Task-Based Language Teaching

Ali Shehadeha,b, a Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, UAE University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates;
and b Department of Learning and Educational Leadership, College of Education, UAE University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
© 2025 Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.

Introduction 2
What is Task-Based Language Teaching? 2
Pedagogical Task Defined 2
Basis of Task-Based Language Teaching 3
TBLT and Innovation in L2 Teaching and Learning 3
Expansion and Development of TBLT Research 3
Micro Level 3
Macro Level 4
Implementation Frameworks of TBLT 4
Conclusion 4
References 6
Relevant Websites 6

Key Points
• Understanding task-based language teaching (TBLT) as an approach for second or foreign language (L2) teaching and
learning.
• Identifying the basis of task-based language teaching.
• Illustrating the contributions of TBLT to L2 teaching and learning.
• Exemplifying how TBLT is implemented in the L2 classroom.
• Indicating directions for further research into task-based language teaching.

Glossary
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) TBLT is an educational framework for teaching and learning a second or foreign
language (L2), and a teaching methodology wherein classroom tasks constitute the main focus of instruction. The syllabus in
TBLT is organised around tasks, rather than in terms of grammar or vocabulary.
Pedagogical task A pedagogical task is an L2 classroom activity that: (a) has a non-linguistic purpose or goal, (b) has a clear
outcome, (c) uses any or all of the four language skills in its accomplishment, and (d) conveys meaning in a way that reflects
real-world language use.
Micro level TBLT research Micro-level TBLT research refers to research concerned with the construct of ‘task’ itself.
Macro level TBLT research Macro-level TBLT research refers to developments that focus on the expansion of TBLT research in
range and scope.

Abstract

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is an educational framework for the theory and practice of teaching second or foreign
languages. Classroom tasks constitute the main focus of instruction in TBLT methodology. The syllabus of TBLT is based on
tasks, rather than on grammar or vocabulary. Based on ideas from the philosophy of education in contemporary society,
theories of second language acquisition (SLA), and empirical findings on effective instructional techniques, TBLT represents
an innovation in second and foreign language (L2) teaching and learning. Researchers and language teachers share significant
interest in TBLT as a framework for L2 teaching, learning, and assessment.

Reference Collection in Social Sciences [Link] 1

2 Task-Based Language Teaching

Introduction

In recent decades, task-based language teaching (TBLT) has emerged as one of the most popular alternatives to structural language
teaching approaches. Indeed, the last 25e30 years have witnessed a growing interest in TBLT among researchers, language profes-
sionals, and classroom teachers worldwide, as evidenced by numerous publications, symposiums, colloquiums, conference presen-
tations, and conferences specifically dedicated to this approach (Van den Branden et al., 2009). The most notable of these is the
creation of the International Consortium on Task-Based Language Teaching (ICTBLT) in 2005, now transformed into a professional
association called the International Association for Task-Based Language Teaching (IATBLT), which holds a biennial international
conference on the topic. The mission statement of IATBLT declares that “Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is an educational
framework for the theory and practice of teaching second or foreign languages. Based on empirical research, TBLT adopts
meaning-based, communicative tasks as the central unit for defining language learning needs, determining curriculum goals,
designing activity in the (language) classroom, and assessing language competencies.” [Link] (accessed
on September 8, 2024).
In this article, I first define TBLT, and, thereafter, ‘task’, the key construct in the TBLT approach. Next, I illustrate the basis of TBLT
and describe its innovative aspects as an approach to second or foreign language (L2) learning and teaching. Furthermore, I describe
various developments and expansions of the TBLT approach. Following this, I identify the main frameworks proposed for the imple-
mentation of TBLT in the classroom, illustrating one of the most widely used frameworks. Finally, I conclude the article with recom-
mendations for further research on TBLT.

What is Task-Based Language Teaching?

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is an educational framework for the theory and practice of teaching second or foreign
languages. In the TBLT methodology, classroom tasks constitute the instruction’s main focus (Van den Branden et al., 2009),
with the syllabus being organised around tasks rather than grammar or vocabulary (Ahmadian & Long, 2021). TBLT uses tasks based
on the premise that they provide better conditions for activating students’ acquisitional processes and promoting learning (Ellis,
2000; Van den Branden et al., 2009). Similarly, TBLT is a holistic experiential learning approach, focusing on the ‘learning by doing’
educational philosophy (Long, 2015; Samuda & Bygate, 2008). As such, it can be seen as an extension of the stronger version of the
communicative language teaching approach, wherein communication is considered the major driving force for language learning.
Thus, TBLT is based on a theory of language learning, rather than a theory of language structure (Jordan & Long, 2022; Richards &
Rodgers, 2001). Richards and Rodgers (p. 228), for instance, suggest that this is because “tasks are believed to foster processes of
negotiation, modification, rephrasing, and experimentation that are at the heart of second language learning”. Overall, TBLT makes
the learner central to all the L2 teaching and learning processes.

Pedagogical Task Defined

There is no uniform definition of a pedagogical task. One of the earliest definitions was proposed by Nunan (1989), who defined it
as “a piece of classroom work that involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing, or interacting in the target
language, while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form” (p. 10). Willis (1996b, p. 53) defined a peda-
gogical task as “a goal-oriented activity in which learners use language to achieve a real outcome”. Willis noted that language use in
tasks is likely to reflect language use in the real world. Skehan (1996, p. 41) views pedagogical tasks as “activities that have [1]
meaning as their primary focus. Success in the task is evaluated in terms of [2] the achievement of an outcome, and [3] tasks gener-
ally bear some resemblance to real-life language use”. Ellis (2003, pp. 9e10) listed six “criterial features of a task” that include the
three aspects of Skehan’s definition and adds the concept of task as a [4] “workplan for learner activity”, which [5] “requires learners
to employ cognitive processes”, and [6] “can involve any of the four language skills”. Shehadeh (2005, pp. 18e19) defines an L2
pedagogic task as “. an activity that (a) has a nonlinguistic purpose or goal (b) with a clear outcome and (c) that uses any or all of
the four language skills in its accomplishment (d) by conveying meaning in a way that reflects real-world language use”. Ellis et al.
(2020, p. 7) confirm that most of these definitions emphasise four important aspects of a pedagogical task:

• A task is a meaning-focused activity that requires learners to focus on meaning rather than form.
• A task does not specify the exact content to be addressed, as it will be subject to modification when it is performed. The language
required to perform a task is negotiable when the task is being performed.
• A task should resemble one that people perform in real life. Long (1985) defined tasks as ‘the hundred and one things people do
in everyday life, at work, at play and in between’ (p. 89).
• A task should have ‘a sense of completeness’ and be able to ‘stand alone as a communicative act in its own right’ (Nunan, 1989,
p. 10).
 Task-Based Language Teaching 3

Basis of Task-Based Language Teaching

Researchers have identified three bases for TBLT: theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical. The theoretical basis of TBLT originates in
the philosophy of education in contemporary society. In the past three decades, there has been a major shift in education, in general,
and L2 teaching and learning in particular, from teacher-centred instruction (a teaching situation wherein most decisions are made
and executed by the teacher) to learner-centred instruction, or LCI (a teaching situation that makes the language learner “central to
all aspects of language teaching, including planning, teaching, and evaluating”) (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, pp. 326e327). As per
the LCI principles, TBLT makes the learner central to virtually all aspects of the learning and teaching process, making it the most
favourable methodology for utilising and implementing the principles of LCI in the L2 classroom. The empirical basis for TBLT
arises from second language acquisition (SLA) research findings and three perspectives have been advanced in its support: discourse,
cognitive, and sociocultural perspectives. SLA researchers have provided strong evidence that TBLT is an excellent platform or meth-
odology for unitising research findings from these perspectives to make L2 learning and teaching more effective, principled, and
successful. The pedagogical basis of TBLT stems from effective L2 instructional techniques, such as encouraging student autonomy,
teacherestudent and studentestudent interactions, brainstorming activities, pair work, and small-group work, all of which are
closely associated with TBLT (for an overview of these bases, see Shehadeh, 2018a; see also Van den Branden et al., 2009).
For example, Van den Branden et al. (2009) confirmed that TBLT is based on a constellation of ideas derived from the philos-
ophy of education in contemporary society, theories of SLA, and empirical findings on effective instructional techniques. Van den
Branden et al. (2009) stated the following:

. there is widespread agreement that tasks, potentially at least, offer a uniquely powerful resource for teaching and testing language. In particular, they
provide a locus for bringing together the various dimensions of language, social context, and the mental processes of individual learners that are key to
learning. There are theoretical grounds and empirical evidence for believing that tasks might be able to offer all the affordances needed for successful
instructed language development, whoever the learners might be, and whatever the context (p. 11).

Therefore, tasks are viewed as “devices that provide learners with the data they need for learning” as Ellis (2000, p. 193) asserted
over 20 years ago. No wonder, therefore, that: many teachers around the world are adopting TBLT; that task-based pair work and
group work are now considered standard teaching and learning strategies in many language classrooms globally (Shehadeh &
Coombe, 2010, p. 4); and that “a number of countries have officially mandated the use of TBLT” (Ellis et al., 2020, p. 21).

TBLT and Innovation in L2 Teaching and Learning

TBLT represents an innovation in L2 teaching and learning at both theoretical and methodological levels. From a theoretical
perspective, TBLT views SLA as a process not directly influenced by formal instruction (because it follows an in-built natural
syllabus) but fostered through the meaningful use of language. At the methodological level, TBLT considers students to be users,
rather than learners, of language, with an explicit analysis of language structures and forms emerging from the difficulties experi-
enced during task completion (Ogilvie & Dunn, 2010, p. 162).
Similarly, TBLT represents an innovation because tasks have brought researchers and teachers, and by implication, learning and
teaching, closer than ever before (Samuda & Bygate, 2008). Researchers use tasks as research tools to collect and analyse learner data
and language (so that they can make principled conclusions about how languages are learned), while teachers use tasks as a teaching
tool. These two groups worked independently in the past with hardly any collaboration. However, TBLT has enhanced collaboration
between researchers and teachers, with more serious attempts to make pedagogical decisions to employ tasks as a teaching tool
based on insights gained from their use as a research tool (Ellis, 2003; Shehadeh, 2024; Van den Branden, 2006).

Expansion and Development of TBLT Research

It is possible to identify two lines in the expansion and development of TBLT research: the micro and macro levels.

Micro Level
The micro level of research development concerns itself with the construct of the ‘task’ per se. The task construct has been studied
from different perspectives. These include, for instance, types, ordering, sequencing and grading of tasks, whether the task is one-way
or two-way, open or closed, convergent or divergent, meaning-oriented or form-focused, dyadic, group, or a whole-class activity,
input-oriented or output-oriented, familiar or unfamiliar, simple or complex, and the effect of pre-task planning and task-
repetition (Ahmadian & Long, 2021; Ellis et al., 2020; Pica et al., 1993; Robinson, 2007).
4 Task-Based Language Teaching

Macro Level
The macro level of research expansion and development focuses on the TBLT approach more holistically. Since its inception in the
early 1990s, TBLT research has expanded substantially in terms of range and scope to encompass several new areas. To illustrate,
most early research on TBLT, appearing in the first 15 years, focused on second language contexts and was conducted mostly in
controlled laboratory conditions (Van den Branden, 2006). However, since the middle of the first decade of the 21st century,
research on TBLT has expanded to foreign language contexts and has been conducted mostly in authentic, naturalistic, or classroom
contexts (Leaver & Willis, 2004; Shehadeh, 2018b; Shehadeh & Coombe, 2012). In addition to these two expansions, TBLT research
has expanded over the last 10e12 years to several other important areas, as described below:

• TBLT and L2 writing (Byrnes & Manchón, 2014)

• TBLT and technology (González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014)
• TBLT and content-based instruction (García Mayo, 2015)
• TBLT and English for specific purposes (Widodo, 2015)
• TBLT and languages other than English (Fernández Garcia, 2007)
• TBLT and young learners (Shintani, 2016)
• TBLT and assessment (Norris & East, 2021)
• TBLT and learner engagement (Lambert et al., 2023), and
• TBLT and individual learner differences (Li, 2024).

Implementation Frameworks of TBLT

In designing and implementing task-based syllabi, course designers must first conduct a ‘needs analysis’ to determine why learners
require language, and arrange these needs according to priorities (Long, 2015; Richards & Schmidt, 2010). After that, “course
designers need to decide on criteria for classifying, designing, sequencing, and implementing tasks in order to maximize the learning
potential of students in their classes” (Moore, 2018, p. 880).
Several frameworks have been proposed for the design and implementation of task-based syllabus (e.g., Long, 2015; Long &
Crookes, 1992; Nunan, 1989, 2004; Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996a, 2012, 2024). Willis’ framework (see Fig. 1) is the one most cited
and employed by classroom teachers and researchers. The framework is divided into three main parts: pre-task, task cycle, and form
focus. The pre-task phase introduces students to the topic and task to be performed. In the task phase, students conduct a meaning-
focused activity. In this phase, students are more likely to concentrate on fluency, rather than accuracy or complexity, producing
forms of language that readily come to them. In the report phase, students present the results of their task to the class. In this public
performance students will naturally want to produce not only fluent but also accurate language. Thus, the report phase ensures “a
smooth transition from private to more public interaction” (Willis, 1996b, p. 56). To allow for this, students are provided with
a planning phase between task and report, during which they prepare for the report phase because this planning allows them to
focus on form and more complex language. J. Willis (personal communication, April 26, 2024) explains that “planning is probably
the most effective learning opportunity students will receive because they will have time to reflect on how to express their meanings.
This stage is also open to teachers’ suggestions for better words, phrases, and corrections, thus extending the students’ current
language repertoire.” Finally, in the form focus phase (Willis, 2024), originally labelled as language focus in Willis (1996a,
2012), the teacher draws students’ attention to specific linguistic features that occurred in the task cycle using consciousness-
raising activities to encourage deeper processing. Willis (2024, p. 306) explains: “Form focus . is achieved through metalinguistic
talk which draws learners’ conscious attention to specific linguistic features like frequent words and their patterns, lexical phrases,
grammatical structures, and aspects of discourse that have occurred in the texts and recordings used during the previous task cycle.”
Shehadeh (2024, p. 9) points out that “the three phases pose steadily increasing challenges for successful task completion. At the
same time, the task phases ensure students’ close collaboration and a high level of engagement, in line with SCT [social construc-
tivist theory] scaffolding techniques.” As such, this framework provides opportunities for the development of fluency, accuracy, and
complexity, three essential requirements for effective and successful L2 learning and use (Skehan, 2018).

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is considerable interest in TBLT as a framework and approach for L2 teaching, learning, and assessment. This
interest is based on the strong belief and research findings supporting the belief that TBLT facilitates SLA and makes L2 learning and
teaching more principled and successful. Despite the potential and value of TBLT, some concerns can still be found in some teaching
situations; these need to be addressed. Two of these concerns are described in this section. First, traditional language-centred and
teacher-centred instruction persist in some L2 teaching settings worldwide. Adams and Newton (2009), for example, citing evidence
from a large body of classroom-based research on English teaching in Asia, stated that “[r]esearch conducted across East Asian
contexts has overwhelmingly suggested [Link] language [Link] traditional with an explicit grammar-teaching
focus” (p. 2). Some traditional language- and teacher-centred instruction methods can still be found in other places around the
 Task-Based Language Teaching 5

Fig. 1 Components of the task-based learning framework. From Willis (1996a, p. 38). Revised in Willis (2024, p. 302). Reprinted with permission.

world, including Europe (Shehadeh, 2012). Several challenges, including administrative constraints, exam pressures, cultural pres-
sures and expectations, time pressures, and available materials, have been identified in the adoption of TBLT in these ESL/EFL
settings (see Adams & Newton, 2009; Shehadeh, 2012, for overviews). Second, some classroom studies (e.g., Chan, 2012; Maghar-
abi, 2019) and researchers (e.g., Ellis, 2015; Ellis et al., 2020) have warned that the construct of tasks, the key concept in TBLT, is
often confused with the construct of exercise, causing the task to lose its ‘taskness’ and end up as a situational grammar exercise,
a notional syllabus-controlled exercise, or a version of the audiolingual method’s presentation-practice-production (PPP) approach
(Ellis et al., 2020, pp. 4, 9e10). As Shehadeh (2012, p. 8) pointed out over a decade ago, “these challenges are NOT problems for/of
TBLT itself. Rather they are problems for ANY successful language teaching in these settings, due to the fact that many of the
schooling-related policies and practices are NOT aligned with notions of effective language pedagogy.” Nonetheless, these issues,
which continue to persist, call for further research into TBLT and assessment, such as creating TBLT-oriented teacher education and
teacher training programs.
6 Task-Based Language Teaching

References

Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2009). TBLT in Asia: Constraints and opportunities. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 1e17.
Ahmadian, M., & Long, M. (2021). The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (Eds.). (2014). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s.
Chan, S. (2012). Qualitative differences in novice teachers’ enactment of task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms. In A. Shehadeh, & C. Coombe (Eds.),
Task-based language teaching in foreign language context: Research and implementation (pp. 187e214). John Benjamins. [Link]
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4, 193e220. [Link]
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2015). Teachers evaluating tasks. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 247e270). John Benjamins.
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University press.
Fernández Garcia, M. (2007). Tasks, negotiation and L2 learning in a foreign language context. In M. P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.
69e90). Multilingual Matters.
García Mayo, M. P. (2015). Learning language and content through tasks: Exploring the interfaces. System, 54 [Special issue].
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s.
Jordan, G., & Long, M. (2022). English language teaching now and how it could be. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Lambert, C., Aubrey, S., & Bui, G. (Eds.). (2023). The role of the learner in task-based language teaching: Theory and research methods. Routledge.
Leaver, B. L., & Willis, J. (Eds.). (2004). Task-based instruction in foreign language education: Practices and programs. Georgetown University Press.
Li, S. (Ed.). (2024). Individual differences and task-based language teaching. John Benjamin’s.
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam, & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second
language acquisition (pp. 77e99). Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.
Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27e55.
Magharabi, S. (2019). Implementation of focus on form in a task-based language teaching context in a United Arab Emirates EFL middle school setting [Doctoral dissertation. United
Arab Emirates University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Moore, P. (2018). Task-based language teaching. In J. I. Liontas, M. DelliCarpini, & A. Shehadeh (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (1st ed.). Wiley.
Norris, J. M., & East, M. (2021). Task-based language assessment. In M. Ahmadian, & M. Long (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp. 505e528).
Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Ogilvie, G., & Dunn, W. (2010). Taking teacher education to task: Exploring the role of teacher education in promoting the utilization of task-based language teaching. Language
Teaching Research, 14, 161e181.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In G. Crookes, & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and
language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9e34). Multilingual Matters.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. [Link]
Richards, J., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). Longman.
Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International
Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 193e214.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Palgrave Macmillan.
Shehadeh, A. (2005). Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In C. Edwards, & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching
(pp. 13e30). Palgrave Macmillan.
Shehadeh, A. (2012). Broadening the perspective of task-based language teaching scholarship: The contribution of research in foreign language contexts. In A. Shehadeh, &
C. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 1e20). John Benjamin’s.
Shehadeh, A. (2018a). Learning through tasks. In A. Burns, & J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to learning English as a second language (pp. 271e280). Cambridge
University Press.
Shehadeh, A. (2018b). New frontiers in task-based language teaching research. In M. J. Ahmadian, & M. P. García Mayo (Eds.), Recent perspectives on task-based language
learning and teaching (pp. viiexxi). De Gruyter Mouton.
Shehadeh, A. (2024). It is a task, not an exercise: What is the difference? System. [Link]
Shehadeh, A., & Coombe, C. (Eds.). (2010). Applications of task-based learning in TESOL. TESOL International.
Shehadeh, A., & Coombe, C. (Eds.). (2012). Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation. John Benjamin’s.
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. John Benjamins.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38e62.
Skehan, P. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, assessment. Routledge.
Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (Eds.). (2009). Task-based language teaching: A reader. John Benjamin’s.
Widodo, P. (2015). Designing and implementing task-based vocational English materials: Text, language, task, and context in Indonesia. In M. Thomas, & H. Reinders (Eds.),
Contemporary task-based language teaching in Asia (pp. 291e312). Bloomsbury.
Willis, J. (1996a). A framework for task-based learning. Longman Addison-Wesley.
Willis, J. (1996b). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis, & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 52e62). Heinemann ELT.
Willis, J. (2012). A framework for task-based learning. Republished as an E-Book by Intrinsic Publications. [Link].
Willis, J. (2024). Practitioners’ perspectives: How teachers use TBLT to accommodate individual differences. In S. Li (Ed.), Individual differences and task-based language teaching
(pp. 288e312). John Benjamin’s.

Relevant Websites

International Association for Task-Based Language Teaching (IATBLT). [Link]

TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning. [Link]
Professional Publisher John Benjamin’s dedicated book series on Task-Based Language Teaching. [Link]
TBLT Task Bank, a database that provides a central location for sharing language learning tasks. [Link]