Taking communication to task – again: what difference does a decade make?

Task‐Based Instruction for Autonomy: Connections With Contexts of Practice, Conceptions of Teaching, and Professional Development Strategies

“…The contingent nature of language (teacher) education is highlighted by the study, which accounts for TBLT as a subtask of inquiry‐based, autonomy‐oriented projects developed within a practicum model grounded on a view of language teaching and teacher education as potentially empowering processes. The study suggests that weak TBLT is feasible in the school context as indicated by recent research reviews (Bygate, ; East, ), but it further suggests that its potential for autonomy requires a conceptual framework that goes beyond the defence of a communicative approach and integrates the development of learner and teacher autonomy through inquiry‐based teaching.…”

“…Learners typically move from language experience to language analysis and practice (Willis, ), and focus on form may occur during or after communicative tasks in planned or incidental ways depending on whether it involves focused or unfocused tasks, the former requiring the use of specific linguistic features (Ellis, ; Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, ). A weak interpretation of TBLT, on the other hand, puts more emphasis on language instruction in pretask/posttask phases, not necessarily through communicative tasks, and it usually involves enabling tasks focused on thematic and language contents, even though a major concern with authentic communication in the task phase prevails (East, ; Estaire & Zanón, ). This does not imply a return to the presentation‐practice‐production framework of weak CLT, in which preselected discrete language items are taught and then practised in controlled to free activities, because “the principal emphasis (the task stage) is on meaningful communication” (East, , p. 16).…”

“…A weak interpretation of TBLT, on the other hand, puts more emphasis on language instruction in pretask/posttask phases, not necessarily through communicative tasks, and it usually involves enabling tasks focused on thematic and language contents, even though a major concern with authentic communication in the task phase prevails (East, ; Estaire & Zanón, ). This does not imply a return to the presentation‐practice‐production framework of weak CLT, in which preselected discrete language items are taught and then practised in controlled to free activities, because “the principal emphasis (the task stage) is on meaningful communication” (East, , p. 16).…”

“…Theoretical and empirical studies regarding the development of TBLT in schools have emphasised the need to find a balance between meaning‐based and form‐focused activities, to structure language proficiency development, and to adjust the degree of teacher‐directedness and language control to students’ proficiency, maturity, and autonomy (see Bruton, ; Carless, , ; East, , , ; Klapper, ; Plews & Zhao, ). East (, p. 15) argues that, from the teachers’ perspective, TBLT “needs to be ‘eclectic and hybrid,’ and that this is not necessarily seen as irreconcilable with naming this as a task‐based approach which frequently makes tasks the central component of lessons.” These views are largely in tune with the perspective conveyed by the Council of Europe () in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, where the proposal for an action‐oriented approach encompasses a balanced development of accuracy and fluency, involving language assistance as a condition for successful task completion. This is also the perspective adopted in the ITE programme where the study reported below took place.…”

Communication is key: A study of the development of communication key skills in China

“…This article explores the impact of what they studied, its potential significance for employability and how it might affect future development, socially and politically. It is, however, acknowledged that the acquisition of communication skills can be affected by students’ prior learning experiences (Li ), and that this presented a challenge to both teachers and students grounded in traditional Chinese transmissive methods which emphasise ‘knowledge acquisition’ (Wang , Gu , East ) and focus on learning that is ‘classroom, teacher and textbook‐centred’ (Wang , p.73). Harkin et al () pointed out that communication skills ‘cannot be developed through didactic pedagogy’ (p.6), while Reece and Walker () suggested that the competence outcomes usually associated with vocational education require ‘the careful sequencing of learning activities to shape behaviour’ (p.123).…”