***TESL-EJ Forum***

A Question of Definitions: An investigation through the definitions and practices of communicative and task-based approaches

Karen Stanley, editor
<karen.stanley@cpcc.edu>

One difficulty that faces us in discussions of teaching or research is that of terms and their definitions. I have seen long debates over topics in which the primary difference of opinion was due not to actual variations in approach, but to misunderstandings brought about by varying definitions. Those involved in the discussion used terms which they *thought* were agreed upon, but that, in fact, participants defined differently. I have also seen people dismiss the content of a presentation - or never actually pay attention to the basic content - because the presenter began by using a term that members of the audience did not use in the same way. Even long-time professionals within a field, informed by the research as well as their own extensive experience, may find themselves in the same position of using a term one way while colleagues are interpreting it differently.

A further complication emerges when investigating the degree to which there is a match between an approach as defined by an individual, and the ways in which that practitioner actually implements a technique in the classroom.

Some of these issues are reflected in the following discussion of "communicative" versus "task-based" approaches to language teaching on the TESL-L email list for ESL and EFL classroom pedagogy in November 2002.

Contributors whose email addresses are listed welcome responses to their ideas. [-1-]

[A poster asked] for one specific difference between the communicative approach (CA) and the task–based approach (TBA).

Specifically, the TBA relies heavily on students rehearsing in closed pairs a conversation or monologue prior to holding that dialogue or monologue again in front of a larger audience in a more polished form. The idea that rehearsal in a safer situation of a task (not a scripting or learning of lines, but a first attempt, so that students will be familiar with problems that may occur) is a key way of fostering learning, which is central to task–based methodology, is not a requirement in communicative methodology.

Having said this, it is often not very helpful to want to pigeonhole methodologies as to what they require or forbid. Though the rehearsing that is key to task–based teaching is not typical of communicative teaching, it is not forbidden either. Plenty of communicative teachers have used this technique without thinking about whether or not they were teaching 'task–based' or not.

Communicative methodology has become so eclectic that it will adopt almost any technique that furthers the students' ability to communicate in English. It is not the individual features of CA or of TBA that are exclusive, it is the overall pattern of how different techniques that may be common in both approaches are used in proportion to each other. The communicative teacher, for example, may on occasion go over the rules of grammar or deal with translation, without necessarily being accused of deserting the communicative camp. This does not mean that there is no 'specific' difference between the CA and the grammar translation method, rather that they may use similar techniques but in different proportions and combinations.

What method you teach by can be seen not from a 30 second vignette of what activity is going on at a given time, but in the context of the whole lesson and course, and the teacher's relationship with and expectations of the students.

Re. [the] query about differences between Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Task–Based Learning (TBL)

The fundamental difference lies in their main informing disciplines/theories: CLT is informed by theories of language use (with a dash of 'humanistic teaching'), whereas TBL is informed by theories of language learning. [-2-]

CLT is influenced by Pragmatics (especially Speech Act theory and Grice's Implicature) and Discourse Analysis –– which were then (mid 70s) fairly new disciplines focusing on the use of language in communication. CLT was introduced as an alternative to the 'traditional' approaches, which were mainly influenced by (and concerned with) Morphosyntax, Phonology and Semantics, and consequently placed emphasis on form and accuracy. This is why CLT is primarily concerned with functions, communication and fluency. It's not a coincidence that CLT and functional/notional syllabuses appeared at roughly the same time. Also, the CLT literature is rather vague about procedures and materials.

TBL is informed by Second Language Acquisition theories and is fairly explicit/clear about procedures and materials. The TBL literature is less explicit/clear about the nature and use of language.

As I see it, CLT and TBL are complementary approaches.

In response to [the] question about the difference between the communicative approach (CA) and task–based approach, John Harbord suggested:

"Specifically, the TBA relies heavily on students rehearsing in closed–pairs a conversation or monologue prior to holding that dialogue or monologue again in front of a larger audience in a more polished form."

My understanding of the task–based approach is somewhat different. Task–based instruction within relevant contexts or themes enables teachers to provide meaningful teaching and learning activities that engage learners in purposeful communication. Language tasks are considered to be communicative, real–world uses of language to accomplish a specific purpose (language function) in a specific social situation and have the following characteristics: they have a communicative purpose; participants take an active role in carrying out the task because the tasks require participants to select and organize the elements (verbal and non–verbal) required for performing the task – they are not provided with them; there is also a primary focus on conveying meaning and opportunities for meaning–negotiation. In this context, while performing a memorized dialogue might be used as a skill–building or scaffolding activity, it would not be considered a communicative task. I use dialogues as an opportunity to analyze how language is used for various purposes or for practice in preparation for a role–play, but I wouldn't have Ss memorize them. I would, however, use role–plays in which Ss are given a role and its characteristics and a scenario to communicate about or within. [-3-]

David Nunan's book Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom (CUP, 1989) is a helpful resource in task–based instruction as are the Focus on...books by Anne Burns published by NCELTR in Australia, although these last items are more concerned with text–based instruction.

Joanne Pettis questions my description of a task–based approachas relying on 'students rehearsing in closed –pairs ... prior to holding that dialogue or monologue again in front of a larger audience in a more polished form.' Joanne's description, drawing on Nunan, sees task based learning as providing 'meaningful teaching and learning activities that engage learners in purposeful communication'.

I must immediately say that I don't disagree with anything that Joanne says. I find Nunan's approach very good, and applaud his focus on authenticity and communication. I was, however, thinking of the 'task–based approach' touted by Jane and Dave Willis and others, which in my part of the world at least is more often referred to as *the* task–based approach, perhaps because the Willises actually claim to have developed a distinct approach.

If we return to [the] original question: name me one specific difference between the TBA and the communicative approach, then if we take Nunan as an example of task–based approaches, we probably have to say 'there isn't any'. There is nothing Nunan recommends which is scorned or rejected by the CA, indeed I suspect Nunan would see himself as fundamentally a communicative methodologist.

The Willises, however, have taken issue with some of the basic precepts which underly the CA (most notably the idea of presentation, practice, production) and have developed an alternative methodology which recommends not doing or rarely doing some of the things CA teachers do, and doing some things they do rarely or not at all. If [the poster] was referring to the Willises task–based approach, then I think that the distinction I mentioned is a valid one. If by TBA, Nunan was meant, then it was probably not.

For a discussion on methodology selection see

John Harbord wrote:

"The Willises, however, have taken issue with some of the basic precepts which underlie the CA (most notably the idea of presentation, practice, production)." [-4-]

I'm not aware of any mention, let alone endorsement, of PPP in the CA [Communicative] literature. PPP is a hybrid – or mongrel, depending on your point of view. It is influenced by the Audiolingual method, hence the emphasis on spoken language and the control practice / drills, *as well as* notions and practices related to CLT (e.g. 'production' and focus on notions and functions). Perhaps what "the Willises" refer to is the presentation of PPP as an embodiment of CLT in a large number of teacher training courses.

I think it is much more useful and potentially effective to examine the principles behind methodological proposals (or realise their absence), and be critical of their argumentation and feasibility, rather than to get bogged down over differences in the packaging and labeling of methodological products, which rely on perceived differences and the appropriation of terms to create a market niche for themselves.

In response to the recent postings on the task–based and communicative approaches, it needs to be stressed that the comparison is false: proponents of Task–Based Learning (TBL) contend that it is real communicative teaching, not the old Presentation–Practice–Production (PPP) paradigm dressed up as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). In fact, it is PPP that is considered to be the real enemy, because it represents the survival of an old behaviouristic model of teaching procedure combined with the relatively recent communicative view of the nature of language and communication. So the mainstream form of CA, the kind of teaching many of us are engaged in, is considered flawed –– not real communicative teaching.

The problem with CLT itself is that, as John Harbord has pointed out, it means different things to different people, with the result that individual teachers may vary very much in their approach while still regarding themselves as communicative. This may be due to the fact that CLT in general makes few claims as to how languages are learned whereas its TBL offshoot does, as Costas Gabrielatos mentions.

Within TBL itself there is a wide range of views as to its most effective form and even as regards the exact nature of tasks although I would argue that Joanne Pettis captures the essence of TBL rather more accurately than John Harbord does. Perhaps the most palatable form of TBL for most mainstream teachers is Jane Willis's 3–stage model, in which a pre–task stage and a task cycle (incorporating the task itself and the rehearsed public report that John Harbord referred to) are followed by a language focus based on points usually arising from the listening or reading texts that accompany the task . This language focus is handled initially by using a discovery approach (called consciousness–raising) in which learners are asked to "notice" various features of language before any explanation is provided and before working on more traditional forms of practice. It is this emphasis on language form that distinguishes the "new" approach to TBL from the more traditional view, which has been accused of promoting early fossilization as, for example, in some forms of immersion teaching.

Whether this approach is more effective than what most of us do is another matter, of course. It seems to me that, in fact, most teachers and coursebooks take a pragmatic approach to language teaching and do not rely exclusively on PPP for introducing new language points, as TBL proponents claim. Unfortunately, TBL is being aggressively promoted and we are approaching the point where, if we don't use it exclusively, we will be branded as being reactionary. We are also likely to be held responsible for one of the few real facts in language teaching –– that most learners in formal instruction never reach a high level of proficiency whichever methodology happens to be in vogue. [-5-]

Costas Gabrielatos wrote:

"I'm not aware of any mention ... of PPP in the CA literature." This may be so, depending on what one regards as CA literature. PPP may indeed be a "mongrel" but, like its canine versions, it has proved extremely resilient over the years and, in fact, has its roots not in the Audiolingual Method but the less rigorous Oral Approach, pioneered long before ALM (in the 1920s, in fact) by the likes of Palmer and Hornby and others as a reaction against the apparently undisciplined Direct Method.

I will agree that PPP may also have been prolonged unduly as a result of innumerable training courses all over the world. Old habits die hard and, even today, PPP is still promoted in one form or another by many (if not most) general language teaching manuals, often in conjunction with discussions on TBL. However, the "truth" (if there is one) is probably to be found somewhere between these extreme positions – or even somewhere else. In any event, most language teachers are probably influenced more by coursebooks than by manuals or training courses, and most popular coursebooks are decidedly eclectic in their approach – and extremely addictive. It is probably these pragmatic market forces that will determine the future direction of language teaching in many parts of the world rather than a fight to the death between academic fundamentalists.

As for critical examination of principles, I also agree that this is what reflective teachers should do. In fact, it is all we can do in the absence of solid evidence on which to base our professional practice, unlike, say, medicine. Our profession is probably guided more by belief, prejudice and established practice than by principle. Most of us teach in a certain way because we believe (or hope) that it will work or because someone else has told us to do it this way, not because this particular approach is demonstrably superior to any other. In many respects, language teaching is still frustratingly more of an art than a science.

TESL–Lers who are interested in reading more about task–based approaches to language teaching and learning should have a look at Peter Skehan's book, A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning (from Cambridge University Press, 1998). Chapter 5 provides a detailed review of essential literature on the topic, focusing mostly on Nunan–type approach, but also giving some space to the Willises in terms of defining 'task'. Chapter 6 addresses the issue of implementation of such approaches directly. [-6-]

For a discussion of the theoretical frameworks that PPP is informed by or is consistent with, and how it can combine with TBL, see

http://www.gabrielatos.com/MindingOurPs.htm

All three frameworks (CLT, TBL, PPP) are incomplete and not totally explicit regarding their informing theories (whereas, by the way, Audiolingualism is explicitly informed by theories of language and learning), and all have their merits and shortcomings. The point is to treat them neither as if they were self–contained nor as if they competed with one another, as their purveyors would like us to do, but see them as helpful raw materials (and, why not, routines) which we can exploit in an informed and principled way, in order to synthesise a methodology that suits our particular contexts.

Its saddening and alarming to read one–sided, ill–informed and misleading articles praising the 'modern' and 'good' TBL while rubbishing the 'old–fashioned' and 'bad' PPP. Also, where did this PPP–Behaviourism link come from? Yes, PPP is informed by Behaviourism (or to be precise by Audiolingualism, which is not exactly the same thing, but not exclusively. It caters for meaning, function and communication as much as it does for form. If a label can be attached to PPP, it's 'eclectic'. The fact that it's not popular any more doesn't make it less so.

Finally, task–based teaching is *not* new. There were task–based skills–development books back in the late 70s and early 80s (e.g. 'Listening Links' by Geddes & Sturtridge, 1979; 'Task Listening' by Blundell & Stokes, 1981; 'Discussions that Work' by Ur, 1981). That was long before TBL was conveniently simplified, packaged and marketed as the new 'best' methodology in the mid–90s. Also, remember the 'Pre–While–Post' framework for teaching skills? Doesn't it ring a TBL?

Perhaps it wouldn't go amiss if teacher education programmes added a compulsory course on the history of ELT, unless the idea is to produce a malleable clientele for the ELT supermarket, rather than principled professionals. Am I getting too political here?

I want to thank Costas Gabrielatos for his several very informative postings on task–based teaching. I want also to confess that there are aspects of PPP that I like very much and find quite useful – especially the second "P" part – practice. Partly because of my own experience in learning and partly because of my classroom teaching experience, I have become convinced that a lot of learners want a lot of practice , in particular repetition, in order to get their tongues working around complicated new sounds, words and phrases. Actually, when I examine my teaching, I can see I utilize aspects of a variety of methods. It depends on what I'm trying to do. I suppose that makes me eclectic in my approach; however, I hope my eclecticism is principled. As one of my favourite Henry Widdowson quotes says,

"If you say you are eclectic but cannot state the principles of your eclecticism, you are not eclectic, merely confused."

I keep this on my wall. [-7-]

For a discussion of methodology promotion see

Roger Dunne wrote:

"Unfortunately, TBL is being aggressively promoted and we are approaching the point where, if we don't use it exclusively, we will be branded as being reactionary."

Joanne Pettis wrote:

" I want also to *confess* [my emphasis] that there are aspects of PPP that I like very much and find quite useful."

I'd like to thank both for their comments, and particularly for those two excerpts. As today seems to be my question day, here are a few more:

• Who is doing the branding? Who decides if we're using the 'good' methodology? Who do we confess our methodological sins to? Where do those packaged methodologies come from? Who benefits from us adopting them?
• Why does ELT swing with the pendulum rather than move forward? Why are babies thrown out with the bathwater?
• Is this what ELT is coming to? Promotion of methodological products and their attendant teaching materials resorting to guilt–generation and branding? What next? The methodology police? Witch–hunts?

Or am I just over–reacting?

Now that we have benefitted from critical analyses of what informs the approaches characterized as TBL and CLT and by corollary what is expected/ought to happen at the chalkface/during actual teaching, and Costas Gabrielatos' response to Roger Dunne's claim that TBL is being aggresively promoted, could we also take a look at the macro issues (at the level of language learning principles and the theories of language learning underlying them) involved in methodological debates/treatments? It was in 1974 and 1976 two seminal papers (one of them was a book) appeared. Wilkins' Notional syllabuses and the concept of a minimum adequate grammar in Corder and Roulet (Aimav/Didier) and his Notional Syllabuses (OUP). In them he presents two superordinate categories: SYNTHETIC & ANALYTIC syllabuses. Synthesis and analysis are not what the syllabus designer does; they are the operations required of the learner. [-8-] In analytic syllabuses whole chunks of language (usually as authentic input) are presented to the learner at a time; the learner is expected to analyse (break the chunks down into manageable parts) them as they learn. In synthetic syllabuses on the other hand, the learner is presented with pre–digested or small bits of language that they are expected to RE–SYNTHESIZE (or put the parts together to get the larger picture). Similarly, it was White (in 1988: The ELT Curriculum Oxford: Basil Blackwell) who came up with TYPE A & TYPE B syllabuses. Type A syllabuses are interventionist: input is preselected & predigested (in case of simplified & modified texts) and are external to the learner. Type B syllabuses are non–interventionist and internal to the learner. The lesson is negotiated between teacher and learner as a course evolves. Procedural (N.S. Prabhu's), Task (Breen & Candlin's) and TBLT (Long & Crookes') are all Type B and synthetic syllabuses; CLT in so far as it (or its variants) places an artificial premium on any of the P's in PPP would be Type A and analytic; otherwise it would be Type B and synthetic.

Reference: Long & Crookes (1993), "Units of analysis in syllabus design" in Crookes & Gass (eds.) Tasks in a pedagogical context. Multilingual Matters.

Costas Gabrielatos wrote:

Roger Dunne wrote:

"Unfortunately, TBL is being aggressively promoted and we are approaching the point where, if we don't use it exclusively, we will be branded as being reactionary."

Joanne Pettis wrote:

" I want also to *confess* [my emphasis] that there are aspects of PPP that I like very much and find quite useful."

I'd like to thank both for their comments, and particularly for those two excerpts. As today seems to be my question day, here are a few more:

• Who is doing the branding?
• Who decides if we're using the 'good' methodology? Who do we confess our methodological sins to?
• Where do those packaged methodologies come from? Who benefits from us adopting them?

There is only one exclusive method in teaching: do what works for a particular student in a particular class at a particular time in a particular context. Beware of people who tell you to "only" use one method. Incorporate aspects of all of the methods you are exposed to into your curriculum. [-9-]

Roger Dunne wrote re: Task–based approaches:

. . . However, the "truth" (if there is one) is probably to be found somewhere between these extreme positions––or even somewhere else. In any event, most language teachers are probably influenced more by coursebooks than by manuals or training courses, and most popular coursebooks are decidedly eclectic in their approach––and extremely addictive. It is probably these pragmatic market forces that will determine the future direction of language teaching in many parts of the world rather than a fight to the death between academic fundamentalists.

I agree with Roger Dunne. In determining the future direction of ESL/EFL language teaching, the teacher's role is crucial, as is that of the materials writer, who is a teacher who writes books (95–99% of all ESL textbooks are written by teachers and come directly out of their classroom experiences.) Teachers and materials writers are the ones who find the balanced center amid the many pendulum swings our field undergoes. The majority of teachers and materials writers don't jump on bandwagons or if they do, don't stay long if the bandwagon is not working for them. I'm thinking of all the bandwagons that have come and gone in the 40 years I've been in the field –– ALM, the Silent Way, Suggestopedia, the Natural Approach, etc. –– and the upshot is that teachers and materials writers look to see what's on the bandwagons that they can use, choosing selectively for their particular students and their particular teaching situations. It's clear that bandwagons created by theorists enrich our field, but also clear that the practitioners are the ones who determine what parts of what bandwagons persist. I agree with Roger that teachers and materials writers are the ones, ultimately, who decide the directions our field takes, with the input from theorists and researchers ever pushing us to look anew, to improve our teaching, to try new approaches. But teachers have to be pragmatic. They are the ones in the classroom every day, day in and day out. They are the ones students judge in evaluating their own language–learning experiences in the classroom. They are the ones who have first–hand experience about what "works" and what doesn't in the ESL/EFL classroom. Working pragmatically toward balance and synthesis, teachers and materials writers determine the broad, substantial and fundamental changes that move our field forward amid all the competing theories. In my experience, teachers just are a little skeptical when they hear a theorist claim to have exclusive knowledge of how language is learned. There's still mystery and magic in that process, and as another listserve writer said, teaching is still an art, not a science.