Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is an empirically investigated pedagogy that has garnered attention from language programs across the globe. TBLT provides an alternative to traditional grammar translation or present-practice-produce pedagogies by emphasizing interaction during authentic tasks. Despite several previous meta-analyses investigating the effect of individual tasks or short-term task-based treatments on second language (L2) development, no studies to date have synthesized the effects of long-term implementation of TBLT in authentic language classrooms. The present study uses meta-analytic techniques to investigate the effectiveness of TBLT programs on L2 learning. Findings based on a sample of 52 studies revealed an overall positive and strong effect (d = 0.93) for TBLT implementation on a variety of learning outcomes. The study further examined a range of programmatic and methodological features that moderated these main-effects (program region, institution type, needs analysis, and cycles of implementation). Additionally, synthesizing across both quantitative and qualitative data, results also showed positive stakeholder perceptions towards TBLT programs. The study concludes with implications for the domain of TBLT implementation, language program evaluation, and future research in this domain.
AldersonJ.C.ScottM. (1992). Insiders, outsiders and participatory evaluation. In AldersonJ.C.BerettaA. (Eds.), Evaluating second language education (pp. 25–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AltschuldJ.W.WatkinsR. (2014). A primer on needs assessment: More than 40 years of research and practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 144, 5–18.
3.
BeckerL. (1999). Effect size calculators [web page]. Available at: https://www.uccs.edu/~lbecker (accessed November 2017).
4.
BerettaA. (1992). Evaluation of language education: An overview. In AldersonJ.C.BerettaA. (Eds.), Evaluating second language education (pp. 5–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BrownJ.D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to program development. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
7.
BrutonA. (2005). TBLT for the State secondary school classroom?Language Learning Journal, 31, 55–68.
8.
BurwellG.NielsonK.Gonzalez-LloretM. (2009). Evaluating a TBLT Spanish immersion program. Unpublished paper presented at the Third Biennial Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, Lancaster, UK.
9.
ButlerY.G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36–57.
10.
CarlessD. (2002). Implementing task-based leaning with young learners. ELT Journal, 56, 389–396.
11.
CarlessD. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools. System, 31, 485–500.
12.
CarlessD. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 384, 639–662.
13.
CarlessD. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35, 595–608.
14.
CarlessD. (2012). TBLT in EFL settings: Looking back and moving forward. In ShehadehA.CoombeC.A. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 345–358). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
15.
CobbM. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of task-based interaction in form-focused instruction of adult learners in foreign and second language teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, CA, USA.
16.
CooperH. (2016). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. 5th edition.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
CummingG. (2001). Exploratory software for confidence intervals (ESCI) [Computer software]. Available at: http://thenewstatistics.com/itns/esci (accessed November 2017).
18.
de BruinA.TreccaniB.SalaD. (2014). Cognitive advantage in bilingualism: An example of publication bias?Psychological Science, 26, 99–107.
19.
DengC.CarlessD. (2009). The communicativeness of activities in a task-based innovation in Guangdong, China. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 113–134.
20.
EllisR. (2016a). ‘Focus on form’: Past and present. Plenary at The Second Language Research Forum (SLRF), New York, USA.
21.
EllisR. (2016b). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–428.
22.
González-LloretM.NielsonK.B. (2015). Evaluating TBLT: The case of a task-based Spanish program. Language Teaching Research, 19, 525–549.
23.
HillY.Z.TschudiS. (2008). A utilization-focused approach to the evaluation of a web-based hybrid conversational Mandarin program in a North American university. CELEA Journal, 31, 37–53.
24.
IwashitaN.LiH. (2012). Patterns of corrective feedback in a task-based adult EFL classroom setting in China. In ShehadehA.CoombeC.A. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 137–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
25.
JacksonD.O.SuethanapornkulS. (2013). The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63, 330–367.
26.
KeckC.M.Iberri-SheaG.Tracy-VenturaN.Wa-MbalekaS. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between interaction and acquisition: A quantitative meta-analysis. In OrtegaL.NorrisJ. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
27.
KlapperJ. (2003). Taking communication to task? A critical review of recent trends in language teaching. Language Learning Journal, 27, 33–42.
28.
Larson-HallJ.PlonskyL. (2015). Reporting and interpreting quantitative research findings: What gets reported and recommendations for the field. Language Learning, 65, 127–159.
29.
LeowR. (2016). ISLA: How implicit or how explicit should it be? Theoretical, empirical, and curricular/pedagogical issues. Colloquium presented at The Second Language Research Forum (SLRF), New York, USA.
30.
LiS.EllisR.ZhuY. (2016). Task-based versus task-supported language instruction: An experimental study. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 205–229.
31.
LongM.H. (1985) A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task based language teaching. In HyltenstamK.PienemannM. (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language development (pp. 77–99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
32.
LongM.H. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
33.
LongM.H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
34.
LongM.H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.
35.
LongM.H.NorrisJ.M. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In ByramM. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language teaching (pp. 597–603). London: Routledge.
36.
MackeyA.GooJ. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 408–452). New York: Oxford University Press.
37.
MarkeeN. (1996). Making second language classroom research work. In SchachterJ.GassS. (Eds.), Second language classroom research: Issues and opportunities (pp. 117–156). Taylor & Francis: New York.
38.
McDonoughK.ChaikitmongkolW. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 4, 107–132.
39.
McManusK.MarsdenE. (2017). L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 459–492.
40.
NorrisJ.M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In LongMHDoughtyC.J. (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Oxford: Blackwell.
41.
NorrisJ.M. (2015). Thinking and acting programmatically in task-based language teaching: Essential roles for program evaluation. In BygateM. (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
42.
NorrisJ.M. (2016). Language program evaluation. Modern Language Journal, 100, 169–189.
43.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
44.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2006). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
45.
OswaldF.L.PlonskyL. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110.
PlonskyL. (2013). Study quality in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 655–687.
48.
PlonskyL. (2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform. Modern Language Journal, 98, 450–470.
49.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
50.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2015). Meta-analyzing second language research. In PlonskyL. (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 106–128). New York: Routledge.
51.
PlonskyL.KimY. (2016). Task-based Learner Production: A Substantive and Methodological Review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 73–97.
52.
PrabhuN.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
RobinsonP. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.
54.
SasayamaS.MalickaA.NorrisJ.M. (2015). Primary challenges in cognitive task complexity research: Results of a comprehensive research synthesis. Paper presented at the colloquium ‘An international collaborative research network (CRN) on task complexity’, Sixth International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), Katolieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.
55.
ShehadehA. (2012). Broadening the perspective of task-based language teaching scholarship: The contribution of research in foreign language contexts. In ShehadehA.CoombeC.A. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
56.
ShintaniN. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15, 137–158.
57.
SkehanP. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.
58.
StufflebeamD.L. (1983). The CIPP model for program evaluation. In MadausG.F.ScrivenM.StufflebeamD.L. (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 117–141). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
59.
SwanM. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26, 376–401.
60.
SwanM. (2011). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. In M. Swan, Thinking about language teaching: Selected articles 1982–2011 (pp. 90–113). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61.
ThomasM. (2006). Research synthesis and historiography: The case of assessment of second language proficiency. In NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (Eds.) Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 279–298). John Benjamins.
62.
TowellR.TomlinsonP. (1999). Language curriculum development research at university level. Language Teaching Research, 3, 1–32.
63.
Van den BrandenK. (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64.
WichitwaritN. (2014). Essential elements contributing to the success of task-based implementation in an English classroom. Panyapiwat Journal, 5, 47–62.
65.
WiddowsonH.G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 111–133.
66.
ZieglerN. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–163.
