessons where students are very active communicators in the classroom, interacting in pairs and groups, communicating personal meanings and exchanging opinions, and where most of the lesson time is spent on language-using activities rather than teacher explanation and form-focused practice<br />Communication, interaction and negotiation of meaning in the lessons observed provide ample opportunities for input, output and negotiated interaction.<br />
    17. 17. Goal-orientation<br />“[A] task has a clearly defined communicative outcome”. Ellis (2003: 10; see also Skehan 1998, and Willis 1996 on public presentation of outcome). <br />The informal chat which took up a considerable proportion of lesson time, was sometimes manipulated to build in goals or outcomes:<br /> On a Monday morning, the first thing I tend to do (…) is to get them to stand up and walk around and find out who had the best and who had the worst weekend. (David)<br />Graham creates impromptu tasks based on what has come up in the chat at the beginning of the lesson<br />
    18. 18. Graham is aware a task needs a communicative outcome<br />[the main rationale or purpose for doing tasks is] <br /> ... to focus on the task and not so much the language, so students are focussing on the goal, focussing on something, and the language is something that comes up, in fact, the fact that the goal can relate to real life, business side of things you know, and it’s quite real in the sense life is full of real tasks.(Graham)<br />He specifically excludes roleplays (in line with Willis 1996)<br /> well a task has to have an outcome, doesn’t it or something so whether there’s an outcome at the end of the role-play I don’t know not really, no ... there’s no outcome so it can’t be a task really can it, but it’s a very useful tool to use the language you’ve got (Graham)<br />
    19. 19. His activity of choice however is a kind of roleplay that does incorporate an outcome<br /> the role-play things where you have to find out who’s the best, an interview for a job or something, I do this far too much, when you have three candidates and three different interviewers, and the candidate’s got five minutes here five minutes here five minutes, language feedback every change, who’s the best candidate, and then in candidates who’s the best interviewer, and adapting that for hundreds of different things, doctors, holidays, whose got the best, hundreds, loads of different. (Graham)<br />
    20. 20. Outcomes in one of Helen’s lessons<br />Pairs think up and list ways to become a millionaire<br />Pairs present suggestions to class .<br />From combined list on whiteboard, pairs to decide which would be the easiest/most difficult/most likely<br />Report back to class for discussion<br />Pairs fill in a questionnaire on attitudes to money and decide which of them is most likely to get rich.<br />Pairs report back to class – some say not realistic<br />Accuracy based gapfill<br />Game<br /> Although Helen saw this a grammar focused lesson, the outcomes were presented, discussed & evaluated<br />
    21. 21. In a similar way to Helen, all the teachers use personal information exchange activities which provide at least potential opportunities for outcomes to be presented and evaluated in this way<br />Often the teacher stopped the pair work activities (in which students were actively and enthusiastically engaged) after a few minutes and the lesson moved on, with no presentation of what had been discussed, <br />More often than not, the teachers omitted opportunities for feedback on outcomes, or spent very little time on them, and almost all of their post-task feedback to the students focused on the language used and not the content of discussions and decisions made during task performance.<br />
    22. 22. Authenticity in tasks<br />Skehan’s original task criteria include ‘some sort of relationship to comparative real-world activities’ (1998:95). <br />“Real-world”, interactional, personal authenticity<br />All four teachers take steps, in a variety of ways, to establish connections between language use in the classroom and authentic communication in the world outside the classroom.<br />It’s got to be as real or they’ve got to see it as relevant as possible they’ve got to see it as ... they see it as relevant, yeah, to their job. (Graham).<br />
    23. 23. David characterises the transferability of language skills from the classroom to the world outside the classroom not just as the end product, but as the conceptual and motivational point of departure of a task-based approach:<br /> I would actually say that in a kind of more task-based approach, the whole driving force is actually, I want you to be able to walk out of the classroom and feel that you can talk about this or make a phone call or something like that, yeah, that’s the real motivation.<br />Would it then be right to say that the aim of the lesson is that you would be able to do tasks like this in real life?<br /> Yes. (David) (Interviewer)<br />
    24. 24. Communication, goal orientation and authenticity<br />Generally (except in Graham’s business classes) topics discussed are based on survival, social language, fairly trivial topics.<br />Ways to get rich; having a rant about things you don’t like; something that happened to me; shopping; what I did at the weekend; planning a holiday<br />Even in the business classes, serious topics treated superficially. Whose country is most supportive towards business? Students just draw on their schematic knowledge.<br />
    25. 25. Tasks as knowledge creating<br />A central concern of SLA research into TBLT<br />An area focused on by critics of TBLT (e.g. Sheen 1994, Bruton 2002, Swan 2005)<br />A problem for language teachers also: Ellis, for instance notes a “general perception among language teachers and educators that task-based instruction is mainly directed at improving students’ abilities to use the target language rather than at enabling them to acquire new linguistic skills” (Ellis 2000: 212)<br />
    26. 26. How do language teachers see & implement the relationship between tasks and particular forms<br />Do they choose tasks to focus on particular L2 forms or functions? Or base the selection of a language focus for the lesson on the requirements of the task, perhaps pre-teaching necessary language which would later be used in the task? <br />Does language emerge from task performance, with the teacher basing language focus activities on the language that learners attempted or omitted to use while participating in the task?<br />How do the teachers deal with errors and handle reactive focus on form?<br />
    27. 27. Contradictory data from teachers<br />I’m of the belief that language that is most effective for students is the one that comes up in the process of the class, rather than the one that you, the language that you’ve taken in there, that this is what you’re going to learn, because it might not be on their developmental process or acquisition whatever it’s called. (Graham)<br />Graham does, though, pre-plan at least some of the language he intends to focus on within the context of a particular task and chooses particular tasks in order to target a language point that has recently been covered in the students’ textbook. <br />
    28. 28. According to Ellis (2003): tasks are “not designed with a specific form in mind (16) and “no attempt is made to specify what learners will learn, only how they will learn (31).<br />However, this was not reflected in the way all four teachers talked about tasks. The follow quote was from Graham, who was talking about a task I had observed him teaching:<br /> and we did conditionals so then I thought that, they all knew conditionals, and they knew the third conditional but I thought I’d show them a little bit of, you know just comparing a little bit the different types. (Graham)<br />
    29. 29. Graham devises tasks based around texts in order to provide practice in L2 structures that he has noticed students are having problems with. This is a clear example of what Loschky & Bley-Vroman (1993) term the ‘utility criterion’<br /> I think that the very nature of the task means that it’s hard to do it without using conditionals to an extent.<br /> Graham’s position mirrors inconsistency in the literature on this point and this is also reflected in language teaching materials which claim to be task-based.<br />
    30. 30. Taken to extremes, this method of using tasks to consolidate language recently presented resembles PPP (presentation-practice-production) or at least task-supported learning rather than TBLT, but Graham does not expect immediate mastery of the structure:<br /> I had all this language on the board, it’s possible, it’s possible this this this, and then of course the actual thing was they might have [...] they could have been, they can’t have been, you know, … and then left it there … and not taking it any (further) (Graham)<br />
    31. 31. Graham is also aware that learners do not always learn what teachers teach (Allwright 1984), and that not every student in the class is going to learn the same things from a task:<br /> Each person can take from it what they, what they, I mean I might hammer home one thing but a lot of things, they can take from it what they, want, you know. (Graham)<br />The relationship between tasks and specific language points works in two directions. Graham makes use of tasks and communicative activities diagnostically, so that he can respond to errors and problems and build on the language students are using, for example by suggesting alternative lexis. He also plans tasks to target specific language points.<br />
    32. 32. David tends task to use tasks as the starting point for deciding what language should be focused on in order to support students in carrying out the task. David described the purpose of the task which formed the core of one observed lesson as follows:<br /> Well, it was principally to actually, give them some language to be able to do that, it’s a sort of natural thing that people do, people want to complain about things so I view that as, a very useful task in the sense that it’s something we always do, so I wanted to basically help the students to be better at doing that and to do that by giving them some language. (David)<br /> Generally the data show teachers’ uncertainty about this aspect of tasks.<br />
    33. 33. Eclectic use of TBLT<br />Graham combines TBLT with the lexical approach, dogme in ELT and a number of other principles, choosing aspects of different approaches that fit together. <br />He also uses tasks as both preparation for and follow-up to direct intervention form-focused lessons, and although he expressed a preference for task-based teaching, he feels that he has to sometimes fit in with learners’ expectations related to more traditional teaching of grammar. <br />David similarly combines tasks with the lexical approach and lessons that follow the PPP framework. <br />Helen fits tasks into the ESA framework (Harmer 1998) and switches between direct and indirect approaches within lessons.<br />
    34. 34. Research vs. teaching<br />
    35. 35. Tasks used as only part of each teacher’s approach, alongside other approaches, techniques and activities. <br />Differences in the way tasks are implemented:<br /> - Outcomes ignored or played down<br /> - Complex findings, e.g. the effects of different kinds of planning on task performance are reduced by simple principle: planning is a good thing. <br />TBLT is not treated by these teachers as an approach, rather as a technique or one of the tools in their toolbox. Task-supportedLanguage Teaching.<br />While these teachers had a good understanding of what a task is, they were less clear about TBLT as an approach.<br />
    36. 36. Teachers’ insecure about their own knowledge of TBLT<br />Showed no awareness of some aspects of task-based research such as the effects of different task types<br />Complex research findings reduced to simple maxims – “planning time is good”<br />The teachers’ unwillingness to devote too much time to tasks and their inclusion of more traditional grammar input activities indicates teachers are not convinced that TBLT is sufficient or efficient way to achieve language development<br />Besides time pressure, learners’ expectations of more traditional approaches also caused teachers to limit the proportion of the curriculum used for TBLT<br />
    37. 37. SLA research and pedagogy<br />This is not a ‘how to’ book ... A practitioner looking for clear guidance about how to construct task based research or teaching may be disappointed. (Ellis 2003: ix)<br />Continuing research into task-design and implementation should help task-based teaching develop in ways that have a sound and convincing psycholinguistic basis. The final challenge will then be to persuade teachers of the merit in adopting a task-based approach in their classrooms (Foster 1999: 69)<br /> This chapter ... tries to clarify how the research findings reviewed in previous chapters can be related to instruction. The findings are incomplete, maybe partial, and may need to be supplemented part of the time by decisions which are not research-based. But at least they are a basis for action. (Skehan 1998: 121).<br />
    38. 38. Provisional specifications<br />The goal of theory and research in SLA is not to direct teachers how to teach, but rather to advance a number of ‘provisional specifications’ that teachers can then try out, adapting them to their own particular teaching contexts. (Ellis 2003: x)<br />In our view, it is entirely appropriate that teachers should treat ideas and proposals for TBLT as provisional specifications in this way. ... With this in mind it seems to us that the status of TBLT as a set of provisional specifications could be emphasised more in the teacher development literature, and that the role of teachers in experimenting with aspects of task use could be made more explicit. (Andon & Eckerth 2009)<br />
    39. 39. Implications for teachers and teacher educators<br />Should teacher educators be more dogmatic in advocating TBLT over its alternatives in spite of a lack of convincing classroom evaluation?<br />Do teacher educators know enough about TBLT?<br />PPP is often introduced on ITE courses to help teachers survive as they gather experience. This has some advantages (as well as obvious disadvantages) particularly in this context.<br />Should TBLT be encouraged as a complete package or as a set of principles and techniques to be drawn on pragmatically?<br />
    40. 40. Adapting TBLT requires a good understanding of its principles and a clearer idea of underlying mechanisms. Principled eclecticism (Mellow 2002)<br />Better models of TBLT in practice<br />If pedagogy is to be informed by more data on the use of TBLT in real classrooms over extended periods of time, it is clear that teachers will have to be involved. <br />A clearer understanding of essential and optional features of TBLT might enable teachers to experiment with tasks. <br />Dealing with learners’ expectations and raising learners’ awareness (Cotterall 2000, Willis 1996)<br />Lynch’s (2001) proposals as one way to gather data efficiently, as well as providing valuable learning activity<br />
    41. 41. Essential Conditions for Language Learning<br />Essential conditions for language learning (adapted from Willis 1996: 11)<br />
    42. 42. Implications for researchers<br />The kind of evidence produced by task-based researchers does not convince teachers of the knowledge creating role of tasks and there is a need for research that shows the effectiveness of TBLT over time: how much acquisition, how quickly and whether this is as effective as more traditional methods that teach grammar through explicit presentation, explanation and practice. <br />There have been a number of calls for more SLA research to be carried out in real classrooms, but the present research suggests that SLA researchers would have difficulty finding any examples of teachers willing to use anything like a purely task-based approach. <br />If researchers are going to be successful in providing teachers with provisional specifications, it would help them to know more about the ways in which teachers use tasks, what aspects of TBLT teachers readily accept, and what aspects they resist. <br />Teachers’ interest in combining tasks with more direct intervention teaching approaches suggests one area to investigate. <br />Research that acknowledges the way teachers are using tasks may also have more success in getting the attention of teachers. <br />
    43. 43. References<br />Allwright, D. 1984. Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis. In: Singleton, D. and D. Little (eds.), Language Learning in Formal and Informal Contexts. Dublin: IRAAL. 3-18.<br />Andon, N. & J. Eckerth (2009, forthcoming) ‘Chacun à son gout? Task-based L2 pedagogy from the teacher’s point of view’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19/3.<br />Bruton, A. 2002. ‘From tasking purposes to purposing tasks’. ELT Journal 56/3: 280-288<br />Carless, D. 2002. ‘Implementing task-based learning with young learners’. ELT Journal, 56/4: 389-396. <br />Carless, D. 2004. ‘Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools’. TESOL Quarterly 38/4: 639–662.<br />Cotterall, S. 2000 ‘Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: principles for designing language courses’. ELT Journal 54/2: 109-117 <br />Edwards, C. & J. Willis (eds.). 2005 Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.<br />Ellis, R. 2000. ‘Task-based research and language pedagogy’ Language Teaching Research 4/3: 193-220<br />Ellis, R. 2003. Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />Foster, P. 1999. Key Concepts in ELT. Task-based learning and pedagogy’. ELT Journal 53/1.<br />Harmer, J. 1998. How to Teach English. Harlow, Essex: Longman<br />
    44. 44. Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. <br />Littlewood, W. 2004. ‘The task-based approach: some questions and suggestions’ in ELT Journal 58/4: 319-326.<br />Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. 1993. Grammar and task-based methodology’. In Crookes, G. & S. Gass (eds.). Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. (pp 123–167)<br />Lynch, T. 2001. ‘Seeing what they meant: transcribing as a route to noticing’. ELT Journal 55/2: 124-132.<br />Mellow, J. 2002. ‘Towards principled eclecticism in language teaching: the two-dimensional model and the centering principle’. TESL-EJ 5/4. Accessed 17/08/2008 from http://tesl-ej.org/ej20/a1.html<br />Sheen, R. 1994. ‘A critical analysis of the advocacy of the task-based syllabus’. TESOL Quarterly 28/1: 127-151.<br />Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />Swan, M. 2005. ‘Legislation by hypothesis: the case of task-based instruction’. Applied Linguistics 26/3: 376-401.<br />Van den Branden, K. (ed.). 2006. Task-based Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-based Learning. Harlow, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman<br />
    45. 45. Johannes Eckerth 1965-2009<br />