VandommeleVandenBrandenVanGorp, TBLT, How Task-Based Is It Really

John Benjamins Publishing Company
This is a contribution from TBLT as a Researched Pedagogy.

Edited by Virginia Samuda, Kris Van den Branden and Martin Bygate.
© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company
This electronic file may not be altered in any way.
The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to
be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible
to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post
this PDF on the open internet.
For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the
publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).
Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com
chapter 6
Task-based language teaching

How task-based is it really?
Goedele Vandommele1, Kris Van den Branden1 & Koen Van Gorp2
1University of Leuven / 2Michigan State University
The purpose of the study described in this chapter was to explore the classroom
practices of teachers with varying degrees of experience in task-based language
teaching (TBLT) while using a task-based syllabus. In particular, we wanted to assess
the extent to which their actual classroom practices are in line with the main tenets
of the task-based approach. We observed four teachers as they were team teaching
in pairs during a two-week summer school for adolescent newcomers with high-
beginner proficiency levels of Dutch. Results indicate that the classroom practices
of both teaching teams lived up to the main principles of TBLT. On the whole, the
classroom practice of the more experienced team of teachers was systematically rated
higher. The classroom practice of the inexperienced team was found to be consistent
with three out of the five principles that were rated, namely “Promote Learning by
Doing”, “Focus on Form” and “Provide Input and Opportunities to Produce Output”.
However, two other principles (“Provide Negative Feedback” and “Individualize
Instruction”) were virtually absent in teachers’ use of tasks. The experienced team
was found to implement some of the principles during all activities, while others
seemed much more context-dependent. This study may deepen our insight into the
different features of TBLT, in particular regarding core and more peripheral features
of TBLT. Ultimately, it can guide qualitative training of teachers new to TBLT.
Introduction
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been one of the most influential approaches
to second language education since the early nineties and evidence for the impact of
tasks on language learning is growing (Ellis & Shintani, 2013; Long, 2014). The imple-
mentation of task-based principles in actual classroom practice, however, is challeng-
ing for many teachers. This study will explore the classroom practices of different
teachers in comparable contexts, working with comparable learners and sharing an
equally positive view towards a task-based approach, but who differ in terms of their
experience with task-based teaching.
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.12.07van
© 2018 John Benjamins Publishing Company
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
Implementing TBLT
Over the last few decades, the main principles of TBLT and its potential impact on s econd
language acquisition have been well described (Ellis & Shintani, 2013; Long, 2014; Van
den Branden, Bygate, & Norris, 2009). Moreover, empirical research, most of which is
conducted in laboratory settings, has produced evidence for the impact of task-based
interaction on language learning (Ellis & Shintani, 2013; Keck, Iberri-Shea, Tracy-
Ventura, & Wa-Mbaleka, 2006; Long, 2014; Samuda & Bygate, 2007).
At the same time, a growing body of research has explored the implementation of
tasks in authentic L2 classrooms. Such research has revealed that teachers often modify
tasks, which results in a gap between tasks on paper (and as used in experimental labo-
ratory settings) and tasks in authentic classrooms. This gap was described (Breen, 1989;
Ellis, 2003) in terms of a tension between “task-as-workplan” and “task-in-process”. It
follows from the observation that teachers make instructional choices (Borg, 2003) in
order to suit their particular contexts, their available resources, their learners’ needs,
and their own competences, practices and beliefs. By making instructional choices
when working with tasks, teachers, by definition, reconstruct them (Berben, Van den
Branden, & Van Gorp, 2007). As a result, no two tasks-in-action, including those based
on a single task-as-workplan, are exactly the same, even when they are carried out by
the same individual on different occasions (Coughlan & Duff, 1994).
Thus, some of the core principles of TBLT may be implemented in different ways
by different teachers, or may fail to be put into practice altogether. As a matter of fact,
the growing body of literature on TBLT implementation has shown that many teachers
working with tasks may even violate some of the key principles behind the task-based
approach (Carless, 2007, 2009). Some principles may be partially adopted or modified,
while others seem to be bluntly ignored.
TBLT as an innovation
For many teachers, TBLT is an innovative approach that deviates from the more form-
focused, teacher-dominated method they are accustomed to. Research on the imple-
mentation of educational innovations has shown that the success of an educational
innovation depends on a wide range of factors, including the complexity, feasibility and
concreteness of the innovation and the advantages teachers associate it with (Van den
Branden, 2009a). Ellis (2003) points out that, as complexity and lack of concreteness
are typical of most theoretical descriptions of TBLT, this may inhibit TBLT’s imple-
mentation. Even though at first sight, TBLT might be conceptually simple and easy for
teachers to grasp, it can be hard to do at the same time: for instance, what exactly does it
mean to devote primary attention to meaning? How much focus on form is allowed or
recommended? And when exactly should focus on form be offered to learners?

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 
In addition, some of the key principles of TBLT may be hard to implement due
to contextual constraints (e.g., class sizes, lack of materials and infrastructure). Often,
TBLT is seen as being incompatible with the local context, since “it counters our tradi-
tions of practice, requires rethinking the outcomes of our programs, and implies an
overhaul of the teaching and testing that is going on in many language classrooms”
(Norris, 2009, p. 591).
Given the difficulties associated with the implementation of TBLT, Van den
B
randen (2009a) has argued that teachers require support throughout the innovation
process. This support can take different shapes, including (1) in-service training and
relevant information on the innovation, (2) teaching aids and tools and (3) school-
based, practice-oriented, on-the-ground coaching (Van den Branden, 2009a).
A growing body of research looking into the impact of different types of teacher
support on task-based classroom practice has shown the crucial importance of teach-
ers’ understanding of and attitudes towards the task-based approach (East, 2014a).
This has led to support programs in which teachers’ beliefs and practices are addressed
and their experiences with tasks are explored and followed up, for instance by way of
reflective practice (East, 2014b) or action-research (Calvert & Sheen, 2014).
Providing teachers with task-based materials has been shown to have mixed results
on the implementation of TBLT. On the one hand, when teachers develop their own mate-
rials, they have been shown to acquire ownership and a deeper understanding of TBLT
(McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007; Van den Branden, 2006). On the other hand,
however, Ellis (2003) argues that teachers should focus on setting up the kind of interac-
tion with their learners that fosters language acquisition. Instead of wasting energy devel-
oping tasks, they should be provided with ready-made task-based materials. Still, teachers
who were provided with tasks designed by professional syllabus developers have been
shown to adapt those tasks, rather than the tasks modifying the teachers’ behavior. Some
of those teachers were found to use the tasks to resort to more traditional, grammar-based
methods and make the tasks fit their preferred approaches (Carless, 2007, 2009); others
made selective use of the materials, changed the goals and grouping formats, skipped
phases or added other ones, and simplified text material (Van den Branden, 2009b). In
this respect, Van den Branden (2009a) has argued for the need to follow the teacher’s lead
and start from the teacher’s own interpretation and use of tasks to set up an intensive cycle
of reflective practice in an effort to deepen the teacher’s insight and professional expertise
with regard to promoting their students’ language competences.
Package deal or separate components?
At this point, the question can be raised whether a theoretical description of the main
principles underpinning TBLT should be considered a package deal: are there a number
of key principles that should all be put into practice in order for a lesson to be truly con-

All rights reserved
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
sidered “task-based”? Are some principles more crucial than others? With regard to the
implementation of TBLT, this also raises the question whether some principles can be or
should be implemented first, while others can be introduced later. For instance, this could
be asked about the practice of more experienced teachers who have built up considerable
expertise in working with tasks. Little research has looked into task-based implementa-
tion from this perspective. We believe that comparing the classroom practices of teachers
with varying expertise and/or experience with working with tasks can provide valuable
insights into the kind of TBLT principles that find their way into mainstream classroom
practice more easily and into the principles that require more effort. This kind of research
can also shed light on the feasibility of different principles for teachers, their suitability
and practicability in particular school contexts and on their value for different types of
learners. Ultimately, such research could also provide new directions for enhancing the
gradual implementation of innovative practices like TBLT.
To the best of our knowledge, only Andon & Eckerth (2009), Erlam (2015) and
Oliver and Bogachenko (2018, this volume) have studied the implementation of TBLT
principles. In Andon & Eckerth ’s (2009) research, experienced language teachers who
had previously encountered (aspects of) the task-based approach, referred to specific
aspects of TBLT during interviews, but in their classroom practice would “experiment
with different elements of TBLT, reject some of them, embrace others, and combine
all of them with other pedagogical elements” (Andon & Eckerth, 2009). The question
remains whether the “principled eclecticism” that characterized the teachers’ class-
room practices resulted from the teachers’ belief in such practices or from the teachers’
limited experience with task-based work.
Erlam’s (2015) study looked into the integration of different components of TBLT
in tasks designed by teachers who came out of a year-long professional teacher train-
ing program. Erlam found that two principles were implemented with relative ease
by teachers, namely the primacy of focus on meaning and having tasks with a clearly
defined, non-linguistic outcome. Two criteria that were harder to incorporate were the
need for a gap and insisting on students’ reliance on their own resources. Even though
these findings clearly illustrate that TBLT is not a straightforward package deal for
teachers to put into practice when designing tasks, the study reveals little in terms of
the teachers’ implementation of tasks in authentic classrooms.
In our study, we wanted to explore which aspects of TBLT occurred in the actual
classroom practices of teachers. In contrast with Andon & Eckerth (2009), we focused
on teachers with different levels of experience in TBLT and provided them with tasks
designed by a professional task developer. We were particularly interested in exploring
the teachers’ use of the different tasks in their classrooms.
Thus, the main research questions guiding the study are as follows:
–– To what extent are key principles of TBLT put into practice by teachers while
working with tasks?

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 
–– To what extent do teachers who have varying degrees of experience with TBLT-
related classroom practices differ with regard to putting the key principles into
practice?
–– To what extent are experienced and less experienced teachers consistent – across
different tasks – in putting TBLT principles into practice?
Method
Background and context of data collection

The current study was part of a larger research project that investigated the spoken
and written language development of high-beginner adolescent L2 learners of Dutch.
The L2 learners participated in a two-week summer school of Dutch as a second lan-
guage, which gave them the opportunity to continue learning Dutch during their sum-
mer holidays. During these two weeks, L2 learners worked towards an overarching,
meaningful and motivating project goal: the design of a website introducing future
newcomers to Flemish society. Half of the L2 learners worked towards this goal on the
basis of a task-based syllabus that was developed by a professional task developer (i.e.
the first author of this article). For the purpose of this study, we will focus on these L2
learners. In the task-based setting, four teachers were involved in team-teaching two
different classes. The teachers were free to adapt the task-based syllabus to suit their
own ideas, purposes and classroom practices.
L2 learners
The L2 learners participating in the summer school were selected on the basis of a
range of criteria. First, the project focused on learners of low socio-economic back-
grounds, as this group typically underachieves in the Flemish educational system (Stoll,
Hulshof, Nusche, & Shewbridge, 2011). Second, at least an intermediate beginner level
of Dutch language proficiency was required: the participants at minimum had to be
able to understand and use basic everyday expressions while making conversation on
topics related to their personal life (A1 level – following the CEFR scales (Council of
Europe, 2011)). Third, no participants had attended Dutch-medium reception classes
for newcomers for more than 12 months prior to the study. Finally, the participants
were between 12 and 16 years old.
The classes
The 31 L2 learners involved were divided into two classes according to age.
–– Class A consisted of sixteen L2 learners aged 15–16; five were girls and eleven boys.
–– Class B consisted of fifteen L2 learners aged 13–14; four were girls and eleven boys.

All rights reserved
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
The four teachers

Four teachers working in pairs used the task-based syllabus. As team teaching is
becoming increasingly popular in Flanders and because it is very common in summer
schools, two teachers teamed up to work with Class A and the other two with Class
B. The following table summarizes teacher characteristics in terms of their education,
knowledge of and experience in working with TBLT.
Interviews with the teachers, as well as assessment of their CVs, revealed that the
individual teachers differed in their knowledge of and experience in implementing
TBLT. In Class A, a very experienced teacher worked together with a less experienced
teacher, while both teachers of Class B had only limited experience with task-based
language education.
Table 1. Teacher profiles

Class A Class B
T1 Education bachelor degree of education bachelor degree of education

Teaching experience 30 years of teaching experience 5 years of teaching experience
Learners adolescent newcomers L1 adolescents mostly
Subjects L2 Dutch currently sciences (geography and
biology), previously L1 Dutch
Knowledge of TBLT extensive basic
Experience in TBLT 15 years of TBLT practice occasionally uses tasks in science
class
Other teacher trainer, educating and she has once participated in project
coaching in-service teachers of work with L2 newcomers and their
newcomers with regard to TBLT teachers
T2 Education student teacher (bachelor) student teacher (master)
Teaching experience 3 years of teacher training 1 year of teacher training
internship internship, short interim teaching
jobs
Learners mostly L1 adolescents, some L2 mostly L1 adolescents, some L2
Subjects L2 English, L1 Dutch L2 Dutch, L2 English, L1 Dutch
Knowledge of TBLT basic extensive
Experience in TBLT no integration in practice participation in this intervention is
the first opportunity to put TBLT
knowledge in practice
Other teamed up with experienced enrolled in a teacher education
teacher A1, he receives on-the- program which specializes in
spot instruction and feedback on language education of L2 Dutch,
task-based pedagogy and practice created and administered by a
distinguished scholar in task-based
language teaching

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 
The task-based syllabus

The first author developed a task-based syllabus on newcomers’ experiences in Flan-
ders, thus providing the teachers with material covering the two-week intervention.
The syllabus consisted of eighteen tasks that were part of the above-mentioned project.
Projects have been claimed to be effective for language learning (Legutke & Thomas,
2014). Within the task-based frame in particular, Skehan (2014) suggests project work
as an effective method for organizing pedagogic sequences (e.g. focus on form, plan-
ning, repetition, and so forth).
All eighteen tasks were geared to the overarching project goal, namely the design
of a website introducing future newcomers to life in Flanders. Each task invited the
students to brainstorm, speak, write, listen and, to a lesser extent, read about life in
Belgium compared to life in their home country. Since the study focused on stu-
dents’ language development in terms of productive skills, the syllabus contained a
large number of speaking and writing tasks. Targeted outcomes of the tasks were, for
example, a list with ideas for website content, a picture story describing a newcomer’s
day in Flanders, a memory game contrasting features of Belgium with those of new-
comers’ home countries, an interview with people living in Antwerp, an invitation to
the launching event of the website, and a YouTube video promoting the website. Task
types varied widely, ranging from listing, comparing, and sharing personal experi-
ences to reporting and opinion-gap activities.
For all tasks, the syllabus provided teachers with a description of the materials,
an estimate of the duration of the activity and a description of the goals and phases
of the task. The teachers’ manual was intended to be a source of inspiration rather
than to be overly prescriptive. It described concrete activities for all stages of the tasks
and included pedagogical suggestions, for instance on how to introduce a task or on
how and when to integrate a focus on form into the meaning-based work. In that
way, the syllabus foregrounded important task characteristics while still respecting the
autonomy of the teacher. Nevertheless, the teachers were strongly encouraged to work
towards the final products associated with the various tasks (e.g., a memory game) and
towards the main goal of the project (the website).
Given the basic level of language proficiency of most students, the main aim of
all activities in the syllabus was to engage the students in meaningful communication.
However, suggestions to direct attention to linguistic form (‘Focus on Form’) were
included as well. Linguistic forms to express comparisons, for example, were bound to
occur in several tasks and could therefore be targeted for focus on form.
Before the intervention, the syllabus was reviewed by two experienced teachers of
newcomer classes. Both made suggestions for improvements and only minor revisions
were needed. A few additional, minor changes resulted from a pilot trial in a beginner
language learner classroom where both the teacher and the students found most tasks

All rights reserved
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
challenging, but suitable for the target group. The teacher who tried out the tasks in
the pilot study, however, remarked that using computers and the internet with illiterate
learners might pose a risk. Nevertheless, because of the overall goal of the project (i.e.,
designing a website), we decided to hold on to the use of computers.
Task sampling
We selected four tasks for the purpose of this study. The selection was based on the
location of the activities, the degree of teacher involvement, the range of task types and
interaction formats involved, and the spread of the tasks over the 10 intervention days.
As for location, we discarded outside-school activities, for example an interview with
inhabitants of Antwerp. We also left out tasks with a high degree of learner autonomy,
in which the teachers’ involvement was limited to introducing and debriefing. Two
tasks were discarded because both classes and their teachers were at the same location
at the same time. Also the lessons dedicated to getting to know each other on the first
day and wrapping-up on the final day were not used, because they were not represen-
tative of the task-based work. All in all, eight tasks remained from which we selected
four. These tasks were distributed over the different intervention days and included
different task types and grouping formats. Appendix A at the end of this chapter pro-
vides a description of all the tasks that were included in the syllabus.
The tasks
Each task consisted of three phases (Skehan, Willis, & Willis, 1996). First, the task is
introduced to the whole group in a pre-task phase in which some form of planning is
possible. Then, during the actual task performance, learners are asked to perform the
task in pairs or group(s) while the teacher monitors students’ progress. Subsequently,
debriefing and post-task discussion take place in a post-task phase. The teacher man-
ual occasionally includes suggestions for focus on form, related to task-essential lan-
guage features. For the sake of illustration, the teacher manual that was provided for
Task 4, and learner products/outputs for this task are added in Appendices B and C
respectively.
Task 1 (first day of the intervention): Statements on Belgium

The first task is an opinion-gap activity resulting in a summary of students’ opinions
on Belgium. The task probes into newcomers’ experiences in Belgium and asks them
to compare life in their home countries to life in Belgium. The teacher introduces five
statements on life in Belgium and asks students to move to one side of the room if they

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 
agree with the statement (“true”) or to the opposite side if they disagree (“false”). The
statements concern the weather, traffic, people, buildings and clothing in Belgium.
After taking up a position, students argue their cases. In the post-task debriefing, the
teacher summarizes students’ expectations and impressions of life in Belgium to pre-
pare the ground for the overarching goal of the intervention (the design of a website
introducing newcomers to Flanders). A suggestion is added to focus on linguistic fea-
tures of argumentative speech that the students have used during the task.
Task 2 (third day of the intervention): Storyboard: A newcomers’ day in Belgium

The second task is a creative task that involves learners sharing experiences and that
results in a sketched storyboard for a picture story that will be published on the web-
site. The picture story aims to describe a (school) day in the life of a newcomer in
Belgium. The eight frames of the picture story should contain newcomers’ activities
during a typical day. This can include taking the bus to school or playing football
after school – activities which can subsequently be photographed and included in
the story. Before taking the actual pictures, students work in small groups to brain-
storm on the activities they want to incorporate, on a suitable location for taking
their pictures and on the possible conversation going on in the picture. They write
the conversation down.
Task 3 (fifth day of the intervention): Invitation to the party

The outcome for the third task is a written invitation to the farewell party of the
summer school that accompanies the launch of the website. The learners and the
teacher start with an oral reflection on the information that should be included in
the invitation and the teacher provides a written recap. Then the learners work on
the invitation in small groups, while interacting on the content, phrasing and struc-
ture of the invitation.
Task 4 (seventh day of the intervention): Contrasts in memory

The fourth task is an oral exchange of students’ experiences in Belgium resulting in pic-
tures of contrasts between Belgium and the students’ country of origin. Each student
develops two contrasting cards for a memory game comparing an aspect of their own
choosing. Students team up in pairs to exchange ideas on differences between their
home countries and Belgium and to individually decide on the actual contrast they
want to incorporate in the memory game on the website. They subsequently look for
adequate descriptions and images for these contrasts. The teacher’s manual includes
suggestions for a focus on form with regard to expressing comparisons.

All rights reserved
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
Data collection
Teachers and learners were audiotaped as they engaged in the task-based work. In
each group, a total of 120 hours of spoken data were collected over ten days. Four
days covering a total of approximately six hours were taken into account for the
analysis reported in this study. We used lapel microphones, which were worn by
two learners and the two teachers of each group. In addition, digital cameras were
used to collect comprehensive shots. One camera offered a panoramic view of the
classroom interaction, while a second was used to shoot close-up images of peer and
student-teacher interaction.
Because of the active, unpredictable and interactive nature of TBLT, the static
camera failed to capture all teachers’ actions. Learner-to-learner interaction without
microphone was also often inaccessible. Some of the targeted learners’ talk was unin-
telligible, especially when not supported by video footage. All the same, the combina-
tion of audio, video and the researcher’s field notes and recollections provided a fairly
comprehensive picture of the classroom practice of the four teachers, the way they
worked with the four tasks and their individual interaction with learners.
Instrument for the general assessment of core TBLT principles
Different definitions of tasks (see for example the discussion on task definition in
Samuda & Bygate (2007) and descriptions of the main tenets of task-based language
teaching can be found in the TBLT-related literature. For our study, we chose to work
with Long’s (2014) Methodological Principles (MPs), from which we selected five
principles which are also systematically mentioned in other key publications on the
basic principles underpinning TBLT. All the selected MPs also feature in Ellis’s “Prin-
ciples of instructed language learning” (2005).
MP2: Promote Learning by Doing (1)

MP2 emphasizes the functional use of language through performing real-world tasks
with a prime focus on meaning. This principle is central in all literature on TBLT
(Ellis, 2003; Long, 2014; Skehan, 1998; Van den Branden, 2006; Van den Branden et
al., 2009) and is also considered one of the “critical properties of TBLT” (Samuda &
Bygate, 2007, p. 64).
MP4: Provide Rich and Substantial Input (2)

Learners need extensive and rich exposure to the target language, that is large amounts
of qualitative (genuine, relevant, diverse) input (Ellis, 2005; Long, 2014). Because of

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 
the specific context of the larger research project which focused on the development
of production skills, we added “and opportunities for output”. We believe that this
addition is validated because Long, in his Interaction Hypothesis, emphasizes the
importance of providing learners with opportunities for producing output, which also
features in Ellis’s (2005) Principles.
MP6: Focus on Form (3)

MP6 features prominently in TBLT literature and emphasizes the attention paid to
form while learners are communicating (Doughty & Williams, 1998). Long (2014,
p. 317) defines focus on form as the “reactive use of a wide variety of pedagogic
procedures to draw learners’ attention to linguistic problems in context”. Differ-
ent from traditional approaches (for teaching grammar in particular), to which
Long (2014) refers as focus on formS, focus on form is brief and embedded in a
context of meaningful language use. It is a temporal shift in allocation of attention:
from attention to meaning to reflection on target language. Moreover, in TBLT,
focus on form is preferably reactive and respects learners’ internal syllabus. In some
research, the variety of pedagogic procedures available for focus on form includes
the option of ‘negative feedback’ (e.g., Ellis, 2005). For this study, however, we fol-
low Long (2014) who lists focus on form and negative feedback as two separate
methodological principles. This allows us to distinguish between on the one hand
“focus on form”, which can also take the form of reactive, metalinguistic rule deter-
mination and, on the other hand negative feedback, which often takes the form of
error correction.
MP7: Provide Negative Feedback (4)

The importance of negative feedback has been the focus of a lot of research into
task-based interaction (Mackey & Goo, 2007) and is mentioned in key publications
on TBLT. In Ellis (2005) this principle is mentioned as one of three options for
“Focus on form”. As noted above, Long, on the other hand, distinguishes both focus
on form and negative feedback as two separate methodological principles. The lat-
ter is more in line with natural communication, as it may occur through commu-
nication breakdowns, recasts, or even overt error correction. In classrooms, recasts
in particular constitute “the most frequent form of negative feedback” (Long, 2014,
p. 55). By including both of Long’s MPs and handling them in separate categories,
we may be able to better map the exact quality of attention that is given to form
by teachers with and without experience in TBLT. As a result, we count a com-
municative focus on form manifested in negative feedback and a possibly non-
communicative, but nonetheless reactive, focus on form as two separate categories
in the analysis.

All rights reserved
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
MP10: Individualize instruction (5)

MP10 is also referred to as “learner centeredness”. This principle refers to the fact that
learners’ built-in syllabus should guide and mediate instruction and that teachers should
react to individual learners’ task-based work, questions and needs (Nunan, 1988).
The five principles were incorporated under “Learning by Doing”, “Provide Input
and Opportunities for Output”, “Provide Negative Feedback”, “Focus on Form” and
“Individualize Instruction”. The resulting instrument is displayed in Table 2.
Table 2. Rating tool for the assessment of five core principles of TBLT
Nr. Principle The teacher …
1. Learning by Doing has students use language in a meaningful and goal-directed way, as a
means to a non-linguistic end
2. Provide Input and provides rich input, enhances interaction and provides students
Opportunities for with opportunities to produce extensive language output, relate their
Output experiences and express their personal opinions, for example by asking
open-ended questions
3. Provide Negative provides negative feedback by way of corrective feedback, for example
Feedback by using recasts
4. Focus on Form provides opportunities for focus on form
5. Individualize tailors instruction to cater for differences in pace, proficiency, cognition,
Instruction and intensively supports learners who struggle with the task
A coding system was developed to assess the extent to which the teachers’ practices
complied with the above-mentioned principles. Table 2 displays the instrument for the
general assessment of the five principles.
Each principle was rated separately on a five-point scale, ranging from rating 5
(this features “systematically” in the teacher’s behavior during this lesson), 4 (“fre-
quently”), 3 (“sometimes”), 2 (“rarely”), to 1 (“never”).
Scoring procedure
Thirteen MA students in linguistics who had attended a course on task-based language

teaching were trained to rate the teachers’ classroom practices on the above-mentioned
principles. In a second stage, an additional nine students were also trained with the same
material to give ratings of the same teachers’ behavior while they were working with an
additional task. The intra-class correlation coefficient between all raters after training
was high for both the first group (ICC = .91) and the second group (ICC = .92).
The first group of trained raters were randomly divided into two groups and given
access to the audio and video material recorded during three tasks. One group scored

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 
the teacher practice for Task 1 and Task 2, the other group scored Task 4. Since only
ten raters completed their assessments in time and two raters did not rate every task
separately, the number of raters was not the same for the different tasks. More specifi-
cally, Task 1 and Task 2 were assessed by only two raters and Task 4 by six raters. The
second group of nine raters all scored Task 3. As reliability between raters was high,
even for the tasks that were rated only by two raters (ICC = .91), we decided to include
these scores all the same.
Table 3 summarizes the important elements of the scoring procedure.
Table 3. Summary of scoring procedure

Task Name Number of raters ICC
1 Statements 2 .91
2 Storyboard 2 .91
3 Invitation 9 .92
4 Memory 6 .91
Results
Table 4 lists the mean values of the ratings for the five principles. For the sake of
clarity, negative ratings (below the cut-off point at 3, indicating that the behavior
described in the parameter occurred less than ‘sometimes’, that is: rarely or never)
are highlighted. Because we are dealing with mean scores, we will consider ratings
higher than 4 as indicative of principles that feature “systematically” in the teacher’s
behavior, ratings between 4 and 3 as featuring “frequently” and ratings below 3 as
featuring “rarely or never”.
General ratings
The overall means (bottom right in the table) are above 3 for both classes. Yet, on the
whole, TBLT principles are more systematically put into practice by the teachers of
Class A than by the teachers of Class B (Class A: M = 4.16; Class B: M = 3.04). Also
the mean ratings for all the five principles (across tasks) are higher for Class A than for
Class B. These differences between both teacher teams were to be expected, given their
differential team experience in task-based language teaching.
Variation across tasks

Looking at the overall scores for each task, teacher practice in Class B does not show
much variation across the four tasks: Class B teachers’ use of each task receives mean

All rights reserved
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
Table 4. Ratings for five core principles of TBLT

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Overall mean
Statements Storyboard Invitation Memory
Class A Class B Class A Class B Class A Class B Class A Class B Class A Class B
1 Learning 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.44 3.67 4.67 3.20 4.78 3.72
by Doing
2 Input and 5.00 4.50 5.00 3.00 3.89 3.22 3.83 2.80 4.43 3.38
Output
3 Feedback 3.00 2.50 4.50 2.00 3.89 2.56 3.83 3.60 3.81 2.66
4 Focus on 2.50 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.78 4.33 4.20 3.20 3.87 3.63
Form
5 Individualize 4.50 1.50 5.00 2.00 2.11 2.00 4.00 1.80 3.90 1.83
Instruction
Task mean 4.00 3.10 4.70 3.00 3.82 3.16 4.11 2.92 4.16 3.04
ratings of around 3. The scores of the teachers of Class A show more variation from
task to task, ranging between 3.82 and 4.70, a finding which is interesting and will be
discussed later.
Ratings of principles
In Class A, two principles, namely “Promote Learning by Doing” (M = 4.78) and “Pro-
vide Input and Opportunities for Output” (M = 4.43) stand out as being put into prac-
tice ‘systematically’ across tasks. For the three other principles, “feedback” (M = 3.81),
“Focus on Form” (M = 3.87) and “Individualize Instruction” (M = 3.90), the means
indicate a relatively frequent, but less systematic implementation.
In Class B, not a single principle gets a mean higher than 4 (systematic). Three
principles, namely, “Promote Learning by Doing” (M = 3.72), “Provide Input and
Opportunities for Output” (M = 3.38), and “Focus on Form” (M = 3.63) are frequently,
yet not systematically, put into practice across tasks. The means for the other princi-
ples, that is, “Feedback” (M = 2.66) and “Individualize Instruction” (M = 1.83) indicate
that these were put into practice ‘rarely’ by the teachers. The more systematic applica-
tion of principles in Class A, and the relatively infrequent application by the teachers
in Class B is of course something that might have been anticipated from their differ-
ences in experience. The differences between ratings of different principles is also an
interesting finding, which we will elaborate on further in the discussion section.
Variation in ratings of principles

In most cases, the mean ratings of the five principles were fairly consistent across tasks
as well. For one, “Promote Learning by Doing” receives high scores in Class A for

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 
every task. Conversely, the low means in Class B for “ Individualize Instruction ” and
“Provide Negative Feedback” apply to all the tasks that were rated (except for a moder-
ate score in Task 4 for “feedback” = 3.60), indicating that those principles are ‘rarely’ or
‘almost never’ put into practice.
Moreover, for most other principles, ratings are roughly consistent across tasks –
whether consistently above the cut-off point of 3 (for Class A) or consistently below
(for Class B). Only the scores in Class A for “Focus on Form” and “Individualize
Instruction” display somewhat more variation across tasks, but this is mainly due (in
both cases) to one deviant low score for one particular task. More concretely, the devi-
ant low scores in Class A anoted for Task 1 on “Focus on Form” and for Task 3 on
“Individualize Instruction”. This variation in ratings for certain principles might sug-
gest differences in ease of use, or in their relevance, which is something we will return
to below.
Illustrative examples: The Memory Task
The above ratings provide us with a general impression of the differences in the imple-
mentation of the key principles by the experienced and inexperienced teams. In this
section, we wanted to take a closer, more qualitative look into the teacher-learner
interaction in both classes in order to shed more light on the general tendencies and
contrasts observed in Table 4.
We will look into the teacher teams’ practices in Task 4 (the Memory Task). We
selected this task because its scores roughly follow the trends described above. The
experienced teacher team’s classroom practices are largely consistent with TBLT prin-
ciples in Class A, whereas this is far less the case for the more inexperienced teacher
team of Class B.
The following excerpts present three minutes of interaction from both classes dur-
ing the main task phase of the Memory Task. The reader may recall that this task
involves creating memory cards that depict objects that are different in Belgium com-
pared to the students’ native country. Here, the learners are deciding on the content of
their cards and the teachers are walking around to support the learners.
Throughout these extracts, we will look at how the different teachers implement
the five key features of TBLT that are the focus of this study, namely “Promote Learning
by Doing” (MP2), “Provide rich and substantial Input and Opportunities for Output”
(MP4), “Focus on Form” (MP6), “Provide Negative Feedback” (MP7) and “Individual-
ize Instruction” (MP10).
Illustrative examples from the Memory Task in Class A

First, we will look at two examples from the Memory Task, featuring teacher A1 and
two learner pairs, in order to get a sense of how far the five principles figure in this

All rights reserved
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
experienced teacher’s practice. In Case 1, teacher A1 interacts with Grace1 and Lasya,
and in Case 2 with Arif and Marie.
Case 1. Teacher-learner interaction during the main phase in Class A

Speaker English translation Transcript
T(A1): okay, so if you marry (0.7) in tibet, okee dus als je trouwt (0.7) in tibet dan
people wear a different dress (.) dragen mensen een andere jurk (.)
Lasya: yes (.) ja (.)
T(A1): I should be able to recognize (.) lasya (.) ik moet kunnen zien (.) lasya (.) dat dit een
that this bridal dress comes from tibet (.) trouwjurk is uit tibet (.)
Lasya: Tibet (.) Tibet (.)
T(A1): so here you put uhm (.) dus je moet hier euh (.)
dress or bridal dress [and then tibet (.) jurk of trouwjurk [en dan tibet (.)
Grace: [or or (.) (points) [of of (.) (wijst)
T(A1): [or on the back (.) [of op de achterkant (.)
Grace: [or here (.) [of hier (.)
T(A1): yes (.) good Grace (.) ja (.) goed Grace (.)
a very good idea (.) een heel goed idee (.)
Lasya: okay (.) oke (.)
T(A1): if people get married in Ghana (.) als mensen trouwen in Ghana (.)
G yes (.) ja (.)
T(A1): what should you wear ↑ wat moet je dan dragen ↑
G uhm uhm (trousers) uhm (.) euh euh (broek) euh (.)
T(A1): all in white? alles in wit?
Grace: no (.) nee (.)
T(A1): no (.) ah (.) okay (.) so what do you wear ↑ nee (.) ah (.) okee (.) wat draag je dan ↑
Grace: uhm (.) uhm (.) euh (.) euh (.)
Grace: (in English) with different colors (.) with different colors (.)
T(A1): in Dutch (.) you know (.) you can do so in het nederlands (.) jij weet (.) jij kan dat
just fine (.) wel (.)
Grace: uhm (.) euh (.)
T(A1): with many ↑ met veel ↑
Grace: many (continues in English) colors (.) veel colours (.)
T(A1): co kleu
Grace: colors (.) kleuren(.)
. To protect participants’ privacy, all names have been replaced by pseudonyms.

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 
Case 1. (Continued)

T(A1): colors yes (.) with many colors kleuren ja (.) met veel kleuren (.)
(.)
T(A1): which colors do you like? welke kleuren vind jij mooi?
Grace: hmmm (.) hmm (.)
T(A1): if you can choose for your bridal dress als jij mag kiezen voor jouw trouwjurk
which color would you choose? welke kleur moet ie hebben?
T(A1): green↑ (.) or yellow↑ groen↑ (.) of geel↑
Grace: no (.) nee (.)
T(A1): or pink↑ (.) like this↑ (points) of roze↑ (.) zoals dit hier↑ (wijst)
Grace: hmmm (.) hmmm (.)
T(A1): or orange ↑ of oranje↑
Grace: white (.) wit.
T(A1): white yes↑ wit ja↑
and which other color↑ en welke kleur nog↑
Grace: white and (.) yellow (.) wit en (.) geel (.)
T(A1): yes (.) ja (.)
hmmm (.) hmm (.)
Learners Grace and Lasya in the excerpt above are L2 learners with high-beginner
language skills. We see that the teacher is ‘focused on meaning’ and, more in par-
ticular, on helping the learners to accomplish the task (MP2): the teacher focuses on
the learners’ progress and she insists that they work towards a high-quality outcome
by emphasizing that the picture they are drawing should be recognizable as a dress.
Just prior to this, the teacher had interpreted their drawing as a t-shirt. By asking the
students to express the differences between Belgian bridal dresses and those from
Ghana and Tibet in more detail, she helps the learners to achieve the task outcome
and at the same time provides the learners with the opportunity to produce spoken
output related to bridal dresses (MP4). Moreover, she provides some core vocabu-
lary to help the learners to express their ideas on the differences between clothing in
Belgium and their native countries. For instance, she offers the word “jurk” (dress)
and the Dutch names for the different colors “roze” (pink), “oranje” (orange), “wit”
(white) (MP4). When Grace uses an English term instead of a Dutch one the teacher
asks to use Dutch instead and is confident that Grace will find the Dutch terminol-
ogy (MP6). Later, teacher A1 reacts on the use of the English word “colors” with a
prompt: she uses part of the Dutch word “kleu-”, which is then completed by Grace
as “kleuren” (MP7). Finally, we can interpret the differential support the teacher

All rights reserved
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
gives to Grace and Lasya as an example of individualized instruction (MP10). While

the teacher appears to be s atisfied with Lasya remaining focused on the task, she
aims to push Grace a bit further: she puts emphasis on eliciting production as well
as focusing on the task.
Case 2: Teacher-learner interaction during main phase in Class A

In Case 2, we see teacher A1 in interaction with Arif and Marie, a different learner
pair. Again, we will discuss the key features of “Promoting Learning by Doing” (MP2),
“Providing Input and Opportunities for Output” (MP4), “Focusing on Form” (MP6)
and “Providing Negative Feedback (MP7). We will pay specific attention to the teach-
ers’ approach towards “Individualizing Instruction” (MP10) by comparing the interac-
tion in Case 2 with the interaction in Case 1.
Arif: we have no ideas (.) we hebben geen ideeën (.)

T(A1): you have run out of ideas (.) jij hebt geen ideeën meer (.)
Marie: no (.) nee (.)
T(A1): so except for for houses and transport dus voor voor de rest buiten de huizen en
everything is the same↑ het transport is alles hetzelfde↑
Marie: but but the bus but but (.) the bus not ma ma de bus ma ma (.) de bus niet euh
uhm not street after street (.) niet straat per straat (.)
Marie: no (.) nee (.)
Arif: is ordinary (.) is gewoon (.)
Marie: street the bus (.) straat de bus (.)
T(A1): yes ↑ ja ↑
Marie: this street in uhm dees straat in euh
Arif: here you can say where you wanna (.) hier jij zeg gewoon waar jij wil (.)
Marie: no [ in africa no (.) the bus is for (0.8) nee [in afrika nee (.) de bus is voor (0.8)
Arif: [and it transports (.) [en die brengt (.)
Marie: (in French) voyage (.) voyage (.)
T(A1): to go on a journey (.) om op reis te gaan (.)
Marie: yes (.) ja (.)
Marie: not uhm street this (.) niet euh straat deze (.)
T(A1): it is not in the cities (.) not in the cities is niet in de stad (.) niet alleen maar in de
only (.) a bus is for real long travels stad (.) een bus is echt voor verre reizen
T(A1): to to cover long distances (.) om om een lange afstand (.) af te leggen

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 
Case 2. (Continued)

Arif: yes more is motor (.) ja meer is motor (.)
Marie: yes motor (.) ja motor (.)
Arif: if you want (.) als jij wilt (.)
T(A1): or by motorcycle (.) of met de motto (.)
Arif: yes (.) ja (.)
T(A1): okay maybe you need to add the oké misschien moet je er het land
country (.) bijzetten (.)
T(A1): because if I search for photos on internet want als ik foto’s zoek op internet moet ik
I need to know (.) for which country I weten (.) uit welk land ik die foto’s moet
need to search these photos for (.) hmm↑ zoeken (.) hmm↑
Arif: okay okay africa (.) oké oké afrika (.)
T(A1): with a k not with a c (.) (points to the met een k niet met een c (.) (wijst op het
word “Africa”) woord “Africa”)
T(A1): yes in dutch (.) ja in het nederlands (.)
The second learner pair consists of Marie and Arif, the latter being the most pro-
ficient student in the class. Again, the teacher A1 primarily focuses on completing
the task and starts negotiating on the contrast the students want to incorporate in
their game (MP2). She offers input on the words that the learners fail to find, like
“reis” (journey) and “lange afstand” (long distance) (MP4). In her interaction with
these pupils, teacher A1 challenges the learners to produce output by asking very
open questions (“so except for houses and transport everything is the same?”) and
indeed, the learners respond by elaborating on their ideas (MP4). She also shifts
attention to form when explaining the spelling of the word ‘Afrika’ in Dutch to the
most proficient student (MP6). Teacher A1 also provides the learners with negative
feedback by means of recasts (MP7): she rephrases their sentence “we hebben geen
ideeën” (we have no ideas) by adding “meer” (more), which is more accurate, as the
students have already produced some ideas. Furthermore, she rephrases the learners
“ja moto” (yes motor) as “of met de motto” (or by motorcycle). By doing so, she adds
the correct preposition and eliminates possible misunderstandings by rephrasing
the erroneous use of “motor” (engine) in this context, as a “motto” (informal Dutch
for motorcycle) (MP7).
The latter recast can also be interpreted as evidence of individualizing instruc-
tion (MP10). Arif receives negative feedback in the form of an implicit recast (not
“motor” but “motto”) to elicit more accurate word use and is invited to briefly shift

All rights reserved
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
attention to the correct spelling of “Africa”. In contrast, teacher A1 primarily wants

to provide Marie (who is less proficient) with the words she does not know, such
as “journey”.
The comparison between teacher interaction in Case 1 and Case 2 highlights
that teacher A interacts differently with different learners and interacts more in line
with the learners’ possibilities and linguistic needs (MP10). For Grace and Lasya,
who both easily switch to English when they are presenting ideas to each other,
teacher A1 focuses on providing input and having them express their ideas, pref-
erably in Dutch. Thus, she encourages Grace to answer in Dutch. She elicits the
word “kleur” (color) and gradually moves from open to less open questions on
Grace’s favorite color for a bridal dress. When the learner seems unable to answer
the first question, she starts with asking “which color” and switching to “green?”,
“white?”, etc. For Arif and Marie, teacher A1 also provides task-essential vocabu-
lary and encourages them to express their ideas. However, in their case, the fact
that they answer her first open question (“so (…) everything is the same?”), allows
her to expand on these answers. In addition, only in the case of the most proficient
learner, Arif, accuracy becomes an aim: Arif receives negative feedback in the form
of an implicit recast (not “motor” but “motto”) and is informed about spelling con-
ventions in Dutch (the sound “k” is often written with a “k” and not with a “c” as
in English).
Taken together, Case 1 and Case 2 illustrate the ways in which teacher A1 puts
all five core principles in practice in just over three minutes. Importantly, she also
distinguishes between learners of different language proficiency: for the less profi-
cient learners, teacher A1 emphasizes learning by doing, rich input and (close-ended)
opportunities for output; for the more proficient learners, she adds to those two prin-
ciples a focus on form and negative feedback.
Illustrative examples from the Memory Task in Class B
Cases 3 and 4 provide us with insights into the activation of the five principles of
“Promoting Learning by Doing” (MP2), “Providing rich and substantial Input and
Opportunities for Output” (MP4), “Focusing on Form” (MP6), “Providing Negative
Feedback” (MP7) and “Individualizing Instruction” (MP10) by a lesser experienced
teacher. As before, the cases illustrate three minutes of interaction that occurred in
the Memory task, this time between teacher B1 and four learners. The more proficient
learners Mirwais and Babur feature throughout both excerpts, as these learners com-
pete for the teacher’s attention when, in Case 4, the teacher is helping learners Sardar
and Victor formulate their ideas.

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 
Case 3: Teacher-learner interaction during main phase in Class B

T(B1): what is available in belgium that does wat is er nog in belgië dat er in afghanistan
not exist in afghanistan↑ (.) niet is↑ (.)
Mirwais: zoo (.) zoo (.)
Babur: central station (.) centraal station (.)
Mirwais: the zoo (.) de zoo (.)
T(B1): yes (.) ja (.)
Mirwais: big museum central station train (xx) grote museum centraal station trein (xx)
T(B1): there are trains though eh↑ (.) treinen wel eh ↑ (.)
Mirwais: a little bit a little bit (.) een beetje een beetje (.)
Mirwais: euh not (.) that is (.) what do you call euh niet (.) dat is (.) wat is het in
it in dutch (.) (in English) this uhm nederlands (.) this uhm church (.)
church (.)
Babur: (in Dutch) church (.) kerk (.)
T(B1): church you see (.) kerk voila (.)
Mirwais: no church (.) geen kerk (.)
T(B1): no church in afghanistan eh↑ (.) geen kerk in afghanistan eh↑ (.)
Mirwais: and no uhm (English + Dutch) kink (.) en geen euhm (English + Dutch) kink (.)
Babur: no girls like (…) like girls (…) with geen meisjes zo (…) zo meisjes (…) met
trousers (.) broek (.)
Mirwais: that is ordinary not special (.) dat is normaal niet speciaal (.)
Mirwais: but that uhm afghanistan have no maar dat eh afghanistan heb geen (English
(English + Dutch) kink only ha(s) (.) + Dutch) kink (.) alleen heef (.)
Babur: no king but president (.) geen konink but president (.)
T(B1): ah yes yes yes yes yes king (.) no king ah ja ja ja ja ja koning (.) geen koning ja (.)
yes (.) sure ↑ (.) ja zeker ↑ (.)
Babur: sure (.) zeker (.)
T(B1): those are all good ideas (.) maybe you dat zijn allemaal goeie ideeën (.)
should write these ideas down in a word misschien moet je die ideeën al eventjes (.)
document for now (.) opschrijven in een word document (.)
Babur: write down in word (.) schrijven in word (.)
T(B1): lest you forget about them (.) and put dat je ze niet vergeet (.) en zet je op vier
your chair on its four legs (.) poten (.)
Mirwais: but this is very g (.) not forget (xx) maar dit is dit is heel g (.) niet vergeten
but (.) not forget of (xx) but (English) van xxx maar (.) (English) memory is heel
memory is very good (.) goed (.)
T(B1): right right but uhm try not to use the ja ja maar euh probeer toch maar niet op
internet use word (.) internet op word (.)

All rights reserved
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
Mirwais and Babur in the excerpt above are both talkative intermediate beginner learn-
ers (even low intermediate). The teacher focuses on meaning and on completing the
task (MP2). She insists that they write down their ideas so that they can present them
to the whole class and look for suitable illustrations later on. She expresses her agree-
ment with some of their ideas (“these are good ideas”) and her disbelief with others
(“there are trains though”). The input teacher B1 provides is primarily non-linguistic
with a focus on task instructions, which, however, does not assist the learners in their
formulation of contrasts. On the other hand, teacher B1 does provide the learners with
opportunities to produce spoken output (MP4) by asking open questions on things
that are available in Belgium but not in Afghanistan. The teacher confirms Babur’s
contribution when he provides Mirwais with the Dutch words he needs to express the
contrasts he can only express in English (“koning” (king) and “church” (kerk)). None-
theless, she does not provide linguistic feedback herself, perhaps because the learners
help each other out. Towards the end of the excerpt, however, she does not seize the
opportunity to provide the Dutch word for ‘memory’ either. In this excerpt then, we
find that focus on doing real-world tasks and the meaning in them and opportunities
to produce output are implemented, but the other key principles cannot be observed.
We even find a few occasions on which the teacher did not take the opportunity to
“Provide Negative Feedback” (MP7).
Case 4: Teacher-learner interaction during main phase in Class B, Task 4

In Case 4, we see teacher B1 interacting with learners Sardar and Victor who are
engaged in generating ideas for contrasts. Again, we will discuss the key features and
pay specific attention to the teacher’s approach towards individualizing instruction
(MP10), by comparing the interaction in Case 4 with the interaction in Case 3.
T(B1): (to Sardar and Victor) but do you (tegen Sardar en Victor) maar heb je al
already have an idea for (0.5) what ideeën voor (0.5) wat is er anders euhm in
is different uhm in belgium than in belgië dan in ecuador↑ (.)
ecuador↑ (.)
what don’t they have in ecuador that wat hebben ze in ecuador niet en hier
they do have here ↑ (.) wel↑ (.)
Mirwais: (in English) what will be the name of what will be the name of paragraph? (.)
paragraph? (.)
T(B1): memory (.) memory (.)
Mirwais: memory (.) memory (.)
Victor: uhm me(.)mo(.)ry (.) euh me(.)mo(.)ry (.)
T(B1): memory (.) memory (.)
Sardar: miss look here (.) juf kijk eens (.)

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 
Case 4. (Continued)

T(B1): (2.0) (reads what Sardar and Victor have (2.0) (leest wat Sardar en Victor hebben
written) cycling↑ yes well done. (.) geschreven) fietsen↑ ja voila. (.)
so you open a a word document (.) here dus je opent een een word document (.)
(.) and you write down as many ideas as hier (.) en je schrijft zoveel mogelijk ideeën
possible on (.) op (.) over (.)
(6.2) (writes on the computer) (.) (6.2) (writes on the computer) (.)
so for example uhm you draw you draw dus bijvoorbeeld euh je maakt je maakt een
a column (8.6) and you compare (1.6) kolom (8.6) en je vergelijkt (1.6) ecuador
ecuador (2.5) belgië (1.3) so you say in (2.5) belgië (1.3) dus jij zegt in belgië zijn
belgium there are a lot of cyclists (.) er veel fietsers (.)
Victor: yes ecuador (.) ja ecuador (.)
T(B1): this is not the case for ecuador (.) in ecuador niet (.)
only a few (0.8) a few (2.3) cyclists (.) een beetje maar (0.8) een beetje (2.3)
fietsers (.)
then think of what other things are denk dan eens na wat is er nog anders↑ (.)
different↑ (.) between ecuador and tussen ecuador en belgië (1.1) ja↑ (.)
belgium (1.1) ja↑ (.)
Victor: yes all prehended (.) ja al grepen (.)
Babur but miss we do not have macdonalds in maar mevrouw wij heb geen macdonalds
afghanistan (.) in afghanistan (.)
T(B1): no↑ (.) nee↑ (.)
Mirwais: no (.) nee (.)
T(B1): ah well (0.3) then that’s another one you ah voila (0.3) dat kan je d’er ook al inzetten
can add (.) dan (.)
Mirwais: miss we haven’t got any quick burger mevrouw wij heb geen quick burger king
king burger (.) burger (.)
T(B1): nothing↑ no quick no king burger no (.) niets↑ geen quick geen king burger geen (.)
Babur: no albert heijn (.) geen albert heijn (.)
T(B1): no fast food restaurant (.) geen fast food restaurant(.)
Mirwais: no kfc (.) geen kfc (.)
T(B1): no pizza hut (.) geen pizza hut (.)
Mirwais: no pizza but peoplest (in english) prepare geen pizza maar menstens prepare pizza (.)
pizza (.)
T(B1): yes yes (.) ja ja (.)
In the excerpt above, Victor and Sardar are both shy learners at low beginner level.
The teacher focuses on the learners’ completion of the task (MP2): she helps them to
format a word document while they are trying to write down their ideas and expresses
agreement with their ideas (“well done”). The teacher focuses her input on the use
of the text processing program and on rephrasing the instruction, but provides little

All rights reserved
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
l inguistic input that the learners can use while performing the task, with the exception
of the word for “cyclists” (MP4). She asks a few open questions regarding things that
are available in Belgium but not in Ecuador/Afghanistan. These questions apparently
do not push Victor and Sardar to produce a lot of output, even though this had pre-
viously led the more proficient students to formulate ideas. For these less proficient
learners, the teacher could have better provided input rather than promoting output,
as she did with the first learner pair. However, we do not find interaction moves in
which the teacher individualizes instruction by taking the learners’ proficiency levels
into account. Furthermore, linguistic feedback in the form of recasts is absent, as well
as instances of “Focus on Form”.
In sum, we see clear differences in the frequency with which all key features are
implemented throughout the above a cases of teacher-learner interaction in Class A
and Class B. In a short time span, we find multiple instances of all key features in
Class A. Conversely, in Class B, we only find evidence for the key features “Learning
by Doing”, and, to a smaller extent, for “Provide Input and Opportunities for Output”.
Discussion
With this study we aimed to investigate the extent to which the classroom practices
of teachers with different degrees of experience in TBLT complied with five core prin-
ciples of task-based language teaching.
First of all, regarding our first research question, the results overall demonstrate
that the classroom practice of both teacher teams was characterized by the frequent
implementation of a number of principles of task-based language teaching. Three core
principles in particular, namely “Promote Learning by Doing”, “Provide Input and
Opportunities for Output” and “Focus on Form” were implemented systematically by
the two teacher teams and across all tasks.
The fact that these three principles could be observed in the practice of both expe-
rienced and inexperienced teachers may have been partly enhanced by the interven-
tion in which the teachers operated, with the syllabus to assist them. The focus on
meaning on the one hand, and the exposure to input/providing opportunities for out-
put on the other hand were two inherent features of all the tasks in the syllabus the
teachers worked with. So, with regard to these principles, the teachers received a lot
of support and inspiration. Classroom observation shows that none of the teachers
modified the tasks in the syllabus so much as to go against these central features of
TBLT. Moreover, both features (“Promote Learning by Doing” and “Provide learn-
ers with Rich Input and Opportunities to Produce Output”) are also pivotal in other
pedagogical approaches, such as communicative language teaching, which might have
further facilitated their implementation.

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 
The frequent implementation of the core principle “Focus on Form” is not likely
due to transfer from other approaches, as it is unique to TBLT. Other facilitative fac-
tors for teachers without TBLT experience may be some familiarity with (part of) their
role in focus on form, which requires them to briefly pay attention to language, and
draw learners’ attention to form. The question remains then, why the value attributed
to attention to form did not translate in “pre-teaching grammar points or vocabulary
items” (Long, 2014, p. 318), that is, in focus on formS. Possibly, it was again the syllabus
that offered sufficient ideas to go by, by pointing out task-essential structures which
might be problematic for learners, and by providing the teachers with the opportu-
nity to reflect on these structures in post-task phases. Apart from those moments, we
witnessed reactive focus on form when learners were asking for metalinguistic expla-
nation. In all, we found that inexperienced teachers as well as experienced teachers
implement “Promote Learning by Doing”, “Provide Input and Opportunities for Out-
put” and “Focus on Form” in their practice, if they are provided with tasks to support
their implementation.
Considering our second research question regarding the effect of experience, the
more experienced teacher team received higher scores. What is more, these overall
high(er) scores were observable for all principles and across tasks.
Conversely, some of the key principles appeared more problematic for the teacher
team that was inexperienced in TBLT. More specifically, “Individualize Instruction”
was rarely to never a part of the classroom practices of the inexperienced team, while
“Provide Negative Feedback” (MP7) was almost absent. That less experienced teach-
ers create weak versions of TBLT has been documented before in studies that describe
how teachers struggle with an innovative approach such as TBLT, even when they
are given a task-based syllabus to start from (Carless, 2007; Van den Branden, 2006).
However, the fact that those two particular principles emerge as especially challeng-
ing is new and possibly surprising, given that they are not exclusive to TBLT. Reasons
could be found in the nature of the principles, or in their specific combination. In the
first place, for teachers who are new to TBLT practice, corrective feedback might be
difficult to reconcile with the prime focus on meaning. Inexperienced teachers might
be primarily focused on establishing and maintaining communication; possibly they
are reluctant to correct learners as not to upset the balance. Secondly, to provide indi-
vidualized instruction may be particularly difficult, because it demands, among others,
adequate assessment and monitor skills to gain quick as well as in-depth knowledge of
students’ abilities and progress. In addition, individualized instruction requires a good
command of TBLT principles, in order to use them flexibly, for instance, by focusing
on form for one learner, but using implicit recasts for other. Furthermore, the syl-
labus provides relatively little support to teachers regarding the principles of negative
feedback and individualizing of instruction as these principles essentially require that
teachers interactionally respond to learners’ needs, which cannot be anticipated. In

All rights reserved
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
all, the principles not implemented may be delicate and challenging for teachers, for
which no support was available in the syllabus.
The experienced and inexperienced teacher team also differed with regard to the
extent to which their classroom practices were consistent across different activities.
While the scores for the inexperienced team were low for all tasks, or moderately
high for all tasks, the scores for the more experienced team showed greater varia-
tion. The ratings for Class A can be summarized as follows: high scores throughout
for “Promote Learning by Doing”, moderate or high scores throughout for “Provide
Rich Input and Opportunities for Output”, moderate scores throughout for “Provide
Negative Feedback”; and high scores on all tasks except one for “Focus on Form” and
“Individualize Instruction”. Through the highly experienced teacher in Class A (who
had even provided in-service training on TBLT), team A had expert knowledge of the
major principles underpinning TBLT. Still, team A implemented the five core prin-
ciples in three out of four tasks in this study, but did not put one of these principles
into practice in a fourth task. “Focus on Form” was conspicuously absent from this
teacher’s practice for Task 1, while “Individualize Instruction” was not implemented
for Task 3. Evidently, it is hard to determine whether the teachers found it inap-
propriate, undoable, or simply unnecessary to put the above-mentioned principles
into practice during the performance of these specific tasks. The tasks themselves,
however, provide some clues as to why team A did not implement a specific core
principle. Task 1, for instance, was the first task of the whole project which may have
rendered this task less favorable for a focus-on-form. For Task 3, task-specific indi-
vidualized instruction may have been less feasible, because the teacher who took the
lead for this activity was too busy wrapping up the previous task. From this observa-
tion we might conclude that not all tasks (in context) are suited for implementation
of key features. Moreover, more experienced teachers are less likely to mechanically
apply principles across tasks and more sensitive to task-specific appropriateness of
a principle. In contrast, less experienced, especially novice, teachers are more likely
to stick to the principles they have grasped and apply them doggedly, even if they do
not fit in with the task.
Interestingly, our results resemble the findings of Andon & Eckerth (2009) that
were mentioned earlier, which showed that experienced teachers are “eclectic” in
their implementation of task-based principles. There are indications in this study that
teachers who have broad experience in working with tasks may have come to deduce a
personal set of key principles. Some of these they consider to be crucial “must-haves”
when working with tasks (in this case, for example, “Promote Learning by Doing”),
while they assign a more optional status to other principles (for example “Focus on
Form”). From this study alone, it is difficult to conclude whether teachers consider
some principles of TBLT as being more ‘peripheral’ and others as belonging to the

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 
‘core’ of TBLT, or whether, alternatively, some principles might be more ‘difficult’ to

implement, or more sensitive to the task or to broader contextual issues.
Conclusion and suggestions for further research
This study provides further evidence that even when different teachers are working
with the same task-on-paper, they create different tasks-in-process. When teachers
are supported by task-based syllabi, however, both experienced and less experienced
teachers are able to put key principles of TBLT in practice.
With respect to the impact of differential experience, this study provides clear
indications that teacher experience may influence the implementation of tasks in
authentic classroom practice: more experienced teachers appear to be more consistent
in systematically putting key principles of TBLT into practice. Even though the study
has shown that less experienced teachers are able to incorporate core characteristics
of TBLT into their classroom practice, they did not do so for all the core principles
we identified. Some of these principles, like “Provide Negative Feedback” and “Indi-
vidualize Instruction” appeared to be more difficult to implement for inexperienced
teachers. We need further research to establish whether the particular principles that
proved problematic in this study are so for other teachers who start to work with tasks.
Ultimately, more of this kind of research may inform teacher training programs, even-
tually leading to a sequencing of easy and problematic principles in an implementation
program for TBLT. For now, such conclusions are too premature.
Finally, while the inexperienced teachers were roughly consistent regarding the
principles they did put into practice, experienced teachers were found not to imple-
ment some of the principles systematically. Thus, even experienced teachers can and
will (and perhaps even must) deviate from task-based principles, and may have very
good reasons for doing so. In our study, the two principles deviated from by the expe-
rienced teacher were focus on form and individualizing instruction. Each was devi-
ated from on one occasion. It is possible that these principles are more sensitive to
task-conditions or may be more difficult to implement across the board.
Clearly, this study is limited in scope: only four tasks carried out in two classes
were investigated. We need more studies covering a broader range of teachers, tasks
and contexts to determine with more confidence how all the above-mentioned factors
interact. In this study, our scores may have been polarized and inflated because only
two classes were involved.
Nevertheless, small-scale studies into a restricted number of classrooms like this
study can further our insights into the complexity of implementing tasks in the prac-
tice of authentic classrooms.

All rights reserved
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
References
Andon, N., & Eckerth, J. (2009). Chacun à son gout? Task-based L2 pedagogy from the teacher’s
point of view. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 286–310.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00240.x
Berben, M., Van den Branden, & Van Gorp, K. (2007). We’ll see what happens: tasks on paper and
tasks in a multilingual classroom. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, & M. Verhelst (Eds.)
Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective (pp. 32–67).
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language
teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.
Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second
language curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524520.014
Calvert, M., & Sheen, Y. (2014). Task-based language learning and teaching: An action-research
study. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 226–244 https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814547037
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from
Hong Kong. System, 35(4), 595–608.
Carless, D. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT versus PPP Debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal
of English Language Teaching, 19, 49–66.
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an
activity theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second
language research (pp. 173–193). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Council of Europe (2011). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learn-
ing, teaching, assessment. Council of Europe. <http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/
Framework_EN.pdf>
Doughty, C. J., Varela, E. et al. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams
(Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C. J., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
East, M. (2014a). Encouraging innovation in a modern foreign language initial teacher education
programme: What do beginning teachers make of task-based language teaching? The Language
Learning Journal, 42(3), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.856455
East, M. (2014b). Mediating pedagogical innovation via reflective practice: A comparison of
pre-service and in-service teachers’ experiences. Reflective Practice, 15(5), 686–699.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2014.944128
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209–224.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.12.006
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2013). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition
research. London: Routledge.
Erlam, R. (2015). “I’m still not sure what a task is”: Teachers designing language tasks. Language
Teaching Research, 20(3), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814566087

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical
link between task-based interaction and acquisition. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthe-
sizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.08kec
Legutke, M., & Thomas, H. (2014). Process and experience in the language classroom. London;
Routledge.
Long, M. (2014). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons.
Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of language teaching. Chichester: Wiley-
Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA:A meta-analysis and research synthesis.
In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–453).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL
course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 107–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264333
Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. H. Long & C. J.Doughty (Eds.), The
handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch30
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524506
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2007). Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmil-
lan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230596429
Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268–286.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500003585
Skehan, P. (Ed.). (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5
Skehan, P., Willis, J., & Willis, D. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based
instruction. Readings in Methodology, 13.
Stoll, L., Hulshof, M., Nusche, D., & Shewbridge, C. (2011). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment
in education: School evaluation in the Flemish Community of Belgium 2011. OECD Publishing.
Retrieved from <http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/oecd-
reviews-of-evaluation-and-assessment-in-education-belgium-flemish-community-2011_
9789264116726-en#page21>
Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667282
Van den Branden, K. (2009a). Diffusion and implementation of innovations. In M. H. Long &
C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 659–672). Chichester: Wiley-
Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch35
Van den Branden, K. (2009b). Mediating between predetermined order and chaos: The role of the
teacher in task-based language education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3),
264–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00241.x
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. M. (Eds.). (2009). Task-based language teaching:
A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

All rights reserved
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
Appendix A: Overview of the selected tasks
Week 1
Monday Tuesday (A + B) Wednesday Thursday Friday

Statements on Browsing through Storyboard: A (outside) (autonomous)
Belgium (speaking, a website for newcomers’ Following Converting the
listening) adult newcomers day in Belgium instructions in storyboard to real
(reading) (writing, Antwerp (reading, photo’s (writing)
speaking) interaction)
Getting Making a Quiz on A game for (outside) Invitation to the
introduced: find Belgium (writing) discovering Photographing Party (writing,
someone who Antwerp contrasts in speaking)
… (speaking, (reading, sharing typical Antwerp
listening) information) (interaction)
A Flood of Ideas:
written brainstorm
on Antwerp
(writing)
Week 2
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Showing off: the Contrasts Preparing an Preparing an Wrapping up

Story-Board (Post- in Memory interview with the interview with the (speaking)
task) (speaking) (speaking, writing) locals (speaking) locals (speaking)
What haven’t What to put (autonomous) Promoting
we covered? on the website Interviews with the website
(brainstorm) (speaking about locals (in the zoo, (speaking)
and reviewing local hospital,
product) library, …)
(speaking)
The finishing
touch: finalizing
products (writing,
speaking)
Appendix B
Teacher’s manual for Task 4

Task 4: A Memory Game
Type of activity
The students find examples of differences between their native country and Belgium, and use these
examples to create cards for a Memory Game.
Product
Cards for a Memory Game, containing images and captions.

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 
Duration
90 minutes
Material
When you chose to create an online Memory Game:
–– internet connection
–– a program to create an online memory game, for example:
http://mediageletterdheid.slo.nl/lessen/slo/ik_jij/memory/
Objectives
–– Students can formulate ideas on contrasts between their original country and Belgium.
–– Students can find information and pictures on the chosen contrasts on the internet.
Task summary
–– pre-task in class introduction of memory game containing contrasts

–– main task in pairs discussion of ideas and of a description of the contrast
–– post-task in groups of 5 presentation of cards of each pair, using the cards to play the mem-
ory game
Task description
Pre-task Phase
Invite the students to develop a Memory Game for the website: a website which incorporates games
is always popular. In this task, the student will develop a Memory Game that can also introduce
Belgium to newcomers (the main goal of the website). Propose a Memory game that uses contrasts
between elements of their own country and Belgium as cards.
Ask the class to provide some ideas for contrasts: are there things that they find odd in Belgium?
Refer to some of the ideas for content that came up during previous brainstorms on the website. For
example, contrasts that have to do with clothing, food, transport, etc.
How would you depict contrasts on two memory cards? Discuss some concrete examples with the
students, for example two memory cards involving clothing, food or transport.
Main Task phase

Students work in pairs. Each student does a suggestion for a memory card and explains the differ-
ences in detail.
The students take the following steps:
1. Discuss content for memorycards in pairs.

2. Choose two ideas. Write them down.
3. Illustrate the ideas: look for photos on the internet or make a drawing of the contrast
4. Describe your card. Incorporate the differences in your description.
5. Now you have two cards for you memory game! Can you think of more?
Support the students to find ideas. Ask questions about things they do, see, eat, wear in Belgium and
in their native country: What do you do/eat/see/wear in Belgium? Did you do/eat/see/wear the same
in your country?/ Do the Belgian children do/eat/wear the same things? Could you incorporate the dif-
ference in two memory cards?
Support the students to put their ideas in words and write them down. Focus on intelligibility of their
ideas first, but also instruct the learners in accurately writing their ideas down.
Students who finish early can think about and create extra memory cards them.

All rights reserved
 Goedele Vandommele, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
Post-task Phase
The students in pairs present their ideas and the memory cards they made. The other students can
react to the ideas, and also incorporate similar ideas in their own cards. Ask the students which of
the cards they would prefer to incorporate into the website. Why?
Use some of the students’ ideas and/or utterances to focus on expressing comparisons. The following
issues can be pointed out:
–– x is the same/different in Belgium

–– use of comparative, e.g. big, bigger. Inquire whether the designing of the memory cards resulted
in more ideas for website content: Do students have new ideas? Add the ideas to the other ideas
for the website.
Invite the students to play the Memory game with the cards they developed.
Appendix C
Products that were developed during Task 4

All rights reserved
Chapter 6. TBLT: How task-based is it really? 

All rights reserved
All rights reserved

VandommeleVandenBrandenVanGorp, TBLT, How Task-Based Is It Really

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VandommeleVandenBrandenVanGorp, TBLT, How Task-Based Is It Really

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from TBLT as a Researched Pedagogy.

Task-based language teaching

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Package deal or separate components?

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Background and context of data collection

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

The four teachers

Table 1. Teacher profiles

T1 Education bachelor degree of education bachelor degree of education

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

The task-based syllabus

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Task 1 (first day of the intervention): Statements on Belgium

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Task 2 (third day of the intervention): Storyboard: A newcomers’ day in Belgium

Task 3 (fifth day of the intervention): Invitation to the party

Task 4 (seventh day of the intervention): Contrasts in memory

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Instrument for the general assessment of core TBLT principles

MP2: Promote Learning by Doing (1)

MP4: Provide Rich and Substantial Input (2)

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

MP6: Focus on Form (3)

MP7: Provide Negative Feedback (4)

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

MP10: Individualize instruction (5)

Thirteen MA students in linguistics who had attended a course on task-based language

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Table 3. Summary of scoring procedure

Variation across tasks

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Table 4. Ratings for five core principles of TBLT

Variation in ratings of principles

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Illustrative examples: The Memory Task

Illustrative examples from the Memory Task in Class A

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Case 1. Teacher-learner interaction during the main phase in Class A

. To protect participants’ privacy, all names have been replaced by pseudonyms.

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Speaker English translation Transcript

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

gives to Grace and Lasya as an example of individualized instruction (MP10). While

Case 2: Teacher-learner interaction during main phase in Class A

Speaker English translation Transcript

Arif: we have no ideas (.) we hebben geen ideeën (.)

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Speaker English translation Transcript

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

attention to the correct spelling of “Africa”. In contrast, teacher A1 primarily wants

Illustrative examples from the Memory Task in Class B

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Case 3: Teacher-learner interaction during main phase in Class B

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Case 4: Teacher-learner interaction during main phase in Class B, Task 4

Speaker English translation Transcript

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Speaker English translation Transcript

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company

© 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company