DanLi

【Abstract】Task-based language teaching is a useful approach in second language acquisition and has been widely used in china in recent years. Based on its strengths and criticisms， this paper would focus on these two aspects and link it to the contexts in china. Although there are still exists various limitations， we should be optimistic about its development.

【Key words】task-based language teaching; strengths; criticisms; China

【作者簡介】Dan Li， Chongqing Normal university.

1. Introduction?

Task-Based Language Teaching （TBLT） refers to the development of syllabus design and communicative tasks in the field of second language acquisition. The core element is ‘task which has been used in the process of classroom teaching and learner assessment. In China， the environment of English learning is very limited when taking into account that learners cannot access to the target language on a daily basis， so much consideration should be given to provide with authentic situations and opportunities for learners to use the target language in the classroom.

2. Literature Review

The idea behind TBLT is that students will learn to communicate with the authentic language by doing tasks in the classroom which similar to those in the real world. According to Van den Branden （2006）， TBLT can be stated as follows：

An approach to language education in which students are given functional tasks that invite them to focus primarily on meaning exchange and to use language for real-world， non-linguistic purposes.

This definition clearly demonstrates the characteristic of the approach and it is also supported by Feez （1998：17） and Richards and Rodgers （2014）， both of them consider that activities and tasks should emphasize meaningful communication and negotiate meaning interaction.

Looking back to the past two decades， from the time of 1980s， one common view among TBLT is that it has grown to be the main teaching methodologies in the field of second language teaching （Knight， 2012）. During this period， the basic ‘unit was widely used by second language acquisition researchers and in order to design communicative activities （Skehan， 2003）. Ellis （2003） indicates that TBLT often seek to contrast with the tradition Present-Practice-Production （PPP） strategy such as the learner-centered method compared to teacher-centered method. Thus， it is suggested that language learning is a process emphasizing on interaction and negotiation rather than focus on forms （Van den Branden 2006：3）. Engaging learners in meaningful task-based activities provides more naturally and effectively exposing for their target language learning （Richards & Rodgers， 2014）. During the nineties， the task-based activities cycles including pre-task preparation， task performance and post-task had been used in classroom communication （Willis， 1996; Skehan， 1996）.

3. Claimed Strengths

Firstly， Task-based Language teaching fits Second Language Acquisition （SLA） and “tasks as a creator of optima SLA conditions” （Knight， 2012）. Ellis states that task-based language has received support from teacher educators （Willis， 1996） and from SLA researchers （Long， 2014; Skehan， 2011; Ellis， 2003）. Meanwhile， some SLA researchers assume that focus on form as an essential element in TBLT such as Ellis， Skehan and Long. Task also as an important unit in language teaching and learning derives from the field of SLA （Ellis， 2003; Long and Crookes， 1993; Van den Branden， 2009）.

Secondly， tasks of TBLT build fluency and create motivation. In spite of meaning-focused activities and less teacher-dominated environment， learners can acquire language knowledge more naturally and fluency （Willis， 1996）. There were no language learning tasks happened without motivation exposure， leaners can be encouraged to acquire knowledge effectively and spontaneously by the right amount of exposure of motivation and opportunities （Ganta， 2015）. Frequently practice and meaningful negotiation enabled learners become more adept at conveying information during conversation.

4. Any criticisms

Firstly， it is very difficult to estimate and design a task according to the performance of learners. “The cognitive load and clarity of the goal of the task， code complexity and interpretive density of the language to be used were some of the criteria considered in establishing the level of difficulty of a task” （Candlin， 1987 as cited in Tavakoli， 2009）. Widdowson （2003） also indicates that the criteria for defining tasks are not strong enough and TBLT emphasizes too much at authentic language use. Nunan （2004） points out three factors including factors of input; learners factors and procedural factors may have a negative impact on integrating and sequencing the tasks in language learning process. Furthermore， the ground of the task does not provide strong driving force to build a language teaching program （Seedhouse， 1995 and 2005）.

Secondly， a pervasive phenomenon is that the increased demands for teachers in TBLT. Skehan （1996） indicates that teachers must meet the requirements to use a wider range of skills in more structural approaches than before. It is also suggested that teachers must play a wider range of roles such as motivator; controller; organizer and supporter during the language teaching process. However， both Shehadeh （2005） and Swan （2005） state that it was a big challenge for non-native-speaker teachers and novice teachers to be confidence when they are teaching linguistic knowledge and coping with problems in classroom situations.

5. TBLT in China

As the largest developing country， China usually accepts and adopts the latest teaching methods to adapt to the development trend of education in the background of internationalization. Here， I will focus on Mainland China. In 2001， the State Education Development Commission （SEDC） released syllabus regarding implement TBLT at the secondary school level， since then， a large number of textbooks have been published （Liao， 2004）. While there still exists， some concerning regarding the situations in China. Carless （2009） points out that the feasibility of TBLT for schooling in China settings has not yet been totally demonstrated. Meanwhile， the implementation of TBLT in China was largely constrained by the limited ability and understanding regarding tasks and examination factors （Deng and Carless， 2010）.

6. Conclusion ?

This paper has described in detail a critical literature review of TBLT. Although in the China context， both teachers and learners are limited to use TBLT on a daily basis class， there also seems to be a long way to go， particularly in the primary education situations. While with the adoption by government of China seen TBLT as a national approach to English language pedagogy and use it in curriculum initiatives， it could be believed that TBLT would have a better and brighter development in the near future under the joint efforts of both teachers and scholars.

References：

[1]Deng， C.， & Carless， D. R. Examination preparation or effective teaching： Conflicting priorities in the implementation of a pedagogic innovation[J]. Language Assessment Quarterly，20107（4）：285-302.

[2]Ellis， R. Task-based language learning and teaching[M]. Oxford University Press，2003.

[3]Knight， P. In search of task-based learning[J]. From Task-Based Learning Applied，2012.

[4]Liao， Y.， & Fukuya， Y. J. Avoidance of phrasal verbs： The case of Chinese learners of English[J]. Language learning，2004，54（2）：193- 226.

[5]Nunan， D. Designing tasks for the communicative classroom[M]. Cambridge University Press，1989.

[6]Nunan， D. An introduction to task-based language teaching （Nunan， 2004）[J]. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly June 2005 Volume 7， Issue 1，2005，7（1）：25-28.

[7]Richards， J. C.， & Rodgers， T. S. Approaches and methods in language teaching[M]. Cambridge university press，2014.

[8]Swan， M. Practical English Usage （PEU）[D]. Oxford University Press，2015.

[9]Yuan， Y. Application of task-based learning in Chinese context[J]. Theory and Practice in Language Studies，2016，6（2）：392- 398.