The document discusses tasks in language teaching. It defines tasks according to Richards et al. (1985) as activities carried out through language processing or understanding, and may or may not involve language production. Tasks should have a clear objective and require active language use. The document also discusses the differences between task-based language teaching (TBLT) which uses unfocused tasks to provide communication opportunities, and task-supported language teaching (TSLT) which uses a structural syllabus with practice tasks focusing on form rather than meaning. Finally, it describes the presenter's evaluation of tasks in an English textbook unit with a classmate, where they analyzed tasks by type, skill, and placement to understand the pedagogical purpose.

1. On our seminaronthe 23rd
March we were talkingabouttasks. Asteacherswe plan,design,adapt,
personalize,inone wordworkwithtaskseveryday,admittedlyoftenwithoutgiventhemtoomuch
consideration.Itwasforthisreasonveryuseful tostartwiththe basics anddefine whatatask actually
is.Accordingto Richardset al,1985: 289:
“A task is…an activityoractionwhichis carriedoutas a resultof processingorunderstanding
language…Tasksmay or may notinvolve the productionof language.A taskusuallyrequiresthe teacher
to specifywhatwill be regardedassuccessful completionof the task.”
Furthermore,we alsoidentifiedsome taskessentials.AccordingtoPennyUr,1988:17 a taskneedsto
have a clear objective andanecessityforactive language use. Thispointof view isfurtherechoedby
Ellis,1998, whoexcludesthe traditional grammarexerciseswhichrequire afocuson formbut includes
language awarenessactivitieswhichinvolve learnersdiscoveringlinguisticphenomena.
In a bitmore recentpublicationRichard&Schmidt,2002: 539 highlightthe factorsneedtobe
consideredwhenplanning,designingoradaptingatask. Accordingto thisthe mainthingsneedtobe
takenintoaccount are: goals,procedures,order,pacing,product,learningstrategy,assessment,
participation,resourcesandlanguage.
Afterlookingatabove andmore interpretationsitbecame cleartome that – as per PennyUr,1988:17,
“The functionof the taskis simplytoactivate the learnersinsucha wayas to actuallygetthemto
engage withthe material tobe practiced”,whichsimplyandverynicelyroundsitupandmaking
analysingtasksveryrelevantonourmaterialsmodule.
Afterdefiningthe tasksitwasveryuseful todraw the line betweenTask-basedlanguage teachingand
Task-supportedlanguageteaching.The former (TBLT) includesandmeansusingunfocusedtasks,which
basicallyandsimplyprovideopportunitiesforcommunication,bywhichlearnerscanacquire the
language asthese give themthe opportunitytoengage inmeaningnegotiation(Ellis,1998:226). The
latter(TSLT) normallymeansa structural syllabususingPPP(presentation,practice,production) where
the final stage isa situational grammarexercise,whichprimarypurposeistopractice correct language
rather thanprocessingformeaningandthe outcome isuse of language (Ellis,2011:212-3).
Later on duringthe seminarwe talkedabouttask taxonomy.We identified proceduressuchas
expansion,reduction,mediatransfer,matching,selecting/ranking,comparison/contrast,reconstruction,
reformulation,interpretation,creatingtext,analysisandprojectwork(asanexample forTBL). The most
interestingpartforme wasthe bitaboutthe publisher’stypology,inotherwordswhattype of tasksthe
publisherswouldliketosee ina course book.Itwasn’tcompletelynew informationas ina previous
seminaronvideos,the guestspeaker –author, material writer,TomOttway - alsomentionedthe
existence of suchtypology.Thistime howeverwe hadcast-iron(paper) proof of it as we were handeda
printoutwith examplesof the typical activitytypes,certainvariationsof these andthe wordingof
instructions.Thiswas alsoconfirmedbyTheresaClementson,anotherone of ourguestspeaker,aswell
as material writer,andco-authorof the EnglishUnlimitedseries.

2. In the secondhalf of the seminarwe presentedourpre-seminartask,ourtask evaluationof acourse
bookunit.I completedthe taskwithDan,whowouldprobablythe firsttoadmittogetherwithme that
we woulddoit differentlynow.Buthere ishow we wentaboutit:
1. We listedall the activitiesinthe unitof ourchoice,4A – New EnglishFile,Upper-Intermediate,
labellingthe activitiesbytheirtypes(gap-fil,matching,choosing,etc)
2. As initiallywe were strugglingtofindapattern,we decidedto categorize the exercisesbythe
skillstheywere focusingon.Here we allocatedadifferentcolourtoeachskill practiced.This
laterhelpedtoidentifynotonlywhichtype of exerciseswere mostfrequentbutalsowhatskills
theywere targeting
3. By doingthiswe foundourpattern.Not surprisingly,the resultsconfirmedsome familiar
practices.We noticedforexample thatoutof the fourskillsreadingandlisteningreceivedmore
or lessthe same attention,while there wassignificantlymore emphasisonspeakingthanon
writing.The grammarsectionoccupiedthe massive middlechunkof the unit,withaslightly
tippedvocabularybalance towardsthe beginningof the unit.Italsobecame clearhow
insignificantlysmall partpronunciationplayedinthe unitin question.Somuchso that –
admittedly,partlydue tothe choice of colourtoo – itspresence wasn’tevennoticeable atfirst.
It couldmeanthat at thislevel perhapspronunciationisnotconsideredanissue,whichIagree
withto a certainextentintermssegmental phonologybutinregardsto suprasegmental
phonology,there isstillalongwayto go for mostupper-intermediatestudentsinmyopinion.
4. Finally,we triedtoidentifythe ‘why’s’and‘how’s’,namelywhythe taskisthe one there inthat
particularplace and howitaids students’language learning. Althoughmostof the time we
managedto findthe pedagogical justification, - armedwithourknowledgeaboutthe publisher’s
typology – we occasionallycame tothe conclusionthatthe task inquestion wasthere totick
one of those obligatoryboxestoplease publishers,whichisfine aslongasit at the same token
doesn’tbore studentsandkeepthemengagedandactivatedinordertoacquire language,the
veryfunctionof a task as explainedbyPennyUr,1988, mentionedatthe beginningof mypost.
We alsoidentifiedtasks(orratheractivities) - suchasa song - as rewards,somethingtolighten
up a lessonandfinishthe weekonaFridayon a high.
At the endof the evaluationprocessIrealisedthat doingitismore complex thanIthoughtit wouldbe.
Afterthe seminar– where we identifiedfocusedandunfocusedtasks,aswell asdifferentapproachesto
evaluation –I wassure that,giventhe opportunityorthe taskto do so,we wouldhave takendifferent
stepsandwouldhave endedupwitha verydifferentresult.Nexttime,Icouldperhapsanevaluation
procedure,basedonEllis(1998),considering:input,procedures,language activity,outcomesand – as
suggestedatthe endof the presentation - focusingonapproach,purpose andfocusof the task.
Hi Dan, readingyourposttookme back to thatweekwhenwe were workingonourevaluation,looking
at the unit,usingthe coloursandgoing‘oh,that mustbe publisher’srequirement’aswe couldn’tsee
any pedagogical reasonforatask or evenworse,almostfeltthe students’painandboredomaswe were
lookingatyetanothermatchingexercise.Irememberfeelingverypleasedwithmyself,simplyjust
havingthat piece of knowledge andbeingable tomake thatcomment.Lookingatour taxonomy
however,don’tyoufeelthatwe wouldgodifferentlyaboutitnow?That’snot to saythat our work was

3. wrong.It wascertainlya unique wayof lookingattaskswitha hintof amateurism Imightadd.If we had
had the luxuryof time andbenefitof hindsightIamprettysure that we wouldhave done a very
differentjob.SomethingIfeel we are more thancapable of doingnow afterthese three monthsspent
on thismodule,andsomethingIam more pleasedwithandgenuinelyproudof thanmycomment
mentionedabove.Well done,buddy,beengoodworkingwithyou!
Hi Hasan,I was readingyourpostand thoughtI comment on a pointyoumade,whichhasstayedwith
my since ourseminaractually.Itisabout highlightingthe differencebetweenTask-basedlearning(TBL)
and taskor Task-supportedlearning(TSL).Irememberfromthe seminar,theretooyouwere the one
makingthe distinctionandmakingitclearbyemphasizingit.Iwasaware of the difference butperhaps
doingthe posterwith youinthe seminarandnow readingaboutTBL in yourpost - where againit’syour
firstpoint-,reallybringsithome.Thanksforthis!