Wiley revised submitted

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321307363
Tasks versus Exercises
Preprint · November 2017
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36416.43522
CITATIONS
0
READS
1,048
1 author:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Tasks and Syntactic Development View project
Personal investment and L2 Performance View project
Craig Lambert
Curtin University
34 PUBLICATIONS 270 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Craig Lambert on 27 November 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Tasks Versus Exercise
Journal: TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching
Manuscript ID: EELT-0102.R1
Wiley - Manuscript type: Entry
Date Submitted by the Author: n/a
Complete List of Authors: Lambert, Craig
Keywords:
Pragmatics, Psycholinguistics, Second Language Acquisition, Syntax,
Teaching Methods in Applied Linguistics
Free Text Keywords:
Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), Implicit and Explicit Knowledge,
Intentional and Incidental Learning, Information-gap tasks
Abstract:
Over the last three decades, communicative tasks have taken on a
progressively more important role in second language (L2) instruction.
However, conceptions of tasks have differed greatly in scope, making it
difficult for teachers to use the term consistently to distinguish tasks from
other L2 learning activities and to employ them consistently in instruction.
This article focuses on tasks as a specific type of pedagogic tool and
distinguishes them from exercises based on their role in L2 development. It
also provides a foundation for decision-making regarding the use of tasks
in L2 instruction internationally.
TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching

1
Tasks versus Exercises
Craig Lambert
Curtin University
lambert@kitakyu-u.ac.jp
Word Count: 2500
Abstract
Over the last three decades, communicative tasks have taken on a progressively more
important role in second language (L2) instruction. However, conceptions of tasks have
differed greatly in scope, making it difficult for teachers to use the term consistently to
distinguish tasks from other L2 learning activities and to employ them consistently in
instruction. This article focuses on tasks as a specific type of pedagogic tool and distinguishes
them from exercises based on their role in L2 development. It also provides a foundation for
decision-making regarding the use of tasks in L2 instruction internationally.
Framing the Issue
According to Ellis (2009), four criteria distinguish tasks from other exercises used in L2
instruction: (1) a primary focus on meaning, (2) a communicative gap that motivates language
use, (3) participants using their own resources, and (4) a clearly-defined communicative
outcome. Table 1 illustrates these principles by contrasting a L2 exercise with an L2 task based
on the same picture-strip narrative materials.
Table 1: Two Ways of Setting up a Picture-Strip Story Activity
Exercise Task
Gap Everyone involved already knows
or has access to the story.
The speaker has the picture story, and the
listener has a scrambled picture set.
Resources Language or instructions are
provided to guide learners in the
use of relevant narrative forms.
After a sentence to establish the narrative
discourse frame, learners negotiate an
understanding on their own terms.
Outcome Learners practice the targeted
narrative forms to tell the story.
The speaker tells the story in enough detail
for the listener to order the pictures.
Primary focus
of attention
Learners’ primary focus is on
using language correctly by
supplying the targeted forms in
relation to the picture story.
Learners’ primary focus is on the pragmatic
goal of developing a mutual understanding
that allows them to correctly order the
pictures in the story.
Page 1 of 7 TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching

2
Although exercises may often have some of the characteristics of tasks, for an L2 activity to be
considered a task, all four of these criteria must be met.
First, a gap in the content on which the task operates is an essential aspect of its
design. It provides a reason for learners to use language. Information gap tasks, in which task
essential-information is divided between participants by the materials designer, are common
in L2 instructional materials internationally (see Yule, 1997: 37-70; Long, 2015: 259-298 for
examples). Less common are communicative gaps based on learners’ opinions and personal
experiences or on the inferences or reasoning that is required to move from the information
provided in the task materials to the task outcome (see Prabhu, 1987: 31-47, for an overview).
Incorporating such diversity in task design makes it possible to engage learners cognitively and
affectively at higher levels in classroom L2 use.
Also crucial to the design of tasks are the resources available to learners while
completing them. This determines the extent to which they develop the ability to access their
current L2 resources and refine these resources in line with task and contextual demands.
Tasks allow learners to develop their own strategies for completing tasks based on the full
range of their own personal and linguistic resources. Thus, in completing output-based tasks
(speaking, writing), learners will usually not be allowed access to model language, nor will they
be given instructions or suggestions which focus them on the use of specific language forms.
Likewise, when performing input-based tasks (listening, reading), learners will draw on the full
range of their own linguistic resources, background knowledge, and the immediate context to
fill a communicative gap and arrive at a communicative outcome (see Table 2 for examples).
Although not required to produce language, learners may negotiate meaning to make the
input comprehensible or engage in private speech connected with distinctions they find
important (Ellis & Shintani, 2014: 139; Long, 2015: 259-298, for examples).
Table 2: Examples of Input-Based Tasks
Ordering Pictures Correcting an Order Form
Gap Learners have a scrambled picture
set and cannot determine the order
without hearing or reading the story.
Learners have an order form with
incorrect payment details and review the
recording of the order to correct them.
Resources Learners read or listen to the story,
drawing on context and their
linguistic/background knowledge to
process it in relation to the pictures.
Learners listen to the recording to
identify and correct the error. They might
contrast words that caused it in private
speech (e.g., fifty, not fifteen)
Outcome Learners achieve an understanding
to order the pictures correctly.
Learners find the error and correct it on
the order form.
Page 2 of 7TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching

3
Tasks also require a communicative outcome beyond the use language for its own
sake. Exercises frequently have such outcomes as well. In a pedagogic exercise, for example,
learners might work together to tell a story and order pictures correctly although they both
already know the correct order or the language to be used is provided for them. Learners’ goal
orientation on such exercises is often limited to practicing the target language as an end in
itself. Any non-linguistic outcome becomes a byproduct of language use rather than a genuine
goal. It is a device which allows learners to apply L2 forms based on their semantic meanings.
By contrast, tasks are designed in such a way that the outcome constitutes both the goal and
the criterion of success from the learners’ perspectives, and this opportunity allows them to
perform contextualized communicative functions in their own ways.
Finally, in determining whether the criterion of a primary focus on meaning has been
met in designing tasks, it is necessary to evaluate: (1) that learners need to understand the
meanings encoded in sentences, and (2) that they need to engage in adjusting these meanings
to achieve mutual understanding in a given context. In other words, tasks must focus learners
on pragmatic as well as semantic meaning (Ellis, 2003: 9-10). However, form and meaning are
not independent aspects of performance, and learners’ attention at the individual level will
inevitably shift to language form during communicative problem-solving or as certain forms
become salient in otherwise meaning-focused communication. Nevertheless, to the extent
that it is possible, tasks should be designed to focus learners on achieving a specific
communicative end rather than on the language that they use to achieve it.
Making the Case
Tasks and exercises are both pedagogic tools. However, they can be argued to relate to distinct
types of L2 knowledge: implicit and explicit. Ellis (2011) defines implicit knowledge as the tacit
knowledge that native and proficient speakers of a language possess. This knowledge
constitutes a tightly-connected system that is usually associated with extensive language use.
This experience provides an intuitive sense of what sounds right or wrong in a language as well
as a largely automated basis for action. By contrast, explicit knowledge is the conscious and
rule-based knowledge that is typical of learners who have studied a language formally but who
have difficulty using what they have learned in communicative interaction. It constitutes a
loosely-organized system and only provides insight into isolated aspects of language use.
Primary
Focus of
Attention
Learners focus on correspondences
between the verbal and visual story.
They incidentally process language
forms instrumental to this purpose.
Learners focus on differences between
what was said and what was written
down. They incidentally process language
forms instrumental to this purpose.

4
Furthermore, it tends to require considerable effort and conscious decision-making in its
application. Although implicit knowledge is ultimately the goal of most L2 programs, explicit
knowledge is more frequently the outcome as evidenced by situations in which learners are
able to pass tests of material covered in the course but are unable to use this material
functionally in communication.
In general, it might be argued that tasks are pedagogic tools for implicit L2 knowledge
development. However, the question of how explicit knowledge may be related to implicit
knowledge development is crucial to decisions regarding the use of tasks and exercises in
instruction. Ellis (2011) outlines three positions on this relationship. The first is a strong
interface position which posits that explicit knowledge can be transformed into implicit
knowledge through practice or that automatized explicit knowledge is sufficient for fluent
communication and indistinguishable from implicit knowledge in performance. Skill Acquisition
Theory (DeKeyser, 2007) provides a theoretical rationale for L2 instruction in line with this
position. The essential argument is that learners proceduralize explicit knowledge through
focused practice of specific forms and then automatize it under the operating conditions
provided by tasks. By contrast, a non-interface position posits that implicit and explicit L2
knowledge are processed differently, involve different cognitive mechanisms, and are stored in
different parts of the brain. In its strongest form, a non-interface position thus posits no role
for explicit knowledge in implicit knowledge acquisition at all. The role of explicit knowledge in
this view is limited to the role it plays in monitoring during performance. Finally, a weak
interface position, which is similar to a non-interface position in that implicit and explicit
knowledge are argued to be distinct, posits that explicit knowledge can facilitate the
acquisition of implicit knowledge in several ways. For example, explicit knowledge may
increase the salience of difficult to notice forms in L2 input and aid learners in problem-solving
during communication breakdown. Furthermore, output based on explicit knowledge might
serve as input for implicit knowledge acquisition. Finally, it is argued that when learners are
developmentally ready to acquire certain forms, explicit knowledge can be associated with
implicit knowledge development (Ellis, 2011). A weak interface position thus implies a more
essential role for explicit L2 knowledge in adult SLA than a non-interface position.
Pedagogical Implications
In discussing pedagogical options, it is important to say at the outset that there is no best
approach to incorporating tasks into L2 instruction internationally. The three approaches which
will be compared in this section all have advantages and disadvantages. Determining which is
best suited to a given educational context will require careful consideration of the teachers’
positions on the importance of explicit knowledge in implicit knowledge development as well

5
as on careful analysis of what is feasible and sustainable in a given program.
One approach to using tasks in L2 instruction which is in line with a strong interface
position is to provide learners with a series of progressively less structured exercises. Such
approaches are commonly referred to as present-practice-produce (PPP) approaches. When
tasks are added to this type of approach in an attempt to aid learners in the final stages of
automatizing practiced forms, the resulting approach is typically referred to as a
task-supported approach. This approach has the advantage of ensuring that learners engage
in the use of targeted language forms for specific communicative functions. Common
criticisms, however, are that learners are not developing their own form-to-function L2
strategies and that they are not engaging in the processes of negotiating pragmatic meaning
that they will ultimately need to use language effectively. Furthermore, as PPP approaches
typically bias learners toward the use of predetermined language forms, it can be argued that
learners could be prevented from drawing on the full range of their own resources and that
the integrity of tasks in such an approach could potentially be compromised.
A second approach to using tasks in L2 instruction that is in line with a non-interface
position is to subordinate learning entirely to tasks and address problems of language form
only as they arise in communication through the use of corrective techniques which preserve a
focus on meaning (e.g., confirmation checks, clarification requests, and recasts). Long (2015)
provides a detailed discussion of such an approach, arguing that pedagogic tasks should be
derived directly from real-world tasks that learners need to complete and sequenced to
gradually approximate the demands of these tasks based on non-linguistic criteria such as the
number of elements they involve, the degree of similarity between these elements, and the
amount of shared context available to learners (Long, 2015: 232-234). This task-based
approach to language teaching (TBLT) has the advantage of ensuring the integrity of tasks and
potentially increasing both the content and face validity of task exemplars. However, a
common criticism of this approach has to do with the distinction between task learning and
language learning. Many L2 learners are not only interested in learning to complete tasks but
also in mastering the language system as it used by proficient speakers in completing them.
Many aspects of language are not essential to arriving at successful task outcomes, and the
sensitivity of many learners to correction of erroneous language forms during
meaning-focused communication is questionable. Many practitioners are thus skeptical about
the efficacy of task-based instruction as a means of supporting the acquisition of a
fully-developed language system for learners across a range of motivational profiles and
foreign language aptitudes. In addition, many practitioners around the world find the prospect
of instruction organized solely on the basis of tasks to be unfeasible in their programs and
educational contexts.

6
A third approach to using tasks in L2 instruction that is in line with a weak interface
position involves the use of both tasks and exercises in programs, provided that practitioners
understand the distinct purposes of these activities and employ them appropriately. Ellis
(2009) proposes a modular approach to L2 instruction aimed at maintaining the integrity of
task-based instruction and ensuring that it is complemented with explicit instruction to aid
adult learners in implicit knowledge acquisition. In this approach, some modules in the
curriculum are devoted to instruction based on language-focused exercises, and others are
devoted to instruction based on meaning-focused tasks. Provided that these modules can be
effectively separated in the curriculum so that the integrity of the task-based modules can be
preserved (e.g., by using distinct activities in each module and providing the respective
instruction on different days), a modular approach has the potential advantage of supporting
adult learners of differing motivations and aptitudes in reaching their learning goals. In
addition, this approach might provide practitioners around the world with a means of
experimenting with task-based instruction in otherwise traditional educational contexts.
However, uncritically assuming that a modular approach will achieve the level of separation
required to preserve the integrity of task-based L2 modules in a program is inadvisable. This
must be carefully considered and evaluated at the local level. If such separation proves
unfeasible in a given context, a modular approach will be subject to the same criticisms as the
task-supported form of PPP outlined above.
SEE ALSO: Communicative Competence, Explicit and Implicit Knowledge, Information-Gap
Tasks, Intentional and Incidental Learning, Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), The
Development of Pragmalinguistic and Pragmatic Skills
References
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in
second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97-113). Mahwah, New Jersey: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221-246.
Ellis, R. (2011). The Interface Hypothesis Revisited. In N. Yuzawa (Ed.), Proceedings of the JACET
50th Commemorative International Convention (pp. 1-6). Fukuoka: Japan Association of
College English Teachers (JACET).
Ellis, R. & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through SLA research. Mahwah,
New Jersey: Routledge.

7
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA:
Wiley Blackwell.
Prabhu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yule, G. 1997. Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Further Readings
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA:
Wiley Blackwell.
Prabhu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yule, G. 1997. Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
View publication statsView publication stats

Wiley revised submitted

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Wiley revised submitted

More from MBSHOLEH

Recently uploaded

Wiley revised submitted