Exploring EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of Task-Based Language

Teaching: A Case Study of Korean Secondary School Classroom

Practice

In-Jae Jeon
Mokpo National University, Korea

Jung-won Hahn
Mokpo National University, Korea

Bio Data
In-Jae Jeon has taught English as a foreign language for 18 years in Korean secondary
schools and now works as an EFL instructor at Mokpo National University in South
Korea. He has a BA in English from Kongju National Teachers’ College, MA in English
literature from Mokpo National University, and PhD in English language education from
Mokpo National University. His major concerns are curriculum development and
textbook material evaluation in EFL contexts.

Dr. Jung-won Hahn is a professor of Mokpo National University, South Korea. She has
been teaching English as a foreign language in Mokpo National University for more than
25 years. Her major concerns are textbook analysis and language teaching methodology.

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore EFL teachers’ perceptions of task-based language
teaching (TBLT) in a Korean secondary school context. The data for this study were
collected through questionnaires from a total of 228 teachers at 38 different middle and
high schools in Korea. The survey was conducted from August through October of the
2005 academic year, and the data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The
overall findings of the survey show that the majority of respondents have a higher level
of understanding about TBLT concepts, regardless of teaching levels, but that there exist
some negative views on implementing TBLT with regard to its classroom practice.
Additionally, some useful implications are proposed based on research findings in order
to help teachers and teacher trainers to construct and implement TBLT more effectively.

Key words: Task-based language teaching (TBLT), teachers’ perceptions, classroom

practice, task-based activities, task performance, small group work

Introduction
With the advent of the communicative language teaching approach in the early 1980s and

123
much emphasis on learners’ communicative abilities over the last two decades, the term
task-based language teaching (TBLT) came into prevalent use in the field of second
language acquisition in terms of developing process-oriented syllabi and designing
communicative tasks to promote learners’ actual language use. Within the varying
interpretations of TBLT related to classroom practice, recent studies exhibit three recurrent
features: TBLT is compatible with a learner-centered educational philosophy (Ellis, 2003;
Nunan, 2005; Richards & Rodgers, 2001); it consists of particular components such as goal,
procedure, specific outcome (Murphy, 2003; Nunan, 2004; Skehan, 1998); it advocates
content-oriented meaningful activities rather than linguistic forms (Beglar & Hunt, 2002;
Carless, 2002; Littlewood, 2004).

Given the fact that language acquisition is influenced by the complex interactions of a
number of variables including materials, activities, and evaluative feedback, TBLT has a
dramatic, positive impact on these variables. It implies that TBLT provides learners with
natural sources of meaningful material, ideal situations for communicative activity, and
supportive feedback allowing for much greater opportunities for language use.
Specifically, in an Asian EFL environment where learners are limited in their
accessibility to use the target language on a daily basis, it is first of all necessary for
language learners to be provided with real opportunities to be exposed to language use in
the classroom. In his study based on interviews with teachers, teacher educators, and
ministry officials, Nunan (2003) indicates that TBLT emerged as a central concept from a
study of curriculum guidelines and syllabi in the Asia-Pacific countries including Japan,
Vietnam, China, Hong Kong, Korea and Malaysia.

Unfortunately, however, a quick review of task-based literature shows that despite its
pedagogical benefits surrounding the participatory learning culture, TBLT has not yet
been sufficiently researched or proven empirically in terms of its classroom practice in
school foreign language learning contexts (Carless, 2004; In-Jae Jeon, 2005). In light of
this, this study’s aim is to explore Korean EFL teachers’ perceptions of task-based
instruction based on investigating their understandings of TBLT concepts, positions on
TBLT implementation, and reasons they choose, or avoid, implementing TBLT in the

124
classroom. This will provide insight for teachers to design and implement any real
communicative tasks, which are critically important for EFL learners in order to
experience meaningful language use. It will also contribute to facilitating EFL teachers’
practical use of TBLT techniques, thereby improving the learners’ communicative
abilities.

Theoretical Background: A Brief Review of Task-based Pedagogy

The task-based view of language teaching, based on the constructivist theory of learning
and communicative language teaching methodology, has evolved in response to some
limitations of the traditional PPP approach, represented by the procedure of presentation,
practice, and performance (Ellis, 2003; Long & Crookes, 1991). Thus, it has the substantial
implication that language learning is a developmental process promoting communication
and social interaction rather than a product acquired by practicing language items, and that
learners learn the target language more effectively when they are naturally exposed to
meaningful task-based activities. Such a view of language learning led to the development
of various task-based approaches in the eighties (Breen, 1987; Candlin & Murphy, 1987;
Nunan, 1989; Prabhu, 1987), and during the nineties, has developed into a detailed
practical framework for the communicative classroom in which learners perform task-
based activities through cycles of pre-task preparation, task performance, and post-task
feedback through language focus (Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996). Specifically, Ellis (2003)
indicates that TBLT has been re-examined in recent years from different perspectives
including oral performance, writing performance, and performance assessment.

Despite the prevalent use of tasks in language pedagogy, some significant challenges
behind designing proper task-based syllabi and constructing authentic task-based materials,
both of which have been considered crucial factors in determining the effectiveness of
TBLT in communicative classrooms, still remain unresolved. In response to these
challenges, many SLA researchers are currently moving their attention from
conceptualizing tasks to sequencing and implementing tasks based on observation of the
practical utilities of TBLT methodology in classroom practice.

125
The Notion of Task as a Central Unit for Designing Communicative Classroom
In order to construct useful tasks for communicative classrooms, it is first of all necessary
to draw a proper definition of ‘task’ with reference to capturing its major features and
elements. Within much discussion and varying interpretations as to the definition of tasks,
Nunan (1989) suggests that tasks can be conceptualized in terms of the specific goals they
are intended to serve, the input data, which forms the point of departure for the task, and
the related procedures, which the learners undertake in the completion of the task. Willis
(1996) defines a task as an activity in which the target language is used for a
communicative purpose in order to achieve an outcome. Skehan (1998) also represents the
core features of tasks within four defining criteria: there is a goal to be worked towards; the
activity is outcome-evaluated; meaning is primary; and there is a real-world relationship.
Candlin and Murphy (1987) assert that tasks can be effectively organized based on
systematic components including goals, input, setting, activities, roles, and feedback.
Briefly, goals refer to the general aim for the task and input represents verbal or non-verbal
materials that learners can manipulate. Setting refers to the environment in which the task
is performed and activities involve the things participants will be doing in a given setting.
The roles for teacher and learner are closely related to the successful implementation of the
task, and feedback concerns the task evaluation. The framework of task components
provides second language acquisition researchers with some meaningful insights in a task-
based syllabus design and authentic material development, for it can serve as the beginning
point for designing task-based activities. Thus, in this paper, it is suggested that the central
components of task-based framework include goals, input data, classroom settings, activity
types, and assessment.

Task Components to Consider for Implementing TBLT Successfully

Goals serve as a guideline in the overall process of task performance and provide a point of
contact between the task and the broader curriculum (Nunan, 1989), involving a variety of
perspectives based on communicative, socio-cultural, and cognitive awareness (Clark,
1987). Thus, they may cover a broad range of pedagogical objectives from general
outcomes (e.g., improving learners’ communicative competence or developing language
skills) through specific ones (e.g., making a hotel reservation or making a travel plan in the

126
target language). Of key importance, among other things, are the explicit statements used in
directing task participants to manipulate given materials, and imply what the results of a
certain experience will be. Another point worth noting is that goals should properly reflect
learners’ needs and interests in order to stimulate their potential motivation for language
use.

Input data refers to verbal or non-verbal materials, which task participants have to deal
with when performing a task. While verbal materials may be spoken or written language,
non-verbal materials include pictures, photos, diagrams, charts, maps, etc. Actually, input
data can be derived from a wide range of sources in a real world context. For instance,
Hover (1986) provides a long list illustrating all kinds of written sources which exist
around us, and Brosnan, Brown, and Hood (1984) point out the richness and variety of
texts that learners will need to face in real life situations. For verbal materials, Brown and
Yule (1983) indicate that dialogue texts containing description or instruction, all other
things being equal, are much easier for learners to comprehend and manipulate than non-
dialogue texts, which include arguments or abstract concepts. In short, input data, which
task participants are supposed to comprehend and manipulate in the language learning
process, should reflect the learners’ needs and interests, thereby positively encouraging the
use of the target language.

Classroom setting refers to a certain environment, in which every task is performed. In

relation to classroom arrangements, Wright (1987) suggests the different ways in which
learners might be grouped physically based on individual, pair, small group, and whole
class mode. For the relationship between task participants’ roles and each setting, Anderson
and Lynch (1988) advocate the effectiveness of group work compared to that of individual
work for general pedagogic reasons (e.g., increasing the cooperation and cohesiveness
among learners), and Pica and Doughty (1985) mention the positive role of group work in
promoting a linguistic environment likely to assist L2 learning. In an experimental study of
language learning settings, on the other hand, Li and Adamson (1992) indicate that
advanced students preferred individual work to group or whole class work based on their
beliefs that group activities would not be helpful in improving their academic grades. As

127
mentioned above, the research results of classroom settings show some mixed findings.
Thus, it suggests that classroom arrangement should be flexible rather than fixed, allowing
task participants to make use of different settings in different learning situations, and that
roles for the teacher should be dynamic in order to control class modes.

The literature review of task-based research shows that many studies have concentrated
on exploring activity types that best stimulate interactive language use in real world or
classroom situations. One of the most general classifications was proposed by Prabhu
(1987), based on three principal activity types including information gap, reasoning gap,
and opinion gap activities. For the most helpful activity in facilitating L2 learning, on the
other hand, there exist various findings among researchers. Pica and Doughty (1985), for
instance, found that so-called two-way information gap games (e.g., all learners in a group
discussion have unique information to contribute) stimulated significantly more modified
interactions than one-way information gap activities (e.g., one member of the group
possesses all the relevant information). Crookall and Oxford (1990) indicated that the
effective use of role-plays added variety to the kinds of activities students were asked to
perform by encouraging them to develop and practice new language and by creating the
motivation and involvement necessary for real learning to occur. Grellet (1981) proposed
that learners could develop flexible communication strategies through matching activities
based on inferring the meaning of unknown elements. In short, researchers’ findings
revealed that each activity type had its own strengths in facilitating language learning,
thereby helping learners to develop their own specific strategies.

Assessment of task-based performance, one of the challenges related to successful task-

based instruction, is quite different from traditional formative tests in that it involves either
the observation of behavior in the real world or a simulation of a real-life activity in a
pedagogical setting (Bachman, 2002; Norris, Hudson, & Bonk, 2002; Weigle, 2002). Using
tasks for assessment, however, does not simply mean replicating real-life activities, but
rather represents an attempt to get an accurate picture of learners’ communicative abilities.
For one thing, a carefully designed peer assessment is believed to develop learners’
communication skills with their group members by providing support as well as

128
challenging their group members to realize their potential (Johnson & Johnson, 1994). For
the criteria used to select an assessment task, Bachman and Palmer (1996) suggest a well-
specified target language use domain which refers to a set of specific language use tasks
that the test taker is likely to encounter outside the test itself. In short, task-based
assessment involves many variables affecting test scores, and therefore, teachers are
required to start with a clear purpose and proper steps. Thus, the authenticity of the tasks,
among other things, is a critical quality in order to ensure the fairness and generalization of
evaluation scores.

In conclusion, despite its educational benefits in language learning contexts, a task in

itself does not necessarily guarantee its successful implementation unless the teacher, the
facilitator and controller of the task performance, understands how tasks actually work in
the classroom. It also suggests that TBLT as an instructional method is more than just
giving tasks to learners and evaluating their performance. More importantly, the teacher,
who wants to try implementing TBLT successfully, is required to have sufficient
knowledge about the instructional framework related to its plan, procedure, and assessment.

Research Design and Method

The Research Questions
In an attempt to investigate Korean EFL teachers’ perceptions of TBLT, the present study
examined three related domains including teachers’ understanding of TBLT concepts,
teachers’ views on TBLT implementation, and practical reasons teachers choose, or avoid,
implementing TBLT in the classroom. In light of the goal of the study, the following research
questions were posed:

1. How well do teachers understand TBLT concepts?

2. What are the aspects of teachers’ views on TBLT implementation?
3. For what practical reasons do teachers choose, or avoid, implementing TBLT?

The Survey Instrument

The survey instrument, a three-page questionnaire, was devised to measure Korean EFL

129
teachers’ perceptions of TBLT in classroom setting. The questionnaire, composed of 15
Likert-type items and two open-ended items, was divided into four sections. The first
section contained demographic questions in order to gain information about the teacher’s
teaching level, gender, age, and teaching experience. The second section (items 1-7) dealt
with the basic concept of task and principles of task-based instruction in order to review
teachers’ practical understandings of TBLT. The third section (items 8-15), related to
teachers’ positions on classroom practice of TBLT, was partly adapted and modified from
Nunan’s (2004) checklist for evaluating communicative tasks. In the second and third
section, teachers were asked to answer each question using a five-point scale ranging from
'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree'. Finally, in the fourth section, teachers were asked to
rate their own reasons for choosing or avoiding the implementation of TBLT, with
reference to a total of 11 qualitative statements.

The Participants
The population for this study was Korean EFL teachers working at the secondary school
level. From the 38 different schools, a total of 228 teachers participated in this survey.
Specifically, the 228 participants were composed of 112 middle school teachers (49.1%)
and 116 high school teachers (50.9%). All of the participants have had at least two or more
year’s experience teaching English as a foreign language. 153 teachers were female
(67.1%) and 75 teachers (32.9%) were male. The teachers ranged in age from their twenties
to fifties and 51.8% of them were in their thirties and forties. The number of years they had
taught English varied, ranging from less than 6 years (15.4%), 6 to 10 years (19.7%), 11 to
19 years (43.0%), and more than 20 years (21.9%).

Data Collection and Analysis

Two different methods were used for data collection. First, while visiting 17 different
middle and high schools for seven weeks in August and September of 2005, the researcher
contacted 69 middle and 78 high school teachers who have taught English, explained the
pedagogical goal of the survey, and asked them to answer the questionnaire. A total of 141
teachers, including 65 middle and 76 high school teachers, completed the survey giving a
response rate of 94.2%, 97.4% respectively. Next, written questionnaires were mailed to

130
120 middle and 130 high school English teachers. Out of 250, a total of 87 questionnaires
from 47 middle and 40 high school teachers were returned, giving a response rate of 39.2%
and 30.8% respectively. The large gap of response rates in data collection may be the result
of the two different approaches for data collection, namely visiting or mailing.

The data analysis process consisted of two methodologies, Likert-type and open-ended
item analysis. The Likert-type items, which were designed to identify teachers’
understandings of TBLT conception and teachers’ views on TBLT implementation, were
given a numerical score (e.g., strongly disagree =1, disagree =2, neutral=3, agree=4, and
strongly agree=5). Open-ended items, which were constructed to capture the reasons
teachers choose, or avoid, implementing TBLT in their classrooms, were first categorized
and then coded by the researcher in terms of the teachers’ responding rates. SPSS
(Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 11.0 for Windows was used to analyze the
data.

Analysis Results
Teachers Have a Higher Level of Understanding of Task and TBLT
Table 1 presents a percentage comparison of teacher responses to each of the seven items
on the key concepts of task and TBLT. For the convenience of comparison, the five-point
scale responses were merged into a three-point simplified scale (strongly disagree &
disagree, neutral, agree & strongly agree).
Table 1
Teachers’ Understandings of TBLT Concepts (n=228)
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly agree
Questionnaire Items M SD
/ Disagree (%) (%) / Agree (%)
MT 9.8 17.9 72.3 3.81 0.34
1. A task is a communicative goal directed.
HT 10.3 21.6 68.1 3.76 0.36
2. A task involves a primary focus on MT 11.6 25.0 63.4 3.57 0.43
meaning. HT 7.7 21.6 70.7 3.71 0.37
MT 10.7 21.4 67.9 3.55 0.31
3. A task has a clearly defined outcome.
HT 6.1 23.7 70.2 3.65 0.34
4. A task is any activity in which the target MT 5.4 33.0 61.6 3.45 0.35
language is used by the learner. HT 3.4 32.8 63.8 3.56 0.37

131
 5. TBLT is consistent with the principles of MT 6.3 22.3 71.4 3.74 0.36
communicative language teaching. HT 6.9 25.9 67.2 3.64 0.39
6. TBLT is based on the student-centered MT 10.7 23.2 66.1 3.69 0.42
instructional approach. HT 7.8 24.1 68.1 3.65 0.45
7. TBLT includes three stages: pre-task, MT 10.8 32.1 57.1 3.48 0.28
task implementation, and post-task. HT 9.5 35.3 55.2 3.51 0.31
Note: MT=middle school teacher, HT=high school teacher, M=mean sore, SD=standard
deviation
In responses to item 1 through 3, which asked for some key concepts of task, the vast
majority of respondents understood that task has a communicative purpose (MT 72.3%, HT
68.1%), a primary focus on meaning (MT 63.4%, HT 70.7%), and a clearly defined
outcome (MT 67.9%, HT 70.2%). In response to item 4, most teachers (MT 61.6%, HT
63.8%) considered task as a kind of activity in which the target language is used by the
learner. This implies that most Korean EFL teachers generally agree with the definition of
task as discussed in the section on theoretical background. In response to item 5, a clear
majority of teachers (MT 71.4%, HT 67.2%) reported that they believed in the relevance
between task-based instruction and communicative language teaching. This partially
indicates that teachers approving of the communicative approach are likely to adopt the
basic nature of TBLT in their own language classrooms. The findings in items 6 and 7,
related to the instructional philosophy and stages of task-based learning, suggest that most
teachers (MT 66.1%, HT 68.1%) held a conviction for student-centeredness, and that more
than half of the teachers (MT 57.1%, HT 55.2%) recognized three different stages
including pre-task, task implementation, and post-task.

Teachers Have Some Negative Views on Implementing TBLT in the Classroom

Table 2 presents the aspects of teachers’ positions toward implementing TBLT in their
language classrooms. First, in response to item 8, unlike a higher level of teachers’
understandings of TBLT concepts, about half of the teachers (MT 49.1%, HT 55.2%)
responded negatively when questioned about implementing TBLT in the classroom. This
indicates that teachers’ conceptual understandings of TBLT do not necessarily lead to the
actual use of task in the classroom. Items 9 through 11 explored teachers’ beliefs in TBLT
as an instructional method. While less than half of the teachers responded that TBLT
provides a relaxed atmosphere to promote the target language use (MT 44.6%, HT 46.7%)

132
and therefore activates learners’ needs and interests (MT 47.8%, HT 43.1%), more than
half of the teachers (MT 51.8%, HT 53.4%) showed some negative responses regarding
TBLT’s pursuing the development of integrated skills in the classroom. This suggests that
EFL teachers who want to implement task-based instruction successfully are required to
have some knowledge of the integration of the four language skills based on the principles
of social interaction. The findings of items 12 and 13, which explored the teacher’s role and
preparation time in implementing TBLT, revealed a common feature regardless of teaching
level. More than half of the teachers believed that TBLT will give teachers an undue
psychological burden as a facilitator (MT 50.9%, HT 56.9%) and that it would require
much more preparation time (MT 52.7%, HT 54.5%). The findings for item 14 indicate that
few teachers (MT 22.3%, HT 31.0%) believed TBLT is proper for controlling classroom
arrangements. For item 15, most teachers (MT 56.3%, HT 55.2%) answered that TBLT
materials in textbooks are meaningful, purposeful, and based on the real-world situations.
Table 2
Teachers’ Views on Implementing TBLT (n=228)
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly agree
Questionnaire Items M SD
/ Disagree (%) (%) / Agree (%)
8. I have interest in implementing TBLT MT 49.1 31.3 19.6 2.78 0.53
in the classroom. HT 55.2 29.3 15.5 2.86 0.57
9. TBLT provides a relaxed atmosphere MT 19.7 35.7 44.6 3.12 0.45
to promote the target language use. HT 22.4 30.9 46.7 3.16 0.48
10. TBLT activates learners’ needs and MT 30.3 21.9 47.8 2.98 0.66
interests. HT 23.3 33.6 43.1 3.07 0.61
11. TBLT pursues the development of MT 51.8 32.1 16.1 2.65 0.32
integrated skills in the classroom. HT 53.4 27.6 19.0 2.68 0.34
12. TBLT gives much psychological MT 24.1 25.0 50.9 3.25 0.36
burden to teacher as a facilitator. HT 19.8 23.3 56.9 3.31 0.31
13. TBLT requires much preparation MT 19.6 27.7 52.7 3.17 0.43
time compared to other approaches. HT 20.5 25.0 54.5 3.23 0.39
14. TBLT is proper for controlling MT 33.1 44.6 22.3 2.57 0.55
classroom arrangements. HT 29.4 39.6 31.0 2.53 0.58
15. TBLT materials in textbooks are
MT 14.2 29.5 56.3 3.28 0.41
meaningful and purposeful based on
HT 18.1 26.7 55.2 3.23 0.38
the real-world context.
Note: MT=middle school teacher, HT=high school teacher, M=mean sore, SD=standard
deviation

133
Teachers Like to Use TBLT for Its Group Work Basis and Motivational Traits
In response to whether or not teachers implement TBLT in the classroom, while 117
teachers (51.3%) among a total of 228 respondents answered they were currently using
task-based methods or techniques in their classrooms, 111 teachers (48.7%) responded
negatively. Table 3 presents the aspects of teachers’ responses to the open-ended question
asking them to identify some reasons why they decide to use TBLT in classroom practice.
Data analysis revealed that the three major reasons teachers used task-based methods
concerned appropriateness to small group work (70.1%), improving learners’ interaction
skills (67.5%), and encouraging learners’ intrinsic motivation (54.7%). In contrast, few
respondents agreed that TBLT creates a collaborative learning environment (39.3%) and
promotes learners’ academic progress (27.4%). The “others” category (11.1%) concerned
classroom arrangements, promotion of target language use, controlling large classes, and so
on.

Table 3
Reasons Teachers Use TBLT in the Classroom (n=117)
Statements Frequency Total (Percent)
TBLT is appropriate for small group work. MT 48 HT 34 82 (70.1)

TBLT improves learners’ interaction skills. MT 42 HT 37 79 (67.5)

TBLT encourages learners’ intrinsic motivation. MT 36 HT 28 64 (54.7)

TBLT creates a collaborative learning environment. MT 21 HT 25 46 (39.3)

TBLT promotes learners’ academic progress. MT 17 HT 15 32 (27.4)

Others MT 8 HT 5 13 (11.1)
Note: MT=middle school teacher, HT=high school teacher

In response to the specific reasons teachers gave for using task-based techniques in the
classroom, there were some meaningful differences according to the teaching level. While
most middle school teachers, for instance, valued its appropriateness to small group work,
most high school teachers placed an importance on improving interaction skills and
encouraging intrinsic motivation. This partially implies that as an instructional method,

134
TBLT is currently preferred for its group work potential in middle school settings, and its
motivational aspects in high school settings.

The Biggest Reason Teachers Avoid TBLT Lies in Lack of Confidence

Table 4 presents teachers’ responses to the open-ended question that asked them to pick out
their own reasons for avoiding the implementation of TBLT in their classrooms. Data
analysis showed that lack of knowledge of task-based instruction (75.7%), among a total of
six plausible reasons, is the main reason teachers are reluctant to implement TBLT. Their
self-perceived inability to use the target language (73.0%) was the second major reason,
followed by difficulty in assessing learners’ task-based performance (64.0%) and finally,
the problem of dealing with learners who are not used to task-based learning (45.9%).
Materials in textbooks not properly designed and large class size were less frequent reasons
given (30.6% & 21.6%, respectively). Other responses (10.8%) involved ineffectiveness in
grammar instruction, holding bright students back, taking too much preparation time, etc.

In response to the specific reasons teachers avoid using task-based methods in the
classroom, it is noticeable that there existed a clear feature regardless of teaching level:
more than 70% of the teachers among a total of 111 respondents believed that they had
little knowledge of task-based methods and limited target language proficiency.

Table 4
Reasons Teachers Avoid TBLT in the Classroom (n=111)
Statements Frequency Total (Percent)
I have very little knowledge of task-based instruction. MT 45 HT 39 84 (75.7)

I have limited target language proficiency. MT 38 HT 43 81 (73.0)

I have difficulty in assessing learner’s task-based performance. MT 35 HT 36 71 (64.0)

Learners are not used to task-based learning. MT 24 HT 27 51 (45.9)

Materials in textbooks are not proper for using TBLT. MT 13 HT 21 34 (30.6)

Large class size is an obstacle to use task-based methods. MT 9 HT 15 24 (21.6)

Others MT 5 HT 7 12 (10.8)

135
Note: MT=middle school teacher, HT=high school teacher

Discussion
The findings of items 1 through 7 showed that teachers had a comparatively clear
understanding of the linguistic features of task, thus approving of the pedagogical benefits
of task in second language learning classroom. More importantly, it is believed that
teachers, regardless of teaching levels, convey a considerable amount of practical
understanding about the key concepts of TBLT. This could result from the fact that the
current Korean national curriculum for English, which was first introduced and applied
within secondary schools in 2001, has been characterized by a definite shift toward the
application of task-based learning and activity-oriented language use aimed at improving
learners’ communicative competence.

The findings of items 8 through 15 indicated that despite the comparatively higher-level
understanding of TBLT concepts, many teachers actually hesitated to adopt TBLT as an
instructional method in classroom practice. This may result from the fact that most Korean
EFL teachers still use the traditional lecture-oriented methods, which they are accustomed
to, and more than that, they have the psychological pressure of facing some new
disciplinary problems in using TBLT. In relation to task participants’ roles and classroom
arrangements, it might be true that Korean EFL teachers have become accustomed to
working in teacher-centered classrooms, thus adopting a one-way instruction method rather
than two-way interaction. A teacher, however, needs to be flexible and dynamic in
controlling the language learning environment, because the nature of language learning
substantially demands that learners actively participate in language use activities.

The findings of the two open-ended items revealed that teachers may have different
reasons for choosing or avoiding the implementation of TBLT. While some teachers
decided to use task-based methods as a basis for group work, or because of its motivational
potential, others had fears of being confronted with problems on account of a lack of
knowledge and confidence. Yet many problems that teachers face in implementing TBLT
can be successfully reduced when teachers make an effort to understand its pedagogical

136
benefits and increase positive attitudes toward TBLT as an instructional method. In light of
this, it is first of all necessary for teachers to have the opportunity to learn both the
strengths and weaknesses of a task-based methodology, and understand its basic principles,
as well as its various techniques.

Now let’s turn to the challenges teachers may encounter in trying to use task-based
methods. Given the fact that difficulty in assessing learner’s task-based performance is one
of the major reasons teachers avoid implementing TBLT, attention needs to be given to
performance assessment. In relation to assessment for group work, for example, awarding
equal grades to all members of the group may serve as one of the crucial weaknesses for
ensuring a level of fairness in assessment, particularly in high achieving learner groups.
Therefore, the teacher needs to consider both inter-group and intra-group evaluations
together in terms of enhancing the participation and quality of involvement in task-based
cooperative work (Lourdusamy & Divaharan, 2002). While the inter-group assessment
involves using the group’s products as part of the course evaluation and thus giving equal
grades to all members of the group, the intra-group assessment involves individual
evaluation.

For learners not trained in task-based learning, one of the reasons they avoid participating
in task-based activities may be related to a lack of confidence in performing tasks. This is
why it is necessary for the teacher to help learners build confidence by encouraging them to
learn how to deal with tasks and use collaborative skills in task-based performance. Once
task participants realize that learning in tasks is only one of several ways of learning in the
class, they will be able to overcome such challenges as fear of assessment, competition, and
the difficulty of the task. Thus, the improved confidence of less assertive learners may lead
to more equal participation and sharing of the workload (Burdett, 2003).

For task-based materials, few teachers answered that materials in textbooks were one of
the reasons they avoid using task-based techniques in their classrooms. This partially
indicates that the current EFL textbooks in Korean secondary school settings, all of which
allegedly follow the principles of the communicative theory of language learning, properly

137
reflect the task-based syllabus which chiefly concerns communicative skills and social
interaction. It also reveals that teachers are often required to redesign individual work-
oriented materials in textbooks to be in accordance with the principles of promoting
interaction and collaborative learning.

Finally, for large classes, which have often been considered to be problematic with regard
to disciplinary situations in task-based group work, the teacher needs to take group
formation and presentation procedure into consideration. Basically task-based techniques
can be used the same way in large classes as in small ones, except that large classes need
more time and preparation.

Conclusion and Implications

In the Korean EFL context, in which learners don’t have much contact with native speakers
of English, the focus of language teaching has been placed on changing the classroom
practice from the traditional passive lecture to more active group learning so that learners
can be more easily exposed to target language use. Thus, many teachers have had an
increasing amount of interest in using TBLT as an instructional method, chiefly because
they believe task-based learning has specific benefits for increasing learners’
communication skills and interaction.

The overall findings of this study revealed that despite a higher level of understanding of
TBLT concepts, many Korean EFL teachers retain some fear of adopting TBLT as an
instructional method because of perceived disciplinary problems related to classroom
practice. It also turned out that teachers had their own reasons to use or avoid implementing
TBLT. Based on the overall findings, three important implications for teachers and teacher
trainers are proposed. First, since teachers’ views regarding instructional approach have a
great impact on classroom practice, it is necessary for the teacher, as a practical controller
and facilitator of learners’ activities in the classroom, to have a positive attitude toward
TBLT in order for it to be successfully implemented. Second, given the research finding
that teachers lack practical application knowledge of task-based methods or techniques,
teachers should be given the opportunity to acquire knowledge about TBLT related to

138
planning, implementing, and assessing. To this end, it is suggested that teacher education
programs, which aim at in-depth training about language teaching methodologies, should
properly deal with both the strengths and weaknesses of TBLT as an instructional method
ranging from basic principles to specific techniques. Third, when taking into account that
one of the major reasons teachers avoid implementing TBLT is deeply related to a lack of
confidence, much consideration should be given to overcoming potential obstacles that
teachers may come across in a task-based classroom. It is also recommended that teachers
consider alternative solutions for classroom management such as leveled tasks, peer
assessment, and a variety of various task types including two-way information gap
activities as well as one-way activities, such as simple asking and answering.

References
Bachman, L. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment.
Language Testing, 19, 453-476.
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Breen, M. P. (1987). Learner contribution to task design. N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Brosnan, D., & Brown, K., & Hood, S. (1984). Reading in context. Adelaide: National
Curriculum Resource Centre.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Burdett, J. (2003). Making groups work: university students’ perceptions. International
Education Journal, 4(3), 177-191.
Candlin, C., & Murphy, D. (1987). Language learning tasks (Eds.). Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice Hall International.
Carless, D. (2002). Implementing task-based learning with young learners. ELT Journal,
56(4), 389-396.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ re-interpretation of a task-based innovation in
primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 639-662.
Clark, J. (1987). Curriculum renewal in school foreign language learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

139
Crookall, D., & Oxford, R. L. (1990). Linking language learning and simulation/gaming.
In D. Crookall & R. L. Oxford (Eds.), Simulation, gaming, and language learning (pp.
3-24). New York: Newbury House.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Grellet, F. (1981). Developing reading skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hover, D. (1986). Think twice: Teacher’s book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jeon, In-Jae. (2005). An analysis of task-based materials and performance: Focused on
Korean high school English textbooks. English Teaching, 60(2). 87-109.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1994). Learning together and alone: cooperative,
competitive and individualistic learning. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Li, A. K., & Adamson, G. (1992). Gifted secondary students’ preferred learning style:
cooperative, competitive, or individualistic. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
16(1), 46-54.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: some questions and suggestions. ELT
Journal, 58(4), 319-326.
Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1991). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL
Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.
Lourdusamy, A., & Divaharan, S. (2002). An attempt to enhance the quality of
cooperative learning through peer assessment. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 3(2),
72-83.
Murphy, J. (2003). Task-based learning: the interaction between tasks and learners. ELT
Journal, 57(4), 352-360.
Norris, J., Hudson, B., & Bonk, W. (2002). Examinee abilities and task difficulty in task-
based second language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19, 395-418.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies
and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589-613.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

140
Nunan, D. (2005). Important tasks of English education: Asia-wide and beyond
[Electronic version]. Asian EFL Journal Vol. 7, Issue 3.
Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). The role of groupwork in classroom second language
acquisition. Studies Second Language Acquisition, 7, 233-248
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy: A perspective. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.
Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Weigle, S. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.
Beglar, D., & Hunt, A. (2002). Implementing task-based language teaching. In J.
Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology
of current practice (pp. 96-106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, T. (1987). Roles of teachers and learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Appendix
Teacher Questionnaire

This questionnaire is designed to examine Korean EFL teachers’ beliefs of task-based

language teaching with reference to classroom practice. Please answer all of the questions
as best as you can. Your answers will be kept confidential. Thank you for your cooperation.
Section I. General and Demographic Information
Teaching level □ elementary school □ middle school □ high school
Gender □ male □ female
Age □ 20-29 □ 30-39 □ 40-49 □ 50 +
Total number of years
□ less than 5 years □ 5 to 9 years □ 10 to 20 years □ more than 20 years
teaching English

141
Section II. Teachers’ Understandings of Task and TBLT
For each of the following statements, please answer by putting ∨ in a box, according to the
following scale: SA (strongly agree), A (agree), U (undecided), D (disagree), SD (strongly
disagree).
Questionnaire Items SA A U D SD
1. A task is a communicative goal directed. □ □ □ □ □
2. A task involves a primary focus on meaning. □ □ □ □ □
3. A task has a clearly defined outcome. □ □ □ □ □
4. A task is any activity in which the target language is used by the
□ □ □ □ □
learner.
5. TBLT is consistent with the principles of communicative language
□ □ □ □ □
teaching.
6. TBLT is based on the student-centered instructional approach. □ □ □ □ □
7. TBLT includes three stages: pre-task, task implementation, and
□ □ □ □ □
post-task.

Section III. Teachers’ Views on Implementing TBLT

The following statements address teachers’ views on implementing TBLT in the classroom.
Please answer by putting ∨ in a box that matches your position most, according to the
following scale: SA (strongly agree), A (agree), U (Undecided), D (disagree), SD (strongly
disagree).
Questionnaire Items SA A U D SD
8. I have interest in implementing TBLT in the classroom. □ □ □ □ □
9. TBLT provides a relaxed atmosphere to promote the target language
□ □ □ □ □
use.
10. TBLT activates learners’ needs and interests. □ □ □ □ □
11. TBLT pursues the development of integrated skills in the
□ □ □ □ □
classroom.
12. TBLT gives much psychological burden to teacher as a facilitator. □ □ □ □ □
13. TBLT requires much preparation time compared to other
□ □ □ □ □
approaches.
14. TBLT is proper for controlling classroom arrangements. □ □ □ □ □
15. TBLT materials should be meaningful and purposeful based on the
□ □ □ □ □
real-world context.

142
Section IV. Reasons Teachers Choose or Avoid Implementing TBLT
Do you use TBLT in your teaching? □ YES □ NO
If yes, please put ∨ any reasons that you decide to implement TBLT.
□ TBLT promotes learners’ academic progress.
□ TBLT improves learners’ interaction skills.
□ TBLT encourages learners’ intrinsic motivation.
□ TBLT creates a collaborative learning environment.
□ TBLT is appropriate for small group work.
If you have other reasons, please write them down.
( )

If no, please put ∨ any reasons that you avoid implementing TBLT.
□ Students are not used to task-based learning.
□ Materials in textbooks are not proper for using TBLT.
□ Large class size is an obstacle to use task-based methods.
□ I have difficulty in assessing learner’s task-based performance.
□ I have limited target language proficiency.
□ I have very little knowledge of task-based instruction.
If you have other reasons, please write them down.
( )

143