Chapter 5

An Evolution of a Framework for TBLT:

What Trainers and Teachers Need
to Know to Help Learners Succeed
in Task-Based Learning

Jane Willis

Abstract This chapter starts by outlining some major influences on the development
of a task-based methodology as described in A Framework for Task-Based Learning,
Willis (1996). It addresses common teacher questions like ‘How do I know if it’s
a task?’ and ‘When and how should I teach grammar?’ It introduces the TBLT
framework, making explicit the rationale and principles behind each stage in the task
cycle, the central part of the framework. It describes the changing roles of the teacher
as they handle each stage and subsequent form-focused activities. It summarizes
crucial conditions for learning as identified by Second-Language Acquisition (SLA)
researchers and describes how phases of the framework can generate them. The
focus then switches to the trainer. It reports first on experimental task-based training
sessions for novice teachers, and secondly on a recent investigation into Task-Based
Language Teaching (TBLT) sessions on short training courses. It explores three
current challenges and offers possible solutions to two of them: ways to tackle the
lack of training in TBLT, and the marriage of a lexical syllabus with a task-based
syllabus. However, the unwillingness of publishers to produce task-based course
books remains a problem. Is it largely the latter which impedes the wider uptake of
TBLT in the teaching profession today?

Keywords Task-based methodology · Task-based learning · Task-based

framework · Task-based language teaching · Task-based teacher training · Task
cycle · Task goals · Focus on form · Form focus · Consciousness-raising
activities · Meaning focus · Lexical syllabus · Language syllabus · Grammatical
competence · Grammar teaching and TBL · Word frequency · CELTA courses ·
Teacher training courses

Overview This chapter gives a personal account of the development, over 30 years,
of a framework designed to help teachers introduce task-based language teaching
(TBLT) in their classrooms. Most teachers were following a form-focused approach,

J. Willis (B)
Freelance Language Teaching Consultant, Kendal, UK
e-mail: jane@willis-elt.co.uk

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 63

N. P. Sudharshana and L. Mukhopadhyay (eds.),
Task-Based Language Teaching and Assessment,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4226-5_5
64 J. Willis

with lessons beginning with the presentation and practice of a new language structure
to be used by learners in a free production activity. However, TLBT is a meaning-
focused approach and starts with a goal-oriented communication activity (a task)
where learners exchange real meanings in order to achieve the outcome of the task.
Long (2014, p. 6) explains: ‘Instead of studying the new language as object in order
to use it to communicate at some later date, students learn language through doing
pedagogic tasks.’ The vital difference is that while doing tasks, learners are not
speaking simply to practise a recently taught structure or function, but are communi-
cating their ideas or opinions in real time, choosing whichever language forms best
express their own meanings. In other words, they are really meaning what they are
trying to say.
This chapter differs from other papers in this volume in that it is not a research
study. My overall aim is to provide a descriptive and analytical account of one way
of implementing TBLT and its salient features. I attempt to build, through discussion
and examples, a strong argument for its use both in teaching and training contexts.
It is written with language teachers, novice trainees and trainers in mind because,
despite 40 years of experimentation with task-based teaching, there has been very
little coverage of TBLT on preliminary teacher training courses (Walker, 2020) and
many misunderstandings and myths about TBLT still prevail. The decision to tackle
this challenge rests with TBLT practitioners like yourselves.

Early Stages of Task-Based Language Teaching

My late husband Dave Willis and I began to experiment with task-based teaching in
the early 1980s. We were frustrated by the limitations of methodologies that priori-
tized form-focused language teaching, even when supplemented with ‘skills’ lessons.
The Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP) model, which focused on accurate use
of the grammatical structure taught at the Presentation stage, giving learners a rigidly
controlled and impoverished experience of language, was in common use at the time.
Very few students who finished their English courses were able to use their English
to communicate adequately with others. In many countries, adults with 5 years or
more of school English realized that they now needed to be able to speak English
and were joining classes at beginner and elementary levels.
Prabhu, the instigator of the Bangalore Communicational Teaching Project, was
feeling equally frustrated. The school system in India had brought in the ‘Situational,
Oral, Structural’ approach which focused narrowly on grammar and was getting poor
results. Prabhu’s main aim was to find out if learners could acquire grammatical
competence simply by interacting in meaning-focused activities with their teachers,
with no explicit teaching of grammar at all (Prabhu, 1987). His project ran from
1979 to 1984 in state schools, 6 secondary and 2 primary, with classes of between
30 and 60 children from disadvantaged backgrounds. For Prabhu’s team, ‘an activity
which required learners to arrive at an outcome from given information through
5 An Evolution of a Framework for TBLT: What Trainers … 65

some process of thought, and which allowed teachers to control and regulate that
process, was regarded as a task.’ (Prabhu, 1987, p. 24).
After a year of experimentation, Prabhu’s framework consisted of three parts:
PRE-TASK
Teacher rehearses a task, in English, involving the whole class, using the blackboard
(step by step teacher—class negotiation—questions and answers)
Teacher sets a parallel task giving oral or written instructions.
TASK
Students attempt the parallel task as individuals.
They answer a set of written comprehension questions or correct true/false statements relating
to the outcome.
MARKING
Teacher does a quick marking of students’ work, (usually overnight)
Assesses on the basis of content, not language form.

Tasks were based on topics covered at school, e.g. geometry diagrams, and real
life, e.g. train time-tables. Each topic lasted a week (5 lessons) with tasks gaining
complexity. The focus throughout the lessons was on pragmatic meaning-focused
interaction rather than grammatical forms. Teachers would recast or rephrase learner
contributions, and sometimes correct written errors but not practise or drill the
corrected item. Prabhu did not use pairwork in the project because he did not want the
class to be exposed to sub-standard English. However, after the project, he admitted
to changing his mind on this.
For the end of project evaluation (externally validated), experimental classes were
paired with control classes in each school, and although there was no significant
difference in the results of the grammar and dictation tests, the other tests revealed
that structure acquired without focus on form was more readily deployable than
structure learnt with focus on form. Students from the project were able to use their
English to communicate with other English speakers outside school far better than
the control groups. For more discussion see Prabhu and Durairajan (2019).
We were encouraged by the success of Prabhu’s project and also inspired by
experiments with tasks and projects in primary and secondary schools in Spain around
the same time, reported in Ribe (1997). We felt supported by recent research findings
in the field of Second-Language Acquisition as well as experiments with tasks done
under research conditions which were reported by Crookes and Gass (1993) Ellis
(2003) and Skehan (1996, 1998) and Skehan and Foster (1997) among others.
So a small team of us teaching in Singapore began trialing tasks with learner
groups from different backgrounds, including a group of Japanese beginners. Like
Prabhu’s tasks, the focus throughout was on meaning and getting meaning across.
We tried various ways of using tasks, simplifying them and staging them and we
listened to learners’ feedback. We incorporated pair and group work giving more
opportunities for learners to use the language themselves in different socio-linguistic
contexts (Labov, 1972). And in a major change from Prabhu’s project, we introduced
a final phase, after the task, with an explicit focus on form as was, by then, being
66 J. Willis

recommended by SLA researchers and at the request of learners themselves. A chal-

lenge then arose. Which forms should we be focussing on? Much has been written
on the integration of language form and tasks (Ellis 2003: 237) but how to combine
a systematic and accountable language syllabus with a task syllabus? Which words,
phrases and patterns would be the most useful for learners to study?
In the meantime, Collins and Birmingham University under Sinclair (1991) were
undertaking the first ever computational linguistics project. They had assembled a
large electronic corpus of millions of words of written and spoken English which
included a wide range of books, newspapers, conversations and other sources of
spoken English to compile the International Learners database (ILD) (hence the
project name—COBUILD—Co for Collins, BU for Birmingham University plus
ILD). Hitherto, dictionaries and grammars had been derived almost entirely from
written text. Their aim was to uncover the most frequent meanings and uses of words
in both written and spoken English in order to create a dictionary of ‘real’ English,
with typical examples taken from the corpus.
The findings on word frequency were interesting. Over half the words in that
corpus appeared only once, but the 2500 most frequent words were very frequent,
accounting for over 80% of all English text (Willis, 1990; Sinclair & Renouf, 1998).
The possibility of a lexical syllabus—derived from a checklist of the most frequent
words with their most central and typical patterns—became viable. And since the
words associated with a structural syllabus are among the most frequent words, a
lexical syllabus would cover all ‘traditional’ grammar, plus many new patterns hith-
erto un-taught, in addition to the thousands of fixed and semi-fixed phrases frequently
used in spoken English and naturally occurring discourse.
While experimenting with tasks in Singapore, we were asked by the COBUILD
project to write a series of textbooks incorporating a lexical syllabus drawing on the
findings of the COBUILD project. Since it is words and phrases that carry the basic
meanings of the language and since TBLT prioritizes meaning over form, the logical
vehicle for a lexical syllabus was a task-based methodology with a parallel syllabus
of tasks and topics.
We designed tasks on a wide variety of topics selected by classroom teachers and
vetted by the publisher. The 3-level courses highlighted the most frequent words,
phrases and patterns as they occurred naturally in texts and task recordings. The
200 most frequent words are mainly ‘grammar words’ like of, and, would, as, you
and verbs like be, make, get but also nouns like time, people, way, thing, point, all
of which have many different patterns and uses, for example One way of + verb
+ ing… The thing is/the point is… The various uses of these very frequent words
were treated in depth and revisited throughout the course when suitable contexts
arose. Thus, the lexical syllabus ensured a thorough coverage of words, their uses
and patterns, which was gradually built up using good examples in the written and
spoken texts selected for each unit (Willis, 1990, 2003).
The Collins COBUILD English Course appeared in 1998 and gained excellent
results in a small number of institutions worldwide where task-based learning was
understood and supported, producing learners who were confident communicators
after their first year (Lopez, 2004). However, it failed to become mainstream, partly
5 An Evolution of a Framework for TBLT: What Trainers … 67

because so few teaching establishments trusted the task-based approach and many
misapplied it, trying to teach more traditional grammar up front. Finally, a publisher
take-over sealed its fate. A fellow course book writer sympathized, saying ‘The world
is not yet ready for a task-based approach’. They were right.
There was obviously a need for a basic accessible classroom guide to task-based
language teaching, so I began to write about the framework we had built up over the
years. Beginning with an exploration of teachers’ beliefs about language learning, a
brief rationale then highlighted the principles that underpin TBLT. I was able to pilot
each chapter with newly graduated students of English in a Spanish university who
were already doing some teaching. Finally, in 1996 ‘A Framework for Task-Based
Learning’, a practical ‘how-to’ handbook, was published.

The Spread of TBLT

Other books on practical aspects of TBLT were also appearing (Nunan, 2004; Ribe
& Vidal, 1993) and gradually a number of teachers worldwide took up the challenge
of task-based teaching. Some used tasks in their project work and some adapted the
framework to suit their specific learners. Some applied it to the teaching of other
languages, including Basque. Quite a few contacted us with questions and concerns.
Meanwhile more research was being undertaken on tasks and areas applicable
to TBLT as reported by Ellis (Chap. 4 this volume). Computational linguistics was
giving the ELT profession further insights into the close relationships between lexis
and grammar, e.g. Pattern Grammar (Hunston & Frances, 2000).
Ten years on, and inspired by the research into aspects of TBLT that our own
post-grad distance-learning students were doing in classrooms in different parts of
the world (Edwards & Willis, 2005), we felt there was a need to explore and report on
the expanding practice of TBLT and gather together the growing body of professional
expertise. We called upon teachers worldwide to send us their successful tasks, their
ideas for implementing them and advice for teachers new to TBLT. A total of 34
teachers responded, representing teaching communities in 12 different countries,
and their experiences were incorporated into ‘Doing Task-based Teaching’ (Willis
& Willis, 2007). We also began to develop a website for teachers interested in task-
based teaching which meant we were in regular contact with teachers wanting to
know more about TBLT and how to handle tasks in the classroom.
The remainder of this chapter will tackle some of the questions that teachers have
asked over the years, going into more detail on the stages of the framework and
suggesting solutions to some of the problems listed by Ellis (Chap. 4 this volume.)
It begins with the problem of identifying what a task really is.
68 J. Willis

What is a Task? Criteria Framed as Questions

Originally (in Willis, 1996 pp. 23–24) we defined tasks as

‘activities where the target language (i.e. English or Spanish) is used by the learner for a
communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve a real outcome’. ‘… learners are free to
choose whatever language forms they wish in order to convey what they mean in order to
fulfill, as well as they can, the task goals.’

But we found that this had been too rigid a definition to help teachers to recognize
tasks, to adapt activities in their course books and to design and evaluate their own
materials. Comments from teachers like ‘I am still not really sure what a task really
is’ were common. We ourselves had gained extensive experience of designing tasks
that work (and many didn’t!) through recording fluent speakers of different ages and
backgrounds performing large numbers of tasks for the COBUILD course.
So, taking into account the many different definitions of tasks in the literature
(e.g. Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Nunan, 1989; Skehan, 1998) and various interpreta-
tions reported by successful TBL teachers (Edwards & Willis, 2005), we found that,
rather than attempting to define ‘task’, a more helpful procedure was to characterize
successful tasks by listing criteria framed as questions.
The more confidently we can answer yes to each of these questions the more
task-like the activity:
1. Does the activity engage learners’ interest?
2. Is there a primary focus on meaning?
3. Are learners allowed free use of language?
4. Is there a specified goal with an outcome that can be shared?
5. Is success judged in terms of outcome? i.e. is task completion a priority?
6. Does the activity relate in some way to real-world activities?
These criteria do not form a watertight definition of the term ‘task’, but they can
act as ‘guidelines for the design and evaluation of activities which are task-like in
that they involve real language use.’ (adapted from Willis & Willis, 2007, p. 13).
The advantage of a list of criteria is that teachers can identify more precisely in
which way a text-book activity needs ‘tweaking’ in order to make it more task-like
and engaging. For example, Cox (2005, pp. 171–2) made the task goals more specific
so learners would know when they had completed it successfully, e.g. He changed
the original instructions: Discuss which places tourists to your country should visit to
List the three most interesting cities or places in your country and why people should
visit them. And in instructions for a task based on a problem page letter, rather than
simply What advice would you give this person? he added, Discuss your ideas then
agree on the two best suggestions.
Generally, we found that the more specific task instructions are, the richer the
resultant interaction. Even story-telling activities in pairs or groups, e.g. ‘Your most
embarrassing experience’ can often benefit from a final instruction, like Finally,
decide whose experience was the most embarrassing (Essig, 2005) as this will
generate more interaction leading to a more satisfying completion point. So, the
5 An Evolution of a Framework for TBLT: What Trainers … 69

instruction ‘Tell your partner about some of your childhood memories’ (which in
class can just ‘fizzle out’) might be better as ‘Think of 2 childhood memories and
then share them with your partner. Can you find 3 things that your memories had
in common? Or 2 major differences?’ Knowing that they have completed a task
successfully means that learners feel a sense of achievement which increases overall
motivation.
The most important thing for teachers to realize is that tasks give learners oppor-
tunities to communicate for real and to mean what they say. They will be using
language to exchange meanings for a real purpose. They need to know they will
be free to use whatever words or language forms best express their meanings. The
games they play, the problems they solve, the experiences they share in class may
not always be things they will do in real life, but their use of language, because it is
purposeful and real, will replicate features of language use outside the classroom.
The set of questions above can also help teachers to recognize tasks in course
books and find activities they can adapt to make them more task-like. But, as Skehan
(2003) confirmed—it also helps to exemplify what tasks are not. Tasks—as defined
above—do not include activities which involve learners saying things just to practice
language items, such as ‘Describe the picture using some of the phrases below’ or
‘Ask your partner if he likes the foods below using the forms ‘Do you like’ ‘Yes I do,’
‘No I don’t’.’ Equally untask-like are role-plays which are tightly controlled or semi-
scripted, where there is no outcome or purpose other than practising pre-specified
language or functions. These might make perfectly good practice activities but they
would not count as tasks—the learner will be focusing on using particular language
forms, not primarily on exchanging meanings to achieve an outcome.
A problem here is that tasks in course books often come at the end of a unit, after the
Presentation and Practice of new language items, so the learners’ mindset is still on
the practice of new language item. But the final Production stage is supposed to offer
learners a chance to use the new language more freely. However, a communication
task in the position of the third P (as this is often called) can give rise to several
problems. Firstly, some teachers do not attempt the Production activity at all for
fear they will lose control of the class and that chaos will ensue; another common
reason is that they have run out of time (Bilborough, 2019). Secondly, some learners
will perceive this stage as further practice and overuse the target form creating very
unnatural language. Thirdly, some learners happily freed from linguistic control,
successfully achieve the goal of the task, without even using the new language items
presented earlier, often much to the chagrin of the teacher. But this surely leads us
to the conclusion—why not start the units with the task?
Since many teachers come to TBLT from a form-focused tradition like PPP, it is
worth taking time on training courses to answer this common question.
70 J. Willis

How Does TBLT Differ from PPP and Other Lesson

Frameworks?

The basic task-based framework differs from a PPP cycle because—from the start—
the primary focus throughout the task cycle is on meaning rather than form. An
explicit focus on specific language forms comes at the end of the cycle rather than at
the start. The communication task itself is central to the framework, rather than a target
language structure. After the teacher has introduced the topic highlighting useful
words and phrases and clarified the task goal, learners carry out the communication
task, using language they have learnt from previous lessons and other sources. Most
TBLT teachers would ask learners to report back about how they did the task and
compare findings. At some point, learners might listen to recordings of other people
doing the same task, or read something related to the theme of the task, again relating
this to their own experience of doing the task. Only after that is their attention directed
towards useful grammatical and lexical features that occur naturally in the recordings
they have heard or in the texts they have read during the task cycle.
In other words, learners begin with a holistic experience of language in use. They
end with an analytical look at specific features of language form. By that point, the
learners will have worked with that language and processed it for meaning. It is then
that the focus turns to the surface forms that have carried those meanings.
One of the main problems we have in the classroom is providing a context for
grammar teaching. Novice trainees find this very hard, but with TBL the context is
already established by the task.
The basic framework can be summarized simply thus:
PRE-TASK
Introduction to topic and task
TASK CYCLE
Task → Planning → Report
FOCUS ON FORM
Analysis and practice of relevant grammar patterns and lexical phrases

No new teaching techniques are needed for a task-based approach, but it does
demand a different weighting and sequencing. It also needs teachers to develop a
mind-set that sanctions and encourages learners’ attempts to put to use the language
they have already learnt, even if they get things wrong. Woodward (1996) talks
about achieving change gradually through informed debate and stresses the need
for a paradigm shift. Hobbs (2010) suggests practical steps to encourage hesitant
teachers to try TBLT.
5 An Evolution of a Framework for TBLT: What Trainers … 71

Why a Three-Stage Task Cycle with a Report Stage?

It would of course be possible to help learners achieve fluency by filling our language
lessons with nothing but tasks. Learners, talking to each other in pairs and small
groups, would get plenty of opportunities to interact, to express themselves freely
and gain confidence in using the target language. But, as Skehan (1996) has stressed,
there could be a danger in this. Learners tend to gain fluency at the expense of
accuracy. How can we prevent learners from evolving a type of classroom ‘pidgin’
or from fossilizing early? Skehan suggests that learners need to be kept on their
toes, that they need a constant linguistic challenge. It is this that helps to drive their
language development forward. This challenge is what a public report stage provides.
Here the studies carried out by Labov (1972) are relevant. Labov collected samples
of people talking in a range of social settings. He found that people who made
common use of vernacular forms in some settings would change to a more prestige
version when speaking in a more formal setting. In the same way, even in our mother
tongue, we are always aware of when we need to be on our best linguistic behaviour.
If we have to speak in public, or present a case in a business meeting, we often plan
beforehand what we want to say. We tend to speak more carefully and use different
types of words; we may even change our accent. The same applies when writing.
We will dash off a quick, personal email to a friend, but take far more care when
drafting a letter to be published in a newspaper or a report to be made public. Willis
and Willis (2010) expand on this.
The variety of language we use, then, depends on the circumstances of
communication. We can summarize these as follows and relate them to classroom
language use: the Task stage being private use, and the Report stage being more
public. These are two ends of a natural cline.

Private use in pairs or small groups Public use talking to whole class or writing
Spontaneous Planned
Exploratory Rehearsed
Ephemeral Permanent (written or recorded)
Focus on fluency and getting meanings across Focus on fluency, accuracy, clarity and
somehow organization, as befits a public presentation
Correction rarely requested or acted upon Correction and advice welcomed and
incorporated

In the classroom, learners will need teacher support to bridge their linguistic gaps
between appropriate private and public use. When they know they will have to report
their task results to a wider audience, they will want to plan what to say, choose how
to phrase it in appropriate English and avoid mistakes. They will also realize they
should avoid using their first language and need to find ways to do this. Hence, the
deliberate inclusion of an intermediate Planning stage, where the teacher takes into
account what the learners want to say and helps them improve their language. The
planning stage is where learners are really open to learning new things and getting
72 J. Willis

things right, and where teaching is most helpful. It is worth allowing ample time for
learners to plan their reports and to encourage them to try out new ways of expressing
themselves, so this stage is likely to last longer that the task itself.
Once learners know that there will be a ‘public’ report stage in English after
the task, they will be more motivated to tackle the task more seriously, and use the
Planning time more efficiently. Over time, it seems to reduce the amount of the first
language being spoken at the task stage (Willis, 2009).

What Are the Teachers’ Roles During a Task-Based

Framework?

The overall framework aims to recreate in the classroom essential conditions for
language acquisition and learning (see next section). The teachers’ roles will vary
according to the specific aim of each stage in the Framework. The Pre-task phase
and the Task cycle proposed below take advantage of the sociolinguistic norms
described above and ensure a smooth and natural transition from private to more
public interaction. The roles are detailed below, using abbreviations T and Ss for
Teachers and Students.

Pre-task

Introduction to Topic and Task

• T helps Ss to understand the theme and objectives of the task, e.g. brainstorming
ideas with the class, using pictures, mime or personal experience to introduce the
topic,
• T can highlight useful words and phrases and teach words learners ask for but
would not pre-teach new structures. Topic lexis is vital for Ss to get their meaning
across somehow; their grammar can be fine-tuned or taught later.
• T may get the class to do a pre-task, e.g. a prediction task based on words and
phrases from the text, or an odd-word-out game with topic vocabulary.
• Ss can listen to a recording of a parallel task being done or T can rehearse the
task with a good student (so long as this does not give away the solution to the
problem). Or, if the task is based on a text, Ss read a short section to get an idea
of what it will be about.
• T clarifies the goal of the task, what form the outcome will take, and checks Ss
understand exactly what they have to do.
• Ss can be given 3 or 4 minute preparation time to think how to do the task and
use their dictionaries if necessary.
5 An Evolution of a Framework for TBLT: What Trainers … 73

• T decides how best to group Ss and sets time limit for the task. T might even begin
the task with the class then get them to finish it in pairs.
This initial phase gives useful exposure to language being used by the teacher.
This helps students to recall relevant words and phrases and to recognize new ones
that will help them get their meaning across. Individual preparation time helps them
to think of the kinds of things they can say, look up words they need and seems to
result in richer language use at the task stage (Foster & Skehan, 1996).

The Task Cycle

Task

T’s role is to encourage Ss to use whatever English they can recall to express
themselves and say what they need to say in order to complete the task.
• T walks round and monitors, making sure all learners are actually doing the task,
and encouraging everyone’s attempts at communication in the target language, in
a supportive and positive way. It’s important for learners to feel free to experiment
with language and take risks.
• If Ss get stuck, T helps them to formulate what they want to say, but will not
intervene to correct errors of form unless asked or if they realize the meaning is
not clear. T keeps the focus on the meanings Ss are trying to express.
• The emphasis is on promoting spontaneous, exploratory talk and confidence-
building, within the privacy of the small group.
• T acts as time-keeper and stops the class once a majority of groups have finished.

Planning

T’s overall role is to push learners’ language development forward and challenge
them to work out better ways to express their meanings.
• Ss draft and rehearse what they want to say or write during the more public Report
stage.
• T goes round to advise students on language, suggesting phrases and helping Ss
to polish and correct their language.
• If the reports are in writing, Ts can encourage peer-editing and use of dictionaries.
• The emphasis is on clarity, organization and accuracy, as appropriate for a public
presentation.
• Individual students often take this chance to ask questions about specific language
items.
74 J. Willis

Report

T’s overall role is that of chairperson, letting learners/pairs speak in turn:

• T gives a clear purpose for others to listen. The class may need to take notes.
• T asks some pairs to report briefly to the whole class so everyone can compare
findings, or begin a survey.
• T acts as time-keeper. Sometimes only two or three groups report in full; others
comment and add extra points.
• T comments positively on the content of each report, but gives no overt public
correction at this stage unless the meaning is not clear (‘OK, so what you mean
is…?’). Ts can note down problem language items that can be focused in a later
lesson.
This component gives learners practice in public, prestige use of language and
increases other students’ exposure to spoken or written language. Even if some groups
do not get to present their report orally, they will have learnt a lot at the Planning
stage, and the teacher can call upon them to report next time. Or T can ask them to
write them up either for a wall display or to share using social media or upload to a
class newspaper.

Post-task Listening

• T allows Ss to listen (several times if needed) to a recording of fluent speakers

doing the same task and asks them to compare this to the ways in which they did
the task themselves.
• T leads a class discussion on the similarities and differences and gets Ss’ feedback
on the task itself, and possible follow-up activities.

This component gives additional exposure to topic-related interaction and

increases students’ experience of language in use in a familiar context.

Focus on Form

Analysis

• T sets some language-focused tasks, exploring the texts students have read
or the transcripts of the recordings they have heard. These are often called
‘consciousness-raising activities’ (Willis, 2003; Willis & Willis, 2006). Examples
include:
– Find words and phrases related to the title or topic of the text. Circle them.
– Read the transcript, find words ending in s or ’s and say what the s means.
5 An Evolution of a Framework for TBLT: What Trainers … 75

– Underline all the verbs in the simple past form. Say which refer to past time
and which do not.
– Underline and classify the questions in the transcript.
– Choose three phrases you think might be useful for others to know.
– Find seven phrases that are typical of spontaneous spoken interaction but would
not occur in writing.
• T starts Ss off, then Ss continue, often in pairs.
• T goes round to help; Ss can ask individual questions.
• T then reviews the analysis with the whole class, possibly writing relevant
language up on the board in list form; Ss may make notes. Class shares the useful
phrases and practices them.

The aim is to encourage students to explore language for themselves, to develop

an awareness of aspects of syntax, collocation and lexis, to help them systematize
what they have observed about certain features of language, to clarify concepts and
to notice new things.

Practice

• T conducts practice activities as needed, based on the language analysis work

already on the board, or using examples from the text or transcript. Practice
activities can include:
– choral repetition of the phrases identified and classified, focusing on pronun-
ciation and intonation
– memory challenge games based on partially erased examples or using lists
already on blackboard for progressive deletion
– sentence completion (set by one team for another)
– matching the past tense verbs (jumbled) with the subjects or objects they had
in the text
– dictionary reference work on new words from text or transcript
• T may also draw attention to typical learners’ errors noticed during the task cycle
and get Ss to practise alternative ways of expressing those meanings accurately.
• It is unlikely that learners will gain instant command of any of these features.
The aim is to get Ss to take note of salient features, so that they will recognize
them when they meet them again in other texts and recordings, and later use them
themselves.

See Appendices 1 and 2 for some examples of Consciousness-Raising activities

based on a task transcript.
76 J. Willis

Optional Follow-up

At the end of the whole framework, students could:

• Repeat the same or a similar oral task but with different partners.
• Go back through the task materials and write down in their language notebooks
useful words, phrases and patterns that they have noticed.
• Discuss how they felt about the task and the task cycle and what they might like to
do next or some time later (and/or note this down in their diaries for their teacher
to read later).

Some Myths About TBLT

With the spread of TBLT, a number of myths became prevalent. For example,
TBLT only works for oral skills,
You have to do pair or group work,
You can’t use it with real beginners,
TBLT discourages explicit focus on grammar or language form.
Having read this far, you will be in a better position to recognize that these are
in fact myths. However, on training courses, we found that giving a set of exam-
ples of tasks and task sequences suitable for different levels could help teachers
develop their understanding of what a task is and what TBLT is about. Which of
these examples below help to counter which myths?
The first example here can be done with the whole class as a teacher-led task.
It would be suitable for most real beginners starting to learn English (instructions
could be given in L1), since most of the words will be familiar.

1. International Words
hotel football taxi disco jeans sandwich tennis music hamburger
video
internet goal museum Pepsi dollar basketball radio computer
All these are English words. How many ways can you classify them?
(Teacher brainstorms with class, recasting learner suggestions in English.)
How many other English words do you know? Add them to your cate-
gories. Finally arrange your words in alphabetical order for each category
and practice pronouncing them in English.
5 An Evolution of a Framework for TBLT: What Trainers … 77

2. Early Schooldays
Think of a teacher you remember well. Write down three things you
remember about him or her. Then, in pairs, tell each other about them.
Try to find two things your teachers had in common.
Next, write a short paragraph about your teacher for others to read and
display it on your classroom wall. Read about other people’s teachers and
find out if the majority were remembered for positive or negative reasons.
List the reasons and classify them.
Finally listen to a recording about a teacher that X remembered, and
identify any similarities with other people’s teachers.

3. A News Story
Look at the headlines and the first three lines. Write down five questions
that you think will be answered in the full story. With a partner, compare
your lists and pick the 5 questions you are sure about. Exchange this new
list with another pair. Then read the whole story, and see how many of
those questions were actually answered in the text. Who found answers
to the largest number of questions?
Finally read the text again and underline all the verbs and verb phrases
that refer to past time and find ways to classify them. Then, as a memory
challenge, take turns to read out a verb and see if the class can remember
who/what the subject was (exact wording) without looking at the text.

All three of these examples can be used for different topics and can be set up and
adapted in different ways.
As well as countering a number of prevalent myths about TBLT, this set of tasks
can be evaluated according to the list of criteria given in Section “What is a task?
Criteria framed as questions” above—a useful activity on a course for novice teachers.
It also shows that tasks can have a variety of starting points: a text (written or spoken),
or learners’ own input—their personal experience or their knowledge of the world.

How Does This TBL Framework Fulfil the Conditions

for Learning Derived from SLA Research Findings?

Although the learning styles of individuals may differ, according to second-language

acquisition (SLA) researchers there is overwhelming evidence that, in order for
anyone to learn a language effectively in a classroom, there are four key conditions
78 J. Willis

to be met. In this section, I will briefly outline these conditions and relate them to
components in the task framework.

Four Key Conditions for Language Learning

1. Exposure to a rich but comprehensible input of real language, i.e., the kind
of language that learners will be needing or wishing to understand and use
themselves
Exposure and input come from teacher talk (especially during the pre-task phase
and when reviewing language analysis), from students listening to each other,
and from reading the texts or listening to recordings of others doing the task.
This input is not confined to sentence-level examples, but consists of real, often
spontaneous, language use.
2. Opportunities for real use of language—Chances for learners to experiment
and test hypotheses, to mean what they say and express what they mean in a
variety of circumstances.
During the Task cycle, the Task stage gives students opportunities to use
language to express what they want to say, to gain practice in turn-taking,
controlling the interaction, interacting spontaneously in pairs. The Report stage
then offers them the challenge of drafting and perfecting their report and
presenting it to a wider audience. The Planning stage, before the Report stage,
gives students the confidence and support that they need to revise and rehearse
before they actually perform in public.
3. Motivation to process the exposure for meaning—to ‘grapple with meaning’
as Prabhu put it, and also motivation to use the language to speak and write
appropriately.
The goals of the task provide the main motivation to engage in a TBL lesson.
Students generally want to achieve the task outcomes which involve them
in working towards a specific goal, such as solving a problem. Success in
completing the task is in itself a motivating factor. Then, because they have done,
or will do, the task themselves, they are keen to listen to a related recording and
read the transcript or a related text.
4. Focus on language form Although it is quite possible for people to acquire a
new language without instruction, research has shown that, in order to prevent
fossilization and to push language development forward, we need to challenge
learners to strive for individual improvement. Learners also need chances to
reflect on language and to try to systematize what they know.
Within the task cycle, the Planning stage, where they prepare to ‘go public’ for
the Report, encourages learners to correct and improve their own language, and to
try out new words and phrases, striving for accuracy as well as fluency.
A more concentrated focus on largely pre-selected language forms happens in
the Form-Focused phase after the task cycle. These can be pre-planned because they
5 An Evolution of a Framework for TBLT: What Trainers … 79

consist of language features occurring in the texts and task transcripts used during
the task cycle. Analysis activities cast students into the role of ‘text investigators’;
during the consciousness-raising activities they are free to work as individuals at
their own pace; free to make their own discoveries which they will be able to apply
at some later time, when they are ready to, and when the need arises.
They are not being forced to work in lock-step, or concentrate on one single struc-
ture pre-selected by the book or the teacher, as in a PPP approach. They may of course
practise pronunciation of useful language items, and consolidate new language.

Handling Grammar

As Ellis reported in Chap. 4 (this volume), teachers are uncertain about how to handle
grammar in TBLT. A large proportion of the TBL Framework prioritizes meaning,
but as we have seen, there are points in the task framework where the possibilities for
language focus might occur. However a useful distinction between Language Focus
and Form Focus is clarified and summarized in the diagram below, adapted from
Willis and Willis (2007 p. 133) (Fig. 5.1).
Once students and teachers are used to a task-based approach and become aware
of the learning opportunities it offers, they develop both as learners and language
users, achieving greater fluency and confidence. It is, however, vitally important that
both learners and teachers alike understand the principles behind the approach, and
the rationale behind each component of the framework.

How Flexible Can This Framework Be?

Lesson Planning

The TBL ‘framework’ is not necessarily synonymous with ‘lesson’. With a task that
would benefit from independent learner preparation (e.g. web research, or reading a
text), the pre-task phase could be started at the end of a previous lesson, with learners
continuing to prepare at home. In the same way, the finalizing or rehearsing of the
Report itself could be continued for homework, or even written or audio-recorded by
the learner at home and then presented in the following lesson. This way of splitting
up the framework and encouraging learners to record themselves is especially useful
when teaching online.
80 J. Willis

Thinking about language

Language focus
Form focus
Learners think about language in the
context of a task-based activity. They In form focused work learners work on recognising or
help and correct one another or manipulating the forms of the language in a number of
consult an authority (grammar book, ways:
dictionary, their teacher) to help them
express their meanings more Consciousness-raising: Learners work with text to find:
effectively. They are likely to do this: ways of expressing specific meanings (e.g. ways of
giving permission; time phrases.)
At the priming stage when they phrases with specific words (e.g. learners might be
ask for the meanings of specific asked phrases with me to identify phrases with me
items. as a way of highlighting permission and obligation;
or phrases with prepositions as a way of
highlighting time phrases.
When they mine written language
words or phrases they think will be useful in the
in preparation for a coming task.
future
When they work together to
Recall: Learners work with familiar texts doing
prepare for a task.
grammaticisation, progressive deletion and gap-filling
exercises to oblige them to focus on grammatical words
When they work together to plan
and phrases.
a report for the whole class.
Extension: Teachers extend beyond the texts learners
When they are making a record of
have studied by giving grammatical explanation and
a task either by putting it in
gap-filling, multiple choice and other exercises with
writing or making an audio-
topics or situations not covered in the texts.
recording.
Correction: If used sparingly correction is useful to
motivate learners, to avoid fossilisation and to give
learners negative information which they cannot find in
the input.

Exam practice: Learners prepare for form focus exam

questions by setting and answering questions in the
appropriate format.

Fig. 5.1 Language focus and form focus

Report Stage

Some lessons—especially those based on reading texts or listening—may involve a

sequence of two or three mini-task cycles, each task supplying a different reading
goal, with only a brief report after each mini-task. Some tasks will not need a formal
reporting phase at all, because the subsequent task grows directly out of the first.
Other tasks, such as story-telling, where each pair or group has something quite
different, may naturally produce a lengthy reporting phase. With problem-solving
tasks, it is sufficient to hear only the groups that can offer different solutions. After
the report, a vote can be taken for the best story or solution.
5 An Evolution of a Framework for TBLT: What Trainers … 81

Adaptations to Meet Student Needs

Depending on the needs and backgrounds of students, the components of the frame-
work can be weighted differently. Students who already speak quite fluently, such
as those working in an English speaking country, may need a greater emphasis on
accuracy and analysis work, i.e. less time on task and more time for planning and
formal reporting, and more tasks requiring written outcomes. Recording their reports
on audio or video would give them a greater motivation to achieve clarity and accu-
racy. Conversely, students from a grammar-oriented background, used to writing
and reading but unused to using their English, may need a diet of speaking tasks,
initially with no reporting stage, or with the teacher reporting their results, to give
them confidence in speaking and a chance to develop their fluency.
With beginners, the actual task itself may be a ‘listen and do’ activity, requiring
only recognition of meaning, with no learner speaking, and with the teacher summing
up at a Report stage.
With ESP/LSP students who require a reading-only knowledge, the tasks set would
be based on a text in the target language and could be discussed and reported in L1.

Group and Pair Work

There can also be flexibility in the way students are grouped. With a task-based
approach, students of different levels can work together more easily, the weaker
ones can learn from the others and gain confidence from the support of the small
group. Sometimes, though, shy students feel less intimidated and contribute more if
asked to work together.
More ideas and lesson plans based on adaptations of this framework as well as
teachers’ own answers to common questions can be found in Willis and Willis (2007)
and at www.willis-elt.co.uk.

Is Task-Based Teaching Suitable for Novice Trainees?

I want now to go back to 1992, when I led a workshop on TBL for teachers and
trainers in Izmir, Turkey.
As a result of the workshop, one of the trainers agreed to experiment by intro-
ducing TBL on her Certificate Course for novice trainees (Willis, 2016). All sessions
were video-recorded on a single camera in a back corner of the room. After first
experiencing PPP and teaching a PPP lesson, the novice teachers read about the
TBL framework as described earlier in this chapter. Trainees were asked to identify
similarities and differences between the two approaches. This is what they said
82 J. Willis

The trainees’ initial comments, written after reading about TBL:

Similarities
• ‘TBL is like a sort of PPP upside down—the steps are there but in a different
order.’
• ‘Most of the teaching techniques are similar.’
• ‘There is attention to both accuracy and fluency.’
• ‘They both include a focus on language form and meaning.’

Differences
• ‘TBL doesn’t teach isolated chunks of language then attempt to put them back
into the “whole body” of language.’
• ‘TBL starts with the “whole body” of language—language comes out of what
learners know/can do/want to do, and out of the task.’
• ‘The skills are really integrated and include what other methods call “micro-skills”
as well as “the four skills”.’
• ‘There is a real need to communicate and to listen.’
• ‘TBL distinguishes between private communication (fluency-based) and public
communication (accuracy with fluency together).’
Trainees then experienced some TBL cycles for themselves—one based on
comparing pictures, one based on a short newspaper story. Finally, for Teaching
Practice they planned and shared the teaching of their own task-based lessons with
their TP class of basic elementary adult students.
Trainees’ subsequent comments (after teaching a ‘Spot the difference task using a
TBL framework)
• ‘Tasks are intrinsically interesting.’
• ‘You can do a lot with this approach.’
• ‘You never know what the students have in their heads—it’s amazing what comes
out, and you find they have a lot they can build on.’
• ‘Recordings of spontaneous spoken English—of people doing the same task—a
radical departure from most course books because they are genuinely authentic;
easy to understand because of natural repetition; students are motivated to listen
because they have just done the same task and they want to compare how they did
it.’
• ‘The language-focused work was a bit too analytical for beginners—a focus on
key phrases might have been better for them.’
• ‘You’re using what learners know and can do; much more learner-centred in a
genuine way.’
• ‘The students really talked a lot … and were very responsive and involved
throughout’ (despite trainees’ initial doubts.)
5 An Evolution of a Framework for TBLT: What Trainers … 83

The trainer said:

• ‘It went better than a PPP lesson would have gone at this stage.’ (Perhaps because
TBL rests on natural communicative behaviour, rather than the tightly controlled
teaching behaviour of PPP.)
• ‘Trainees found the language analysis component hardest and were not always
sure when to correct and feed in new language—but this was their first time.’
• ‘In spite of the hitches, which seemed largely due to trainees having to “unlearn”
PPP, the lesson flowed and the students loved it.’
• ‘The question now is—can we do without PPP altogether?’
I will come back to this question at the end of this chapter. In subsequent discus-
sion, the trainer and I agreed that untrained teachers find the TBL cycle a fairly easy
one to follow, since it progresses naturally from private to public use of language,
with a planning stage in between. And there is plenty of language data related to
the task (reading text, task recordings) to be explored and used for form-focused
study, so there is no need to think of examples to fit specific structures or patterns, or
invent contexts for isolated language items. Neither do novice teachers need to try to
teach complicated rules of sentence grammar that they may not feel confident with
themselves.
We also agreed that one of the biggest challenges for the teacher or tutor used
to a teacher-led PPP approach is to have the confidence to stand back and to let
learners do the actual task on their own (as they will have to in real life). We all know
that teaching does not necessarily result in learning, but sometimes it’s hard to stop
teaching and let learners learn.
I shall now jump forward 28 years to 2020.

The Continuing Need for More Training

As Ellis in Chap. 4 reported, one problem that impedes the wider uptake of TBLT in
the language teaching profession today is the lack of training. This view is corrob-
orated by East (2020) after a comparative study of two groups of newly trained
teachers in New Zealand in 2014 and 2018:
It is apparent that the challenges reside in upskilling and supporting practising teachers,
who need to become a stronger focus of dedicated and long-term professional develop-
ment opportunities that will introduce them to the innovation, and sustain them in its
implementation.

East here was talking about lack of In-service training, but there seems to be
a similar problem on short courses. In May 2020, in preparation for a one day
conference led by Neil Walker at the University of Central Lancashire (UK) for
trainers on Certificate courses, we devised a pre-conference questionnaire to explore
trainers’ attitudes to and use of TBLT. Over 60 trainers responded.
84 J. Willis

A majority (83%) were positive about TBLT, and many used tasks in their own
classes. Some typical comments follow:
• …it fits students’ needs more, in terms of global improvement of language that is
also practical.
• It avoids a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach …
• … it’s learning by doing (experiential learning) and it’s very motivating for
students (satisfaction in achieving an outcome).
• It makes use of a variety of skills and language practice and exposes the learners
to natural language use and real-life language experiences.
• It promotes more natural language acquisition.
However, when we asked how many sessions on TBLT they held on their certificate
course, the following figures came to light:
• 17% No sessions on TBLT
• 44% 1 session
• 25% 2 sessions
• 13% 3 or more.
Nearly, all courses gave priority to a default lesson framework that began with
a focus on form, such as PPP. TBLT, if treated at all, was simply one of several
‘alternative’ approaches. We know from experience that this kind of change involves
a major paradigm shift, and that one or even two sessions will be insufficient to
make a real difference. Of the 90 trainers attending the conference only six said they
worked on a course that was largely task-based in approach, though 24 said they
wished that they did so.
So why was there this discrepancy? Walker (personal communication) having
reviewed the questionnaire data commented thus:
It seems that trainers tend to quite like TBL – or most of them. The biggest gap between
TBL and their default choice was for the statement: “I would use TBL more if the course
books used in teaching practice used it”…
This points to the chicken and egg problem of publishers not commissioning TBL-based
books because teachers don’t want them, but not training up new teachers in a TBL framework
because course books aren’t geared towards TBL.
The other issue that jumped out was to do with emergent language. Respondents mostly said
that trainees struggle with emergent language for both TBL and their default framework.
You could argue this is why they choose frameworks that minimise the chances of having to
deal with emergent language.

So how can we help? In the short term, there are two immediate ways in which we
could help novice teachers on short courses. In the context of teaching practice, we
could help them to identify, adapt and ‘taskify’ activities in the texts books they do
have. The other is to offer regular language-focused tasks, exploring the language in
the texts and recordings used in their TP lessons, so they gain more insights into how
English works and more confidence in handling emergent language and ‘difficult’
questions.
5 An Evolution of a Framework for TBLT: What Trainers … 85

However, it would almost certainly not be sufficient just to cover these topics in
one-off sessions slotted into an already full course plan; this would be equivalent to
an additive PPP model of language teaching which is not conducive to effecting a
paradigm shift. A more holistic approach would be beneficial.
As suggested by Ellis earlier in this volume, and following the example of Van
de Branden (2006), the ideal would be to adopt a task-based approach to the whole
training course with task-based ‘input sessions’ for topics covered on Certificate
courses. Thus, trainees will experience TBLT for themselves, and once the framework
and the rationale are made explicit, they can go on to observe and analyse task-based
language lessons, to identify task-like activities in text books and to try out their own
tasks. In addition, the data used for task-based input sessions could also be used for
regular form-focused language awareness work. This is sometimes known as ‘loop
input’—where the medium is the message (Willis, 2020). Thus, both trainers and
teachers will gain deeper experience of TBL frameworks in action.

Current Challenges and Some Possible Solutions

To go back now to one of the questions posed in Turkey in 1992—could we do

without PPP altogether? Many entire schools and colleges have succeeded in making
the switch, e.g. Lopez (2004) and Moser (reported in Willis & Willis, 2007), and
many learners of all ages have benefited. Less successful are the contexts where
teachers have not truly grasped the rationale for TBL, where teachers and students
adhere to the security of a teacher-led presentation of grammar and pattern practice
before the task. Many still believe that learners ‘must be taught the correct forms first,
otherwise how can they do the task?’ regardless of the facts that natural interactions do
not repeatedly use the same patterns and that acquiring the grammar of structure and
orientation takes far longer than learning new words and phrases. An understanding
of the implications of relevant SLA research findings (e.g. Lightbown & Spada, 2006)
would also help, but many short training courses seem not to include any language
learning theory.
East (2020) sums up the current situation arguing that
TBLT remains in practice a contested endeavour. Positive experimental research findings
are not necessarily finding their way into classrooms, and practitioner-focused studies play
a crucial role in adding to our knowledge of what works and what does not work in authentic
contexts.

Long-standing adherence to the structural syllabus is another challenge. Most

practitioners agree there is a need to be accountable as far as linguistic coverage is
concerned, but a structural syllabus, especially when delivered as an additive ‘item-
by-item’ approach is not borne out by learning theories and does not fit easily with a
task-based syllabus. More importantly, a structural approach is essentially a grammar
of written English, and pays scant attention to word grammar, collocation and the
86 J. Willis

thousands of partially assembled phrases and formulaic expressions that abound in

spoken language that make it easier for learners to interact spontaneously in English.
The Cobuild project has shown that a lexical syllabus can be easier to integrate
naturally with a TBL approach. A syllabus of topics and tasks (selected with learners’
needs in mind), supplemented with related texts and task recordings, can form what
Willis (2003), and Willis and Willis (2007) call a ‘pedagogic corpus’. Examples
of high-frequency words in their typical uses and patterns will naturally abound in
this data. And these patterns can be the focus of subsequent consciousness-raising
activities in a Form-Focused phase. Useful topic vocabulary can be highlighted as
it occurs in typical phrases. The inclusion of these highest frequency words, their
common uses and patterns would more than adequately cover the patterns tradition-
ally included in a typical structural syllabus. It would in fact provide a far richer diet
of natural language abounding in useful lexical phrases that learners (in their role as
text investigators) love to identify.
A checklist of the most frequent 300 or so words with their meanings and patterns
can help materials writers ensure linguistic coverage of the language learners will
meet in real life. This process of syllabus design is covered in more detail in Willis and
Willis (2007, pp. 187–198) and summarized in this figure (Fig. 5.2).
But of course, as reported in Ellis (Chap. 4 this volume) and identified in the initial
Walker and Willis (2020) investigation, the biggest problem still remains the lack of
task-based text books. This seems mainly because of the unwillingness of publishers
to take on task-based courses; they are perceived as too risky. A few task-based books
have appeared recently for example Anderson and McCutcheon (2019) and Harris
and Leeming (2018), but the profession as a whole, from teachers upwards, needs
to push harder for change! Let us hope that the chapters in this book will help to
increase the understanding and uptake of TBLT.
5 An Evolution of a Framework for TBLT: What Trainers … 87

Identify Select appropriate

learner’s needs AND topics.
What do they want to do What do learners want
with the language? to read/write/talk about?

Design task sequences.

Select or create appropriate
texts (spoken and written).

TASK SYLLABUS

Check tasks and texts for level of

difficulty. Make adjustments
according to parameters of task
design (chapter 8) and order task
sequences to produce a task
Monitor
syllabus.
effectiveness of
activities in the
classroom and
refine and
reorder materials
LANGUAGE SYLLABUS where necessary

Analyse texts (pedagogic corpus)

for relevant language coverage
(grammar; vocabulary; phrases;
phonology; functional realisations)
to produce language syllabus.
Design activities to focus on form.

Fig. 5.2 Syllabus design procedures

Appendix 1: A Sample Form Focus Activity—Elementary

This activity is taken from an elementary course (Willis & Willis, 1988: 15) and
shows that Consciousness-raising activities can be used from the very early stages.
88 J. Willis

The activity follows on from two task cycles on the topic of ‘families’: a class
family survey (more men/boys than women/girls in your family?) and a task where
learners in pairs have been asked to draw the family tree of their partner, and then see
how many names they can remember. The same tasks were done by two pairs of fluent
speakers of English and audio-recorded. Learners listened to the recordings before
they did the tasks themselves. At the end of the task cycles, they studied the transcripts
of the language used by the fluent speakers. The recording transcripts were then
supplemented by a short written text about Danny and Jenny’s offices which learners
had read earlier. This particular form-focused exercise asks learners to investigate
why words in English end in s or ’s. But this transcript could also be used to highlight
features of spontaneous spoken English.
Form Focus - Words ending in s or ’s
Look at the transcripts below of David and Bridget talking about their families
(Sects. 26b and 19). How many words are there ending in s or ’s?
Does the s or ’s always mean the same?
Some words always end in s, for example, his. What about this one?
I’ve got one brother and he’s got two daughters
Put the words ending in s or ’s into 4 or 5 categories

Bridget’s family
DF: If we look at, erm, your mother Sheila. Has she got any brothers and sisters?
BG: Yes, she’s got one sister
DF: No brothers?
BG: No
DF: Okay. What about your father?
BG: He’s got three sisters
DF: Oh, and no brothers?
BG: No

David’s family
BG: Now it’s my turn. Your father’s called John? and your mother’s called Pat?
DF: That’s right
BG: and your brother’s married—to … Jane?
DF: Jane. Good
BG: Jane. And they’ve got two daughters called … Emma and Sarah.
Now look at the text in Sect. 24. Find thirteen more words that end in s and
put them into categories
Danny and Jenny
Read about Danny and Jenny. Say which picture is Danny’s office and which is
Jenny’s office
5 An Evolution of a Framework for TBLT: What Trainers … 89

Danny lives in London. He’s self-employed. He’s got a studio office in Holborn
in Central London, where he works with his brother.
They have a design agency. ‘We do leaflets, brochures, … that sort of thing. So
we are both self-employed, both me and my brother.’
They also have a ‘rep’, somebody who goes out and finds more work for them.
Jenny is also self-employed. She’s an editor and writer. She works for a lot of
different companies.
Jenny has a flat in North London and she works from home: ‘I’ve got a sort of
office in my flat…

Commentary
The aim of these exercises is to draw learners’ attention to the wide variety of mean-
ings of the final s in English, so that they listen for it and learn to recognize its
various meanings and uses. The final s is the targeted feature isolated for study here,
but they could also be asked to find 5 or 6 phrases with the word got, classify them
and practise saying them out loud.
While reading through the data, learners may also pick up insights into the nature
of spontaneous spoken English, for example the role of words like Yes, No, Okay,
Oh. They might notice verb-less questions like No brothers? other useful phrases
like What about your …?, Now it’s my turn and that sort of thing, a useful phrase if
you want to be vague or if you can’t think of what else to say. They could also be
asked to choose 3 phrases they like, to share with the class.
Note that by the time they study these features of spoken language being used in
a communicative situation by fluent speakers, learners will already have carried out
tasks in similar communicative situations and tried to express similar meanings them-
selves. Also note that the data for this exercise is drawn from texts that learners have
already heard and processed for meaning, at the Pre-task stage, so they are familiar
with the contexts and will be more able to focus attention on specific features of the
language itself. Thus, the learner has taken on the role of researcher, investigating
the targeted features (words ending in s, the word got) as they naturally occur in the
linguistic data provided by the task recordings and short texts.

Appendix 2: A Sample Form-Focused Activity for Beginner

Learners

International English Words This activity is taken from a beginners’ course (Willis,
1990). Four fluent speakers were recorded doing this task: Together write a list of
English words that are known internationally. (Time limit: 2 min). In the classroom,
the teacher starts the first lesson brainstorming with the class some words they might
already know, like football, goal and writes them on the board. They then listen to
the recording to identify the international words listed by the fluent speakers.
90 J. Willis

Form Focus
Listen to the recording of the task again and raise your hand when you hear an
international word.
Listen again and identify 6 questions. Then read the transcript and underline the
questions. Choose three to practise saying to your partner.
Find three ways of meaning Yes and two ways of meaning No.
Can you find 10 phrases with the word that and classify them?

References

Anderson, N., & McCutcheon, N. (2019). DELTA Publishing.

Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford University Press.
Bilborough, N. (2019). Personal communication, reporting on The Hands Up Project. https://han
dsupproject.org/
Cox, D. (2005). Can we predict language items for open tasks? In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.),
Teachers exploring tasks in ELT (pp. 171–185). Palgrave MacMillan.
Crookes, G., & Gass, S. (Eds.). (1993). Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and
practice. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
East, M. (2020). What do beginning teachers make of task-based language teaching? A comparative
re-production of East (2014). Language Teaching, 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1017/S02614448190
0048X
Edwards, C., & Willis, J. Eds. (2005). Teachers exploring tasks in english language teaching.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford University Press.
Essig, W. (2005). Storytelling: Effects of planning, repetition and context. In C. Edwards & J. Willis
(Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in ELT (pp. 201–213). Palgrave MacMillan.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324.
5 An Evolution of a Framework for TBLT: What Trainers … 91

Harris, J., & Leeming, P. (2018). On Task. ABAX ELT publishers.

Hobbs, J. (2010). Practical steps towards task-based teaching. In JALT 2010: 36th Annual Inter-
national Conference on Language Teaching and Learning & Educational Materials Expo, Aichi
Industry and Labor Center, Nagoya, 19–22 November 2010. http://jalt-publications.org/procee
dings/articles/1118-practical-steps-towards-task-based-teaching
Hunston, S., & Frances, G. (2000). Pattern grammar. A corpus-driven approach to the lexical
grammar of English. Benjamins new on-line resource at https://grammar.collinsdictionary.com/
grammar-pattern
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (Oxford handbooks for language
teachers).
Long, M. H. (2014). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching (1st ed.).
Wiley-Blackwell.
Lopez, J. (2004). Introducing task-based instruction in Brazil: Learning how to leap the hurdles.
In Leaver & Willis (Eds.), Task-based instruction in foreign language education. Georgetown
University Press.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press.
Prabhu, N. S. (Author), & Durairajan, G. (Ed.). (2019) Perceptions of language pedagogy. Orient
Blackswan.
Ribe, R. (1997). Tramas creativas y aprendizaje de lenguas: prototipos de tareas de tecera
generacion. Universitat de Barcelona.
Ribe, R., & Vidal, N. (1993). Project work step by step. Heinemann.
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. M., & Renouf, A. (1988). A lexical syllabus for language learning. In R. Carter & M.
Mccarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching. Longman.
Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis &
D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching. Heinemann.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language teaching. OUP.
Skehan, P. (2002). A non-marginal role for tasks. ELT Journal, 56(3), 289–295.
Skehan, P. (2003) Tasks in L2 learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1–14.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and
complexity in task-based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185–211.
Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice.
Cambridge University Press.
Walker, N. (2020, research in progress). Report of questionnaire results prior to UCLAN supersize
your CERT conference May 2020 personal communication.
Walker, N. & Willis, J. (2020, research in progress). Task-based language learning on TEFL courses
for novice teachers.
Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus Collins COBUILD. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Docume
nts/college-artslaw/cels/lexicalsyllabus/lexsch6.pdf
Willis, J. (1990). Collins COBUILD english course first lessons. Collins ELT.
Willis, D. (2003). Rules, patterns and words: Grammar and lexis in English language teaching.
Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1 available at http://www.finchpark.com/courses/tkt/
Unit_02/grammar-lexis-in-elt.pdf
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (1988). Collins cobuild english course level 1. Collins ELT.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2006). Consciousness-raising activities in TBL. http://www.willis-elt.co.
uk/articles/
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford University Press.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2010). Six propositions in search of a methodology: Applying linguistics to
task-based language teaching. In S. Hunston & D. Oakey (Eds.), Introducing applied linguistics:
Concepts and skills. Routledge.
92 J. Willis

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. ebook edition 2012. https://www.intrinsic
books.co.uk/titles/framework.html
Willis, J. (2009). The TBL framework: The task cycle. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J.
Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching—A reader. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Willis, J. (2016). A flexible framework for task-based learning. https://www.academia.edu/305
03745/A_flexible_framework_for_task-bas
Woodward, T. (1996). Paradigm shift and the ELT profession. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.),
Challenge and change in language teaching. Heinemann Macmillan.