My purpose in this article is to give some clarity to what task-based language teaching (TBLT) is and how it differs from task-supported language teaching (TSLT). Central to both approaches is the notion of ‘task’, so I will begin with a definition of this and point to some problems in distinguishing a ‘task’ from an ‘exercise’. I will go on to discuss how tasks figure in TBLT and TSLT. I will then address arguments that have been used to claim that TSLT is better suited to some teaching contexts, such as those found in Asia, where teachers and students are used to traditional examinations. I conclude by suggesting that while TSLT should not be seen as an alternative to TBLT, it can complement it in several ways.
2025-10-10
This article critically responds to Rod Ellis’s (2024) proposal for a modular curriculum that involves Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) and Task-Supported Language Teaching (TSLT) without integrating them. Ellis’s work is commendable for its clear distinctions between TBLT and TSLT, providing a practical framework that helps language educators navigate the complexities of taskbased approaches. His emphasis on the importance of context-sensitive adaptations acknowledges the diverse needs of language learners and promotes flexibility in teaching practices. However, I would argue that the theoretical justification for using explicit instruction to rectify fossilised linguistic errors is insufficient. I contend that TBLT’s “focus on form” and post-task "language focus" components can effectively address these issues without resorting to TSLT. Furthermore, I highlight the lack of clarity regarding assessment methods in a dual curriculum, raising concerns about the practical challenges and potential confusion for teachers and learners. Further research is needed to explore these issues as well as the long-term impacts of Ellis’s modular curriculum on task-based second language learning in different contexts.
In the ‘Key Constructs in Language Teaching’ article written by Rod Ellis (Ellis, 2024), Rod discusses the modular curriculum concept as a means of accommodating the distinctions between taskbased language teaching (TBLT) and task-supported language teaching (TSLT). In this response article, I provide a complementary perspective on how the differences between TBLT and TSLT may be addressed in practice, drawing on and influenced by my work with teachers in my role as a language teacher educator. I start by outlining my association with Rod and his academic work in the context in which we have both worked – New Zealand. I go on to present the central ideas Rod put forward in his article. I then provide my own viewpoint. Finally, I compare our perspectives and draw some conclusions for TBLT in theory and practice.
In this article I argue that the “Present-Practice-Produce” (PPP) approach to second language instruction is sometimes interpreted too rigidly and portrayed in a way that does insufficient justice to how the approach was originally described. I propose that each of the three Ps can be designed in diverse ways, with some more likely than others to bring about satisfactory learning outcomes. Misunderstandings about PPP could be avoided if we re-interpreted the sequence as “Awareness-Practice-Communication” (APC). I then demonstrate that, depending on how they are designed, PPP (or APC) lessons and task-supported language lessons can look very similar. Therefore, promoting a task-supported approach should not entail an outright dismissal of PPP.
Responding to Ellis’ (2024) call for a deeper understanding of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), Task-Supported Language Teaching (TSLT), and a modular curriculum, this article delves into the concept of task engagement within these pedagogical frameworks. It focuses on how TBLT and TSLT, along with a modular curriculum that integrates both approaches, can enhance learner engagement. The article highlights critical issues related to understanding engagement in TBLT, TSLT, and a modular curriculum, emphasizing a need to explore how engagement can be effectively enhanced across these methodologies. By examining the cognitive, social, behavioral, and affective dimensions of engagement, this article contributes to the ongoing inquiry into optimizing taskbased teaching and learning practices. Ultimately, it calls for educators and researchers to consider how engagement is like under these diverse approaches, ensuring that tasks are adaptable and effective in engaging diverse learners.
Building on Ellis’s (2024) proposal for a modular language curriculum that combines Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) and Task-Supported Language Teaching (TSLT) in an Asian context, this article argues that reading tasks can facilitate the adoption and implementation of TBLT in Asia. The article begins with a brief review of previous research that highlights the complexities and challenges of implementing TBLT in Asian classrooms, including the misconception that TBLT primarily emphasizes speaking tasks. In response, this article proposes that reading tasks, due to their alignment with instructional practices and cultural expectations in many Asian classrooms, can serve as a more practical and adaptable means for embracing TBLT. Highlighting their ability to deliver target linguistic constructions effectively while integrating other language skills, this article explores the potential of reading tasks to foster authentic and communicative language use, paving the way for a more context-sensitive implementation of TBLT in Asia.
Ellis (2024) proposed a modular curriculum model that combines task-based language teaching (TBLT) and task-supported language teaching (TSLT) to address varied learning stages and instructional contexts. TBLT emphasizes developing fluency through incidental learning, while TSLT focuses on improving accuracy through intentional learning. Our response reviews the development of TBLT in China, and discusses the applicability of Ellis’s modular curriculum model to the instructional context in China, where teaching prioritizes exam performance. The core question of the discussion is “Does the model effectively align with the goals and challenges of English education in China? If so, which aspects demonstrate its compatibility? If not, what limitations hinder its practical application?” Specifically, it discusses the balance between fluency and accuracy in language teaching by addressing the core question in three sub-questions: (1) Is TBLT sufficient for fostering accuracy? (2) Is TSLT an effective supplement for developing accuracy? (3) When should TSLT complement TBLT during teaching? While TBLT has significantly enhanced fluency in the instructional context in China, incorporating TSLT at targeted stages is critical for improving accuracy. We conclude with pedagogical and theoretical implications for adapting the modular curriculum to the instructional context, recommending the modular curriculum should be tailored to students’ proficiency levels and instructional objectives.
This article critically examines the practical challenges of designing tasks in English Language Teaching (ELT) textbooks for young learners, particularly within the Chinese educational context. Drawing from my experience in textbook development and research, I respond to Ellis’s (2024) work on task-based language teaching (TBLT) and task-supported language teaching (TSLT) by identifying four key practical issues: crafting ‘all-in-one’ exit tasks within a hybrid syllabus, designing task-driven teaching units, mastering the intricate art of designing prototype tasks, and the effective use of textbook tasks by teachers. The article concludes by highlighting the importance of ongoing dialogue among practitioners, textbook writers, and researchers to develop ELT textbooks that are effective, practical, and responsive to the needs of language learners and teachers.
8-72 characters
1 day ago
Your contribution has been approved successfully
12 hours ago
Your submission has failed to be reviewed; Failure reason: the
