Communicative Tasks and the Language Curriculum

Author(s): David Nunan

Source: TESOL Quarterly , Summer, 1991, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Summer, 1991), pp. 279-295
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3587464

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3587464?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol. 25, No. 2, Summer 1991

Communicative Tasks and

the Language Curriculum
DAVID NUNAN
Macquarie University

Over the last 25 years the communicative task has

significant building block in the development
curricula and also as an element for motivating pro
second language acquisition research. This paper
influence of the communicative task on curriculum
and summarizes the research base for task-base
teaching. In the final part of the paper, an agen
research is set out.

Over the last 25 years, the communicative task has evolved as an

important component within curriculum planning, implementation,
and evaluation. In task-based language teaching, syllabus content
and instructional processes are selected with reference to the
communicative tasks which learners will (either actually or
potentially) need to engage in outside the classroom and also with
reference to theoretical and empirical insights into those social and
psycholinguistic processes which facilitate language acquisition.
This approach to language teaching is characterized by the
following features:
1. An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in
the target language
2. The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation
3. The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on
language, but also on the learning process itself
4. An enhancement of the learner's own personal experiences as
important contributing elements to classroom learning
5. An attempt to link classroom language learning with language
activation outside the classroom

Task-based language teaching has been an important addition t

the conceptual and empirical repertoire of the second and foreig

279

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
language teacher in the eighties, having influenced syllabus design,
materials development, and language teaching methodology. In this
paper, I shall review the development of task-based language
teaching (TBLT). In the first part of the paper, I shall provide an
account of the theoretical and empirical basis for TBLT. I shall then
discuss the influence of TBLT on curriculum development and
classroom practice. In the final part of the paper, I indicate the ways
in which I believe that the research agenda should be extended in
the nineties.

THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS

Like many other innovations, task-based teaching ente

language field from the educational mainstream. Studies of t
at work demonstrated that, while teacher education pr
taught trainees to plan, implement, and evaluate their p
according to the "rational" model which begins with objecti
moves through tasks to evaluation (Tyler, 1949), the reality
once they began practicing, teachers tended to focus on ped
tasks (Shavelson & Stern, 1981). This insight from resear
teachers' professional planning and decision-making pr
enhanced the status of task as a curriculum planning tool.
Task-based learning is also linked to mainstream education
close relationship with experiential learning. This relatio
evident in the following description of experiential learning
In experiential learning, immediate personal experience is seen
focal point for learning, giving "life, texture, and subjective p
meaning to abstract concepts and at the same time providing a c
publicly shared reference point for testing the implications and
of ideas created during the learning process," as pointed out by
Kolb (1984: 21). But experience also needs to be processed con
by reflecting on it. Learning is thus seen as a cyclical process int
immediate experience, reflection, abstract conceptualization an
(Kohonen, in press)
To date, definitions of tasks have been rather program
Long (1985a) suggests that a task is nothing more or less th
things people do in everyday life. He cites as examples b
shoes, making reservations, finding destinations, and w
cheques. The Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics p
a more pedagogically oriented characterization. Here, it
gested that a task is
any activity or action which is carried out as the result of proce
understanding language (i.e., as a response). For example, drawing a

280 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 map while listening to a tape, listening to an instruction and performing
a command, may be referred to as tasks. (Richards, Platt, & Weber,
1985, p. 289)
The value of tasks, according to the authors, is that they provide a
purpose for the activity which goes beyond the practice of language
for its own sake.
A similar characterization is offered by Breen (1987) who sug-
gests that a task is

any structured language learning endeavour which has a particular

objective, appropriate content, a specified working procedure, and a
range of outcomes for those who undertake the task. 'Task' is therefore
assumed to refer to a range of workplans which have the overall purpose
of facilitating language learning-from the simple and brief exercise
type, to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem-
solving or simulations and decision making. (p. 23)
Elsewhere, I have suggested that tasks can be conceptualized in
terms of the curricular goals they are intended to serve, the input
data which forms the point of departure for the task, and the
activities or procedures which the learners undertake in the
completion of the task. Two important additional elements are the
roles for teachers and learners implicit in the task, and the settings
and conditions under which the task takes place (Nunan, 1989).
Later in this paper, I shall use these elements of goals, input data,
activities/procedures, roles, and settings as rubrics for synthesizing
the considerable amount of research activity which provides an
empirical basis for task-based language teaching and learning.

THE CURRICULAR BASIS

Before the development of communicative approaches to

guage teaching, tasks and exercises were selected as a second o
activity, after the specification of the morphosyntactic, phon
cal, and lexical elements to be taught. Traditionally, curriculum
signers and materials writers took as their point of departur
question, What are the grammatical, phonological, and lexical
to be taught? The specification of these items set the paramete
the selection of classroom activities. In other words, selection
classroom activities was driven by curriculum goals specifi
phonological, morphosyntactic, and lexical terms. (See, for ex
ple, the analysis of content selection and sequencing in a gram
based syllabus provided by McDonough, 1981, p. 21.)
In a task-based curriculum, the decision-making process is q
different. There are, in fact, two different routes which

COMMUNICATIVE TASKS AND THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM 281

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
curriculum developer/materials writer can take in initiating the
design process. The first of these is based on what I have called the
rehearsal rationale. Here the question initiating the design process
is, What is it that learners potentially or actually need to do with the
target language? The second is what I have called the psycholin-
guistic rationale. Here the initiating question is, What are the
psycholinguistic mechanisms underlying second language acquisi-
tion, and how can these be activated in the classroom? The
linguistic elements to be focused on in the classroom are selected a
a second order activity.
Ideally, task selection should occur with reference both to targe
task rationale and psycholinguistic principles. The way that thi
might be achieved is illustrated in the procedure set out in Figure 1
adapted from a recently published task-based coursebook (Nuna
& Lockwood, 1991). The pedagogic task is selected with referenc
to the real-world or target task of "giving information in a jo
interview." Learners are given a model of the target language
behaviour, as well as specific practice in manipulating key languag
items. The actual pedagogic task, a simulation, is also consisten
with research on the facilitative effects of classroom interaction
(research on language acquisition is reviewed in the next section).

FIGURE 1

Steps Involved in the Development of a Pedagogic Task

Procedure Example Rationale

1. Identify target task Giving pers

a job interview nity to develop language skills
relevant to their real world
needs

2. Provide model Students listen to and extract To provide learners the oppor-
key information from authen- tunity to listen to and analyse
tic/simulated interview ways in which native speakers
or users of the target language
carry out the target task
3. Identify enabling Manipulation drill to practice To provide learners with ex-
skill wh-questions with do-insertion plicit instruction and guided
practice in those grammatical
elements needed to perform
the target task
4. Devise pedagogic Interview simulation using role To provide learners the oppor-
task cards tunity to mobilize their emerg-
ing language skills t
rehearsal

282 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The growing importance of the pedagogic task as a central
element within the curriculum has called into question the
conventional distinction between syllabus design and methodology.
Traditionally, syllabus design is concerned with the selection and
grading of content, while methodology is concerned with the
selection and sequencing of tasks, exercises, and related classroom
activities. Metaphorically speaking, syllabus design is concerned
with the destination, while methodology is concerned with the
route. With the development of task-based approaches to language
learning and teaching, this distinction has become difficult t
sustain. Breen (1984) has neatly captured this change of focus in the
following way:
[TBLT would] prioritize the route itself; a focusing upon the means
towards the learning of a new language. Here the designer would give
priority to the changing process of learning and the potential of the
classroom-to the psychological and social resources applied to a new
language by learners in the classroom context. . . . a greater concern
with capacity for communication rather than repertoire of communica-
tion, with the activity of learning a language viewed as important as the
language itself, and with a focus upon means rather than predetermined
objectives, all indicate priority of process over content. (pp. 52-53)
Conceptually, then, task-based language teaching has been
influenced by developments in mainstream education as well as by
major conceptual shifts in our understanding of the nature of
language and language learning. It has also been enhanced by a
research agenda which has provided an empirical basis upon which
curriculum designers, materials writers, and classroom practitioners
can draw. The availability of empirical data on tasks has enhanced
the status of task-based language teaching at a time when the
various "methods" approaches to language teaching have come
under increasing criticism for lacking an empirical basis. (See, for
example, Long, 1990; Richards, 1990). In the next section, I shall
provide a selective review of this research.

THE EMPIRICAL BASIS

One of the strengths of task-based language teaching is tha

conceptual basis is supported by a strong empirical tradition.
distinguishes it from most methods approaches to pedagogy, w
are relatively data-free. I have already suggested that tasks c
conceptualized in terms of the key elements of goals, input d
activities/procedures, roles, and settings. This conceptual sch
provides a convenient means of synthesising the research on t

COMMUNICATIVE TASKS AND THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM 283

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Task goals enable the program planner and materials writer to
provide explicit links between the task and the broader curriculum
it is designed to serve. Without clearly articulated sets of goal
statements, there is a risk that task-based teaching programs will
lack coherence as Widdowson (1987), among others, has pointed
out. Goals are generally referenced against the sorts of things which
learners want to do with the language outside the classroom.
Typical goal statements include:
1. To develop the skills necessary to take part in academic study
2. To obtain sufficient oral and written skills to obtain a promotion
from unskilled worker to site supervisor
3. To communicate socially in the target language
4. To develop the survival skills necessary to obtain goods and
services

5. To be able to read the literature of the target cultur

Despite its importance for coherent curriculum d
compared to other areas, research on task goals is diffic
the literature. One of the few available studies is that
(1984) who investigated the needs analysis, goal an
setting practices of teachers of ESL to adults, and the
learners to these practices. Based on an extensive series of
interviews, Brindley found that programs in which the goals were
explicit and reflected the communicative needs of the learners had
greater face validity than those in which the goals were either
unstated, inexplicit, or which did not reflect learners' goals. While
there was no direct evidence that programs with explicit, relevant
goals resulted in more effective learning outcomes, it is not
unreasonable to expect that this would be the case, given what we
know about the relationship between affective/attitudinal factors
and learning outcomes.
Most tasks take as their point of departure input data of some
sort. Such data may be linguistic (that is, reading and listening texts
of various sorts) or nonlinguistic (for example, diagrams, photo-
graphs, picture sequences). This area is considerably better re-
searched than that of goals. A key question underlying research on
input tasks is, What factors are implicated in the difficulty of aural
and written texts?
In a large-scale investigation of the listening comprehension of
secondary students, Brown and Yule (1983) found that two factors
significantly affected the difficulty of listening texts. The first factor
related to the number of elements in the text and the ease and
difficulty of distinguishing between them. The second significan

284 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
factor was the text type. All other things being equal, descriptions
were easier than instructions, which were easier than stories.
Arguments or opinion-expressing texts containing abstract concepts
and relationships were the most difficult. Follow-up research cited
in Anderson and Lynch (1988) identified a number of other factors
including the following:
1. The way the information is organized (narrative texts in which
the order of events in the texts mirrors the order in which the
events actually occurred in real life are easier to comprehend
than narratives in which the events are presented out of
sequence)
2. The familiarity of the topic
3. The explicitness and sufficiency of the information
4. The type of referring expressions (for young children, pronom-
inal referents are more difficult to comprehend than full noun
phrase referents)
5. Text type
In the area of reading comprehension, Nunan (1984) found that
similar elements were implicated in the difficulty of school texts for
secondary level students. Nunan looked, among other things, at the
difficulty of different types of textual relationships as well as at the
effect of content familiarity. He found that logical relationships of
the type marked by conjunctions were more difficult than referen-
tial and lexical relationships. He also found that content familiarity
was more significant than grammatical complexity in determining
the difficulty of reading texts.
The bulk of task-based research has focused on the activities or
procedures which learners carry out in relation to the input data.
The key question here has been, What tasks seem to be most helpful
in facilitating second language acquisition?
In the first of a series of investigations into learner-learner
interaction, Long (1981) found that two-way tasks (in which all
students in a group discussion had unique information to con-
tribute) stimulated significantly more modified interactions than
one-way tasks (that is, in which one member of the group possessed
all the relevant information). Similarly, Doughty and Pica (1986)
found that required information-exchange tasks generated
significantly more modified interaction than tasks in which the
exchange of information was optional. (Modified interactions are
those instances in which speakers modify their language in order to
assure that they have been correctly understood; they result from an
indication of noncomprehension, usually on the part of a listener.)

COMMUNICATIVE TASKS AND THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM 285

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 These investigations of modified interaction were theoretically
motivated by Krashen's (1981, 1982) hypothesis that comprehensi-
ble input was a necessary and sufficient condition for second
language acquisition-in other words, that acquisition would occur
when learners understood messages in the target language. Long
(1985b) advanced the following argument in favor of tasks which
promote conversational adjustments or interactional modifications
on the part of the learners taking part in the task:

Step 1: Show that (a) linguistic/conversational adjustments promote (b)

comprehensible input.
Step 2: Show that (b) comprehensible input promotes (c) acquisition.
Step 3: Deduce that (a) linguistic/conversational adjustments promote
(c) acquisition. Satisfactory evidpence of the a - b - c
relationships would allow the linguistic environment to be
posited as an indirect causal variable in SLA. (The relationship
would be indirect because of the intervening "comprehension"
variable.) (p. 378)
In the last few years the comprehensible input hypothesis has
been criticised on theoretical and empirical grounds. For example,
Swain (1985) demonstrated that immersion programs in Canada, in
which learners received huge amounts of comprehensible input did
not lead to the sort of native-like facility in the target language
predicted by the input hypothesis. She proposed that in addition to
comprehensible input, learners need opportunities that require that
their own speech be comprehensible because it is only through such
opportunities that learners are pushed to mobilize their emerging
grammatical competence. (Such mobilization is precisely what the
tasks suggested by Long, 1985b; Doughty & Pica, 1986; and others
manage to achieve. In other words, their research may be justified
on grounds other than that proposed by the comprehensible input
hypothesis.)
More recently, attention has focused on the question of the types
of language and discourse patterns stimulated by different task
types. Berwick (1988, in press) investigated the different types of
language stimulated by transactional and interpersonal tasks. (A
transaction task is one in which communication occurs principally
to bring about the exchange of goods and services, whereas an
interpersonal task is one in which communication occurs largely for
social purposes.) He found that the different functional purposes
stimulated different morphosyntactic realizations.
In a recent study, I investigated the different interactional
patterns stimulated by open and closed tasks. (An open task is one
in which there is no single correct answer, while a closed task is one

286 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
in which there is a single correct answer or a restricted number of
correct answers.) It was found that the different task types
stimulated very different interactional patterns. This can be seen in
the following extracts. In Task A, the relatively closed task, the
students are required to sort 20 vocabulary cards into semantic
fields. In Task B, having read a text on the topic of habits, the
students are required to have an open-ended discussion on the topic
of bad habits. (Both extracts are adapted from Nunan, 1991.)

Extract from Task A

Two students, Hilda and Carlos, are studying the following

words which have been typed onto pieces of cardboard. Their task
is to group the words together in a way which makes sense to them.
There is silence for several minutes as the students study the cards:

GEOGRAPHY, ASTRONOMY, AGRICULTURE, ECONOMICS,

COMMERCE, ENGLISH, SCIENCE, STATISTICS, BOOK,
COMPUTER, PENCIL, DIARY, NEWSPAPER, MAGAZINE,
THAILAND, HONG KONG, MELBOURNE, DARWIN, UNIT-
ED STATES, ASIAN, DIAGRAM, ILLUSTRATION, PICTURE,
CARTOON, VIDEO, COMPETENT, LAZY, INTERESTING,
SUPERIOR, UNCOMFORTABLE, REGION.
H: Statistic and diagram-they go together. You know diagram?
C: Yeah.

H: Diagram and statistic are family . .. but maybe, I think, st

and diagram-you think we can put in science? Or may
C: Science, astronomy, [yeah] and er can be agriculture.
H: Agriculture's not a science.
C: Yes, it's similar...
H: No. .. . er may be Darwin and science...
C: What's the Darwin?
H: Darwin is a man.

C: No, it's one of place in Australia.

H: Yes, but it's a man who discover something, yes, I'm sure.
C: OK.

H: And maybe, look, yes, picture, newspaper, magazine,

book, illustration
1 Ellipses indicate pauses.

COMMUNICATIVE TASKS AND THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM 287

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
C: [yeah]. Maybe we can put lazy and English together. Er Hong
Kong, Thailand together. Asian. Er, United States. Diary with pic-
ture, newspaper and so on. .... Oh, I understand, look, look. Here,
it's only adjective-lazy, competent, interesting and comfortable.
Er, what is it? Ah yes yes. (She begins to rearrange the cards.)
C: Darwin

Extract from Task B

Maria, Martha, Sylvia, and Sandy are taking part in a small-group

discussion on the topic of bad habits.
Maria: My next door neighbour . .. he make eh very noisy, very
noisy [yeah].2 I can't tell him because he's very good people.
(The discussion continues for several minutes.)
Sylvia: . . . you don't want to say anything because you might get
upset, of course. Me do the same thing because I've got
neighbours in my place and always you know do
something I don't like it but I don't like to say bad because
I think maybe, you, know make him upset or...
Martha: I've got bad neighbour but I feel embarrass...
Sylvia: . . . to say something of course, like everyone...
Martha: They always come in and see what I'm doing-who's
coming. [no good] [yeah, that's no good] They want to
check everything. If they see I buy something from the
market they expect me to give them some. [oh yeah]. [oh
that's not nice] But I . . . it's difficult.
Sylvia: It's a difficult, yeah, but sometime it's difficult...,
Martha: They can't understand, I bought them and I gave money
... (laughter) [yeah]
Martha: You know sometime difficult to the people because
sometime I can't speak the proper, the language, and little
bit hard to give to understand . . . and that's-sometime
feel embarrass then, I can't say it, you know?
Maria: [turns to the fifth woman, who has not yet spoken] Sarah,
you tell [you tell now]
Sarah: My, er, for example, my sister in law she all the time snores
in her sleep [oh, yes] And my brother say, "Oh, I'm sorry,
we must sleep separate" [separate beds] (laughter). They
did. [good idea] A good idea because he couldn't sleep.
(Laughter.)
2 Note that it was not possible to identify overlapping speakers.

288 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 In addition to the fact that the different task types stimulated
different interactional patterns, the research also indicated that
some task types might be more appropriate than others for learners
at particular levels of proficiency. In the above study, it was found
that with lower-intermediate to intermediate learners, the relatively
closed tasks stimulate more modified interaction than relatively
more open tasks. This is not to say that such students should engage
in closed tasks to the exclusion of open tasks. The important thing is
that program planners and teachers should select a mix of tasks to
reflect the pedagogic goals of the curriculum.
Another element considered within task design is that of teacher/
learner roles. All pedagogic tasks contain roles for teachers and
learners, and conflict is likely to occur if there is a misapprehension
between teachers and learners about their respective roles.
Research related to learner roles has come up with findings which
run counter to the folk wisdom of the classroom. For instance,
Bruton and Samuda (1980) found that learners are capable of
correcting each other successfully. Additionally, according to Porter
(1986), learners produce more talk with other learners than with
native-speaking partners, and learners do not learn each other's
errors. Finally, Gass and Varonis (1985) found that there were
advantages, when conducting groupwork, to pairing learners of
different proficiency levels as well as from different language
backgrounds.
The final element is that of setting, which refers to the learner
configuration (either teacher-fronted, small group, pair, or
individual), as well as the environment (whether the task takes place
in the classroom or outside the classroom). One of the first task
studies to be carried out, that by Long, Adams, and Castanos (1976),
found that small-group tasks prompt students to use a greater range
of language functions than teacher-fronted tasks. In relation to
environment, Montgomery and Eisenstein (1985) found that
supplementing classroom tasks with community-based experiences
resulted in significantly increased language gains.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS: EXTENDING THE RESEARCH AGENDA

Most of the research carried out during the eighties and describ
in the preceding section was driven by Krashen's input hypothe
which is based on the belief that opportunities for second langu
acquisition are maximised when learners are exposed to langu
which is just a little beyond their current level of compete
(Krashen, 1981, 1982). The central research issue here is, W
classroom tasks and patterns of interaction provide learners with

COMMUNICATIVE TASKS AND THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM 289

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
greatest amount of comprehensible input? It has been argued that
patterns of interaction in which learners are forced to make
conversational adjustments promote acquisition. As I have already
pointed out, this view represents an indirect rather than direct
relationship between environmental factors (for example, types of
instruction) and language acquisition. I also referred to research
which, while questioning the comprehensible input hypothesis,
supported the communicative tasks to which it gave rise.
While the research reviewed in the preceding section represents a
healthy state of affairs, the scope needs to be developed and
extended both substantively and methodologically. In substantive
terms, the research agenda needs to incorporate a greater range of
linguistic and psycholinguistic models. Methodologically, the scope
of the research needs to be extended by the utilization of a greater
range of research tools and techniques. In particular, it would be
useful to see the emergence of research which explored the
relationships between contextual factors, interpersonal factors,
learner proficiency levels, and pedagogic tasks.
In order to indicate the ways in which these principles might
influence the shape of future research, I shall briefly review two
recent investigations which provide useful indications of the ways in
which research on task-based language teaching and learning can be
extended both substantively and methodologically.
Berwick (1988; in press) exemplifies the advantages of extending
the research agenda on tasks by drawing on insights from a range of
theoretical models. Of particular interest is his utilization of
functional grammars, specifically the systemic-functional model
first articulated by Halliday (see, for example, Halliday, 1985;
Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Halliday & Hasan, 1989). This particular
model of language attempts to draw explicit links between the
functions which language exists to fulfil and its realization at the
level of lexicogrammatical choice. In his research, Berwick (1988)
explored differences at the level of lexicogrammar attributable to
different task types. In classifying tasks, he distinguished between
pedagogical and collaborative goals on one hand, and expository
and experiential processes on the other. Tasks with pedagogical
goals are concerned with the transfer of information through
explicit instruction, while collaborative tasks "emphasized coopera-
tive, consensual behaviour and exchange of information about a
problem or topic which participants explore freely during the task
itself" (Berwick, in press). Tasks based on expository processes are
concerned with theoretically based knowledge, whereas experien-
tial processes are concerned with procedural knowledge (in familiar
terms, the former is concerned with theoretical knowing [knowing

290 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
that], while the latter is concerned with practical knowledge
[knowing how]). Berwick uses these two dimensions to situate a
range of tasks which he used in his study. These are set out in Figure
2. A description of the tasks follows.
Task COMI: This task, residing at the expository end of the
process continuum and the pedagogical end of the goal continuum,
consisted of a lecture about finding string characters in a text
through use of the word-processing program of a personal
computer, not physically present in the experimental setting.
Task COM2: This task shared the pedagogical goal of COM1,
but was more experiential in that it involved a demonstration of
how to find character strings on the laptop computer when it was
physically present in front of the participants.
Task LEGI: Participants in this task faced away from each other.
One participant had a small Lego toy made of snap-together plastic
parts which had to be described so that the second participant was
able to assemble a replica of the toy.
Task LEG2: This task was similar to LEG1, except that partici-
pants sat face-to-face.
Task DIS: The final task was an informal discussion of any topic
of common interest to the participants.
The independent variable in Berwick's study was the task.
Dependent variables included a range of discourse features
associated with the negotiation of meaning in interaction and
utilized in many of the task investigations based on the input
hypothesis. Variables included clarification requests, comprehen-
sion checks, confirmation checks, definitions, display questions,

FIGURE 2

Goal and Process Dimensions of the Five Tasks Used in the Berwick Study
From "Towards an Educational Framework for Teacher-led Tasks in English as a
Language" by R Berwick, in press, in Task-Based Language Teaching edited by G. C
S. Gass. Copyright Multilingual Matters. Reprinted by permission.

Processes

Goals Expository - - - - - - - -- Experiential

Pedagogical CO()M1 COM2

Collaborative/Social LECG1 DIS LEG2

CO()MMUNICATIVE TASKS AND THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM 291

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
echoes, expressions of lexical uncertainty, referential questions, self-
expansions, self-repetitions, and other-repetitions.
Berwick (in press) established through his research that task type
is an important determinant of lexicogrammatical exponents. He
was also able to relate the tasks and exponents to an educational
framework which provides a broad pedagogical rationale for task-
based language teaching. I have described his research at some
length because it exemplifies the value of drawing on a range of
theoretical models in the development of research programs into
task-based language teaching and learning.
The second study reviewed in this section is by Duff (in press).
Duff carried out a longitudinal case study of a single learner,
investigating the extent to which performance on different types of
tasks yielded different types of information on the subject's
interlanguage. The three tasks investigated included an interview
conversation, a picture description, and a Cambodian folktale
narration. The dependent measures included the amount of
language produced, the range of vocabulary elicited, nominal
reference, and negation. Data were collected from a 24-year-old
Cambodian male, over a 2-year period.
Duff's study yielded mixed results. While there was some
evidence of task-related variability, the subject's performance from
one data-collection period to the next also exhibited variability. The
study raised five fundamental questions: (a) Are the tasks selected
distinct enough to be operationalizable constructs in this type of
analysis? (b) Assuming the constructs are valid, are there any
meaningful differences across tasks? (c) To what extent can
variability be ascribed to other constructs such as genre or topic?
(d) Were the features investigated by the researcher the salient ones,
or should this line of research be restricted to those features of
interlanguage morphology and phonology which have been found
to be salient? (e) How is the researcher to account for those
differences which were observed?
Duff's study is significant within the current context because it
represents a departure from the cross-sectional research which has
typified the field since its inception. While the longitudinal case
study has been usefully employed in other aspects of SLA research
(see, for example, Schmidt, 1983) it is uncommon in research on
tasks. In the five fundamental questions she raises as a result of her
study, Duff also provides a basis for a substantial research agenda
for further research. Finally, she places the issue of interlanguage
variability firmly on the research agenda. Looking to the future, I
would like to see the issue of variability feature more prominently
in research into task-based language learning and teaching.

292 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CONCLUSION

In this paper I have provided a selective overview of the

development of task-based language teaching. I have tried to show
that, while it had its genesis in mainstream education, task-based
teaching has become a powerful influence in language education.
At a conceptual level, the approach has been supported by chang-
ing conceptions of the nature of language and learning-captured
under the rubric of communicative language teaching. Empirically,
TBLT is supported by a healthy research agenda which emerged
from process-oriented second language acquisition.
In the second part of the paper, I have tried to indicate some of
the directions that TBLT might take in the future. In particular, I
have suggested that the conceptual and empirical basis needs to be
extended both substantively and methodologically, and I described
two recent investigations which illustrate the possible shape of
research under such an extended agenda.
U

THE AUTHOR

David Nunan is Associate Professor of Linguistics at Macquarie Un

Sydney, Australia. His publications include Syllabus Design (Oxford Un
Press, 1988), The Learner-Centred Curriculum (Cambridge Univers
1988), Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom (Cambridge U
Press, 1989), Second Language Teacher Education (with J. C. Richar
bridge University Press, 1990), Understanding Language Classrooms (P
Hall, 1989), and The Australian English Course (with J. Lockwood, Cam
University Press, 1991).

REFERENCES

Anderson, A., & Lynch, T. (1988). Listening. Oxford: Oxford Universi

Press.
Berwick, R. (1988). The effect of task variation in teacher-led groups
repair of English as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral disser
tion, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Berwick, R. (in press). Towards an educational framework for teacher
tasks in English as a foreign language. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.
Task-based language teaching. Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilin
Matters.
Breen, M. (1984). Process syllabuses for the language classroom. In C.
Brumfit (Ed.), General English syllabus design. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.

COMMUNICATIVE TASKS AND THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM 293

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Breen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin & D.
Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Brindley, G. (1984). Needs analysis and obiective setting in the Adu
Migrant Education Service. Sydney: Adult Migrant Immigration
Service.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bruton, G., & Samuda, G. (1980). Learner and teacher roles in the
treatment of oral error in group work. RELC Journal, 11(3), 49-63.
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). "Information gap" tasks: Do they facilitate
second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 305-325.
Duff, P. (in press). Task force on interlanguage performance: An analysis
of task as independent variable. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Task-
based language teaching. Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative
negotiation of meaning. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London:
Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Lond
Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context and tex
Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxf
University Press.
Kohonen, V. (in press). Experiential language learning: Second lang
learning as cooperative learner education. In D. Nunan (Ed.),
Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning
and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language
learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (in press). An introduction to second
language acquisition research. London: Longman.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In
H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition
(Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences No. 379, pp. 259-278).
New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Long, M. H. (1985a). A role for instruction in second language acquisition:
Task-based language training. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.),
Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon, Avon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. H. (1985b). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S.
Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

294 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Long, M. H. (1990). Task, groups, and task-group interactions. In S.
Anivan (Ed.), Language teaching methodology for the nineties.
Singapore: RELC.
Long, M. H., Adams, L., & Castanos, F. (1976). Doing things with words:
Verbal interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations. In
R. Crymes & J. Fanselow (Eds.), On TESOL '76. Washington, DC:
TESOL.
McDonough, S. (1981). Psychology in foreign language teach
Allen & Unwin.
Montgomery, C., & Eisenstein, M. (1985). Real reality revisited: An
experimental communicative course in ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2),
317-334.
Nunan, D. (1984). Discourse processing by first language, second phase,
and second language learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for
teachers. London: Prentice Hall.
Nunan, D., & Lockwood, J. (1991). The Australian English course: Task-
based English for post-beginners. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in
task-centered discussions. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn:
Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Richards, J. C. (1990). The language teaching matrix. Cambridg
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Weber, H. (1985). Longman dictionary o
applied linguistics. London: Longman.
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition o
communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson &
E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogic
thoughts, judgments and behaviour, Review of Educational Research,
51, 4.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of compre-
hensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass
& C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. New York:
Harcourt Brace.
Widdowson, H. G. (1987). Aspects of syllabus design. In M. Tickoo (Ed.),
Language syllabuses: State of the art. Singapore: RELC.

COMMUNICATIVE TASKS AND THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM 295

This content downloaded from

132.209.38.9 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:45:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms