TBLT & CBI-CLIL

Teresa Navés
tnaves@ub.edu
www.ub.edu/GRAL/Naves
 TBLT advocates
1. Prabhu
2. Nunan
3. Long
4. Skehan
5. Ellis
6. Ribé
7. Willis & Willis
8. Norris
9. Van den Branden
In task-based learning, the tasks are central to
the learning activity. Originally developed by N
Prabhu in Bangladore, southern India, it is
based on the belief that students may learn
more effectively when their minds are
focused on the task, rather than on the
language they are using.

Source: http://www.pearsonlongman.com/teaching-tips/task-based-learning.html
 Task
“… by ‘task’ is meant the hundred and one
things people do in everyday life, at work,
at play, and in between. ‘Tasks’ are the
things people will tell you they do if you
ask them and they are not applied
linguists” (Long, 1985: 89)
 Task
"Tasks are always activities where the target
language is used by the learner for a
communicative purpose (goal) in order to
achieve an outcome" (Willis, 1996: 23).
 Task
A task is an activity in which:
- meaning is primary
- there is some communication problem to solve
- there is some sort of relationship to comparable real-
world activities
- task completion has some priority
- the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome"
(Skehan 1998: 95).

"Bounded classroom activities in which learners use

language communicatively to achieve an outcome, with
the overall purpose of learning language"
(Bygate 1999: 186).
 Task
"A task is an activity which requires learners to
use language, with emphasis on meaning, to
attain an objective"
(Bygate, Skehan, and Swain 2001: 11).
 “A task-driven methodology thus keeps
an appropriate focus on rhetorical action
and communicative effectiveness,
however much the means to those
communicative ends may involve, in
various ways and to variable extent, the
analysis and discussion of texts and
situation, and the teaching and practice
of form.” (Swales, 1990: 72)

Source: Norris
www2.hawaii.edu/.../TBLT%20intro%20presentation%20for%20class.ppt
 Task vs. Exercise
Exercise Task
Orientation Linguistic skills viewed as pre- Linguistic skills are developed
requisite for learning through engaging in
communicative abilities. communicative activity.
Focus Linguistic form and semantic Propositional content and
meaning (‘focus on form’) pragmatic communicative
meaning (‘focus on meaning’)
Goal Manifestation of codes Achievement of a
knowledge. communicative goal.
Outcome-evaluation Performance evaluated in Performance evaluated in
terms of conformity to the terms of whether the
code. communicative goal has been
achieved.
Real-world relationship Internalization of linguistic skills There is a direct and obvious
serves as an investment for relationship between the
future use. activity that arises from the
task and natural communicative
activity.

Source: http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/yousif/Course%20Content%20CI582/Session%204.ppt
Target tasks and pedagogic tasks
• Pedagogic tasks as increasingly complex
approximations of target tasks (Long,
1996; Long and Norris, 2000)
• Example: Following street directions
– Listen to fragments of elaborated descriptions
while tracing them on a very simple 2-D map.
– Virtual reality map task. Using video from the
target location and audio of the target
discourse, complete a simulation of the target
task.
(Long, 2007: 129)

Source:
Van den Branden http://www.hawaii.edu/tblt2007/PP/Plenaries/van%20den%20Branden.ppt
 Target tasks and pedagogic tasks
• Tasks should result in a kind of language
use that resembles that in the outside world
(Ellis, 2003)
– Work with three other students. You are on a
ship that is sinking. You have to swim to a
nearby island. You have a waterproof container,
but can only carry 20 kilos of items in it. Decide
which of the following items you will take
(Remember, you can’t take more than 20 kilos
with you)
Source:
Van den Branden http://www.hawaii.edu/tblt2007/PP/Plenaries/van%20den%20Branden.ppt
Target tasks and pedagogic tasks
• Tasks should give rise to a number of
interactional and cognitive processes, believed
to enhance language learning
– Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996: 451-452):
”... negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation
work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or
the more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition
because it connects input, internal learner capacities,
particularly selective attention, and output in productive
ways”
---- Jigsaw tasks/Information gap tasks
Source:
Van den Branden http://www.hawaii.edu/tblt2007/PP/Plenaries/van%20den%20Branden.ppt
 Methodological principles for TBLT
1 Use tasks, not texts, as the unit of analysis
2 Promote learning by doing
3 Elaborate input
4 Provide rich input
5 Encourage inductive learning
6 Focus on form
7 Provide negative feedback
8 Respect learner syllabuses/develop-mental processes
9 Promote collaborative learning
10 Individualize instruction
(Doughty and Long, 2003)
Source:
Van den Branden http://www.hawaii.edu/tblt2007/PP/Plenaries/van%20den%20Branden.ppt
 WHY TBLT?
• Communicative Activities and Meaningful
language use (Jeon & Hahn, 2006; Nunan,
2004)
• Student-centered / autonomy (Flinch, 2005)
• “Learning by doing”, active (Lingley, 2006;
Nunan, 2004)
• Collaboration (Ellis, 2003; Cobb & Lovick, 2007)
• Authentic – real life and academia (Nunan, 2006;
Shih, 1992)

Source: Aviva Soesman

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/events/tblt2009/presentations/Soesman/AvivaSoesman.ppt
 WHY TBLT?
• Breaks Routine (Cobb & Lovick, 2007)
• Cognitive investment/mental effort = deeper
language processing = long-term retention
(Cobb & Lovick, 2007)
• Functional reading, read for clear purpose
(Bogaert, 2005)
Therefore:
• Student engagement and increased
motivation (e.g. Cobb & Lovick, 2007; Nunan,
2004; Willis, 1996)
Source: Aviva Soesman
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/events/tblt2009/presentations/Soesman/AvivaSoesman.ppt
 What is a task?
1. A task involves a primary focus on
meaning?.
2. A task has some kind of ‘gap’.
3. The participants choose the linguistic
resources needed to complete the task.
4. A task has a clearly defined outcome.

Adapted from Ellis from

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Powerpoint/Task-based-language-teaching.ppt
 Why do TBLT?
1. Tasks can be easily related to students’ real-life
language needs (i.e. ‘pedagogic tasks’ can be
designed to reflect ‘target tasks’).
2. Tasks create contexts that facilitate second
language acquisition (i.e. an L2 is best learned
through communicating).
3. Tasks create opportunities for focusing on form.
4. Students are more likely to develop intrinsic
motivation in a task-based approach.
5. A task-based approach enables teachers to see
if students are developing the ability to
communicate in an L2.
Adapted from Ellis from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Powerpoint/Task-based-language-teaching.ppt
 CLIL and TBL together:
How can tasks help?
• There is a rich literature on TBL which can be
applied to the problems of CLIL .

• Tasks have to be about something and

Content can provide the topics.

• Content has be broken down into activities

that learners can engage with, and these fit
our definition of a Task.
Source: Willis and Willis at http://www.willis-
elt.co.uk/documents/JaneArabiaplenary12March09.ppt
 Characteristics of effective
tasks
• have a primary focus on meaning

• have a clear outcome for learners to achieve

• relate as far as possible to real world activities

• engage learners’ interest

Source: Willis and Willis at http://www.willis-

elt.co.uk/documents/JaneArabiaplenary12March09.ppt
 First generation tasks
• The main aim of first generation tasks is to
develop students’ communicative ability in
a specific type of situation or area of
language. The task is often structured
around a particular set of functions or a
simple problem.
(Ribe & Vidal, 1993)
 Second generation tasks
• The tasks in the second category pose
challenges of a broader nature. They aim at
developing not only communicative skills but
also general cognitive strategies of handling
and organizing information, such as analysing
what information is needed in order to
complete the task, collecting
information,selecting relevant data…
(Ribe & Vidal, 1993)
 Third generation tasks
• With third generation tasks, the scope widens
further. In addition to the communicative and
cognitive strategies, they also aim to develop the
personality of students through the experience of
learning a foreign language. They go further than
the previous tasks in aiming to fulfill wider
educational objectives, such as enhancing
motivation and awareness, developing creativity
and interpersonal skills…
(Ribe & Vidal, 1993)
 Pre-task priming and
preparation
• can help make content input more
comprehensible.
It requires:
prior analysis of the linguistic and
cognitive demands
• a series of mini- tasks, often teacher-
led
• lots of visual support
Source: Willis and Willis at http://www.willis-
elt.co.uk/documents/JaneArabiaplenary12March09.ppt
 Options for the Pre-Task
Phase
The purpose of the pre-task phase is to
prepare students to perform the task in
ways that will promote acquisition.
Three approaches:
- motivational
- focus on cognitive demands
- focus on linguistic demands

Adapted from Ellis from

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Powerpoint/Task-based-language-teaching.ppt
 Theoretical rationale for focus on
form
• To acquire the ability to use new linguistic forms communicatively,
learners need the opportunity to engage in meaning-focused
language use.
• However, such opportunity will only guarantee full acquisition of
the new linguistic forms if learners also have the opportunity to
attend to form while engaged in meaning-focused language use.
• Given that learners have a limited capacity to process the second
language (L2) and have difficulty in simultaneously attending to
meaning and form they will prioritize meaning over form when
performing a communicative activity (VanPatten 1990).
• For this reason, it is necessary to find ways of drawing learners’
attention to form during a communicative activity. As Doughty
(2001) notes ‘the factor that distinguishes focus-on-form from
other pedagogical approaches is the requirement that focus-on-
form involves learners briefly and perhaps simultaneously
attending to form, meaning and use during one cognitive event’
(p. 211).
Adapted from Ellis from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Powerpoint/Task-based-language-teaching.ppt
 Pica’s research
Pica (2002) examined the extent to which learners and their
teachers modified the interaction that arose in content-based
instruction in order to attend to developmentally difficult form-
meaning relationships (for example, English articles) - Pica
reported very little attention to form.

She commented ‘one of the most striking findings of the study was
that the majority of student non-target utterances went unaddressed
in any way’ (p. 9). One reason for this was that the students’
utterances, although often ungrammatical, did not require any
adjustment in order to be understood.

In other words, the interesting and meaningful content that

comprised these lessons drew learners’ attention from the need to
attend to form.

Adapted from Ellis from

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Powerpoint/Task-based-language-teaching.ppt
 Addressing the problem
Three ways:
1. Pica (2005) suggested that one way of
addressing this is to develop focused tasks
(especially information-gap tasks) that direct
learners’ attention to form.
2. Negotiation of form – i.e. teachers didactically
address form even though no communication
breakdown has occurred.
3. Reviewing the linguistic problems learners
experienced in the post-task phase of the lesson.
Adapted from Ellis from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Powerpoint/Task-based-language-teaching.ppt
 Pedagogical Solutions
problems
1. Students lack Devise activities that
proficiency to develop ability to
communicate in the communicate
L2 gradually.
2. Students Use small group
unwilling to speak work; allow planning
English in class. time; learner training
3. Students develop Select tasks that
pidginized language demand fully
system grammaticalized
language
Adapted from Ellis from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Powerpoint/Task-based-language-teaching.ppt
 Educational Solutions
problems
1. Emphasis on Review philosophy
‘knowledge’ learning of education.
2. Examination Develop new more
system communicative
exams
3. Large classes Use small group
work; develop tasks
suited to large
classes.

Adapted from Ellis from

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Powerpoint/Task-based-language-teaching.ppt
 Advantages of task-based
teaching
1. Task-based teaching offers the
opportunity for ‘natural’ learning inside
the classroom.
2. It emphasizes meaning over form but can
also cater for learning form.
3. It is intrinsically motivating.
4. It is compatible with a learner-centred
educational philosophy.
5. It can be used alongside a more
traditional approach.
Adapted from Ellis from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Powerpoint/Task-based-language-teaching.ppt
 Beliefs vs. Mainstream Research
1. The age factor: The sooner the better 
(García-Mayo & García Lecumberri, 2003; Muñoz, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010; Navés 2006;
Celaya & Navés, 2008))
2. Study abroad (SA). 
(Pérez-Vidal, 2001, 2009. But  Llanes & Muñoz, 2009)
3. CLIL maybe  but the evidence comes from
– Short-term studies vs Long-term studies. Statistically significant
differences vs. Relevant educational gains. (Navés, 2010)
– Quantitative vs Qualitative studies (Escobar, 2009; Whittaker, 2010)
– Cross-sectional studies vs. Longitudinal studies (See SLA-CLIL
project in Victori et al., forthcoming)
– Linguistic-oriented studies vs Content-oriented and CLIL-oriented
studies
– Product-oriented vs Process Oriented studies
– Comparison of existing curricula vs. finely-grained studies: The
control of the variables: amount of instruction, type of school, etc.
(García-Mayo, 2010; Muñoz and Navés, 2007; Navés, 2010)
(See CLIL-SLA Project in Victori & Navés and Victori et al.,
forthcoming)
 CLIL
• This approach involves learning subjects such as
history, geography and others, through an
additional language.
(Marsh, 2000)

• Content and Language Integrated Learning

(CLIL) is a general expression used to refer to
any teaching of non-language subject through the
medium of a second or foreign language (L2).
(Pavesi, 2001)
 AICLE
Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos
Curriculares y Lenguas Extranjeras
implica estudiar asignaturas como historia
o ciencias naturales en una lengua distinta
de la propia. AICLE resulta muy
beneficioso tanto para el aprendizaje de
otras lenguas (francés, inglés, ...) como
para las asignaturas impartidas en dichas
lenguas.
(Navés & Muñoz, 2000)
 Definitions
• The subject matter or part of the
subject matter is taught via a foreign
language with a two-fold objective:
the learning of those contents and the
simultaneous learning of a foreign
language (Marsh, 1999:27)
• CLIL methodology provides plenty of
real and meaningful input to learners
and raises their overall proficiency in
the target language (Coyle, 2002:258).
 The best way to learn an L2:
Teaching subject matter in the
L2
• Using the L2 to teach subject matter
is more effective than teaching the
language directly, treating the L2 itself
as the subject matter (Krashen, 1982).
• Teaching subject matter in a second
language is the best possible way to
encourage second language
acquisition. (Spada and Lightbown,
2002)
 CLAIMS: CLIL > EFL
• CLIL instruction is more
successful than traditional form-
focused EFL learning (Piske,
2008, Do Coyle, 2009).
• CLIL methodology provides plenty
of real and meaningful input to
learners and raises their overall
proficiency in the target
language.(Coyle, 2002 p.258).
 SLA foundations of
CLIL
1. The transferabilty of skills (Cummins, 1991)
2. BISC vs CALP (Cummins, 1979, 2000;
Collier, 1987; 1989)
3. The exposure factor. To increase SL and FL
contact hours (Muñoz, 2007; Cenoz, 2003;
De Keyser, 2001)
4. The quality of the input. Meaningful learning
(Krashen, 1997)
5. Focus on Form (Long 1997; Doughty, 2001;
Ellis, 2005)
 SLA foundations of
CLIL
• CLIL promotes negotiation of meaning,
through interaction (Lightbown and Spada,
1993; Long, 1983).
• Comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985), is
a necessary but not a suffcient condition.
• Cognitively demanding but context-
embbeded (Cummins, 1991) Learners also
need an focus on relevant and contextually
appropriate language forms to support
content learning (Lyster, 1987; Met, 1991)
 SLA foundations of
CLIL
1. Creates conditions for naturalistic language
learning
2. Provides a purpose for language use in the
classroom
3. Has a positive effect on language learning by
putting the emphasis on meaning rather than form
and
4. Drastically increases the amount of exposure to
the target language

(Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2007; De Graaf

et al. 2007; Muñoz, 2007; Muñoz & Navés, 2007; Navés
and Victori, 2010, Navés, in press).
 CLIL benefits for Content
from Llinares (2009)
• Learners are more successful and more motivated than
those in traditional content subject classrooms (Wolff, 2004)

• Learners look at content from a different and broader

perspective when it is taught in another language (Multi-
perspectivity) (Wolff, 2004)

• Learners develop more accurate academic concepts

when another language is involved (Lamsfuss-Schenk,
2002)

• In CLIL content subject related intercultural learning takes

place (Christ, 2000)
 But…
• Not all content-based instruction
results in good language learning
(Swain, 1988)

• CLIL provides some of the necessary

conditions for good effective
language learning to take place but is
not a guarantee of success (de Graaf et
al. 2007; Muñoz, 2007; Navés in press)
 The most successful language
learning programmes: Canadian
Immersion
Canadian Immersion Programmes are by
far the most highly acclaimed language
learning programmes.
SLA researchers, teachers and parents fully
agree that the immersion programmes in
Canada have been extremely efficient
and successful.
(Swain, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1982).
(See Navés, 2009, 2010)
Limitations to L2 learning in immersion:
more focus on form/s needed
• However, the question of whether immersion,
especially ‘early’ immersion, is the best model
for students in all sociocultural and educational
settings has not been satisfactorily answered.
Some researchers have found that there are
limitations to L2 learning through subject
matter teaching alone and have suggested that
more direct L2 instruction needs to
complement the subject matter teaching
(Harley, 1989; Lyster, 1994; Swain, 1988).

Source: Spada and Lightbown (2002)

Limitations (2) complex subject matter
• In addition, some educators and
researchers have expressed concern
about how well students can cope with
complex subject matter taught in a
language they do not yet know well
(Cummins & Swain, 1986).

Source: Spada and Lightbown (2002)

 Short-term statistical significant
differences versus long-term relevant
education gains.

Lindholm-Leary (2007) ELLs’ Long-term Achievement on

Standardized Tests in English Reading Compared Across Six
Program Models
 Characteristics of Successful CLIL
Programmes (Navés, 2002, 2009)

(1) Respect and support for the learner’s

L1 language and culture
(2) Extremely competent bilingual
teachers
(3) Mainstream (not pull-out) optional
courses
(4) Long-term, stable programmes
(5) Parents’ support for the programme
 Characteristics of Successful CLIL
Programmes (Naves, 2002, 2009)
6. Joint effort of all parties. Cooperation
and leadership of educational
authorities, administrators and teachers
7. Dually qualified teachers (in content
and language)
8. High expectations and standards
9. Availability of quality CLIL teaching
materials
10. Properly implemented CLIL
methodology.
 Empirical Research
CLIL>EFL
• Writing Performance:
– Ackerl (2006) Carrilero(2009);
– Huttner et al (2006) Lasagabaster (2008)
– Loranc-Paszylk(2009) Navés and Victori (2010)
– Navés (2010) Miret (2009)
– Miret & Navés (in preparation)
– Vallbona & Victori (in preparation)
• English Proficiency :
– Admiraal et al.(2006) Jiménez et al.(2006)
– Kasper (1997) Lasagabaster (2008)
– Navés and Victori (2010) Vallbona (2009)
– Pérez-Vidal (2010) Lorenzo et al. (2009, 2010)
– Ruiz de Zarobe & Jiménez Catalán (2009)
– Villarreal Olaizola & García Mayo (2009)
– García Mayo & Villarreal Olaizola (2011)
 CHALLENGES. Commonalities of
Successful CLIL Programmes (Navés,
2009, 2002)
(1) Respect and support for the learner’s L1
language and culture 
(2) Extremely competent bilingual teachers
i.e. teachers fully proficient in the
language of instruction and familiar with
one of the learners’ home languages 
(3) Mainstream (not pull-out) optional
courses 
(4) Long-term, stable programmes   
(5) Parents’ support for the programme; 
 CHALLENGES: Commonalities of
Successful CLIL Programmes (Naves,
2009, 2002)
6. Joint effort of all parties. Cooperation
and leadership of educational authorities,
administrators and teachers 
7. Dually qualified teachers (in content
and language) 
8. High expectations  and standards 
9. Availability of quality CLIL teaching
materials  
10. Properly implemented CLIL methodology

 Need to justify CLIL?
Beliefs and prejudices
The defensive attitude that can be inferred
from researchers’ need to justify, time and
time again, the rationale and benefits of
integrating language and subject content
rather than further investigating the
commonalities of efficient CLIL programmes
may have to do with pressure from
(a) folk beliefs and prejudices against
bilingualism and multilingualism and
(b) political interests. (Navés, 2011)
 Why CBI- CLIL?
• Removes “arbitrary distinction” (Brinton, 2007: 17)
• Language learning more authentic - language in
context and used for communicating meaning =real
world (e.g., Garner & Borg, 2005; Pally, 2000)
• Added Knowledge (Stoller, 2002; Wesche,1993);
“Two-for-one” (Wesche & Skehan, 2002: 221)
• Therefore: Motivation / Engagement (Nunan, 2004)
• Vocabulary reinforcement (Shih, 1992; Murphy &
Stoller, 2001)
• Schemata (Pally, 2000)

Source: Aviva Soesman

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/events/tblt2009/presentations/Soesman/AvivaSoesman.ppt
 CBI in EAP: WHY?
• Bridges Gap between EFL and other courses
– Simulation of University settings – authentic /
relevant (Stoller, 2004; Wesche & Skehan, 2002)
– Simulation of actual subject matter - motivating/
relevant
– Variety of similar subject matter = better
preparation for needed skills (Shih, 1992;
Kirschner & Wexler, 2002; Garner & Borg, 2005)
“The most educationally appropriate approach”
for EAP (Garner & Borg, 2005: 120)

Source: Aviva Soesman

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/events/tblt2009/presentations/Soesman/AvivaSoesman.ppt
 CBI and TBLT
Traditional CBI and TBLT
Focus on discrete Focus on
language and acquiring,
reading synthesizing
comprehension and applying
skills knowledge

Linguistic Academic Literacy

Knowledge
Source: Aviva Soesman
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/events/tblt2009/presentations/Soesman/AvivaSoesman.ppt
 References
• Berben, M., Van den Branden, K., & Van Gorp, K. (2007). “We’ll see what happens.”
Tasks on paper and tasks in a multilingual classroom. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van
Gorp & M. Verhelst (Eds.), Tasks in Action. Task-based language education from a
classroom-based perspective (pp. 32-67). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
• Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what
language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81-109.
• De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Entwhistle, N., & Van Merriënboer, J. (eds.) (2003).
Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions.
Oxford: Pergamon.
• De Fraine, B., J. Van Damme, & P. Onghena, (2002). Accountability of schools and
teachers: what should be taken into account? In: European Educational Research
Journal, 1. 403-428.
• DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition
and second language instruction (pp. 125-51). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinson
(ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning (pp. 137-158).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Source:
Van den Branden http://www.hawaii.edu/tblt2007/PP/Plenaries/van%20den%20Branden.ppt
 References
• Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance
foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 50-80.
• Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
• Korthagen, F. (1993). Het logboek als middel om reflectie door a.s. leraren te
bevorderen. VELON Tijdschrift, 15, 27-34
• Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based
language teaching. In K. Hylstenstam & M. Pienemann (eds.), Modelling and
assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• Long, M. (1996), The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition, in W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Language Acquisition.
Vol. 2: Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
• Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Long, M., & Norris, J. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In M. Byram
(ed.), Encyclopedia of language teaching (pp. 597-603). London: Routledge.

Source:
Van den Branden http://www.hawaii.edu/tblt2007/PP/Plenaries/van%20den%20Branden.ppt
 References
• Robinson, P. (ed.) (2001). Cognition and second language instruction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schmidt, R. (1998). The centrality of attention in SLA. In J. Brown (ed.),
University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 16, 1-34. Honolulu: University
of Hawai’i.
• Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
• Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of
comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S.
Gass & C. Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-
256). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
• Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In:
G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics:
Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
125-144.
• Van den Branden, K. (2006). Task-based language teaching: from theory to
practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Source:
Van den Branden http://www.hawaii.edu/tblt2007/PP/Plenaries/van%20den%20Branden.ppt
 References
Bogaert, N. (2005, September). A task-based route to Academic Literacy. Paper presented at the International
Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching. Leuven, Belgium.

Brinton, D. M. (2007, June). Content-Based Instruction: Reflecting on its Applicability to the Teaching of Korean.
Paper presented at the12th Annual Conference American Association of Teachers of Korean. Chicago, Illinois.

Cobb, M. and Lovick, N. (2007, September). The Concept of Foreign Language Task, Misconceptions and
Benefits in Implementing Task-based Instruction. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Task-
Based Language Teaching. Hawaii.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Flinch, A. E. (2005). The postmodern language teacher: The future of task-based teaching. Unpublished
Document. Retrieved October 2008 from http://www.tblt.org/download/finch_handout.doc.
 
Garner, M. & Borg, E. (2005). An ecological perspective on content-based instruction. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 4, 119-134.
 
Jeon, I. & Hahn, J. (2006). Exploring EFL Teachers' Perceptions of Task-Based Language Teaching: A Case
Study of Korean Secondary School Classroom Practice. Asian EFL Journal, 8 (1). Retrieved October 2008 from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_06_ijj.php

Source: Aviva Soesman

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/events/tblt2009/presentations/Soesman/AvivaSoesman.ppt