Research on task-based language teaching (TBLT) has gained significant attention in recent years, yet studies on task design have primarily focused on manipulating task variables for research purposes. Little is known about teachers’ design processes, their choices, and how they balance design variables for pedagogical tasks. This study investigates task design processes in primary school contexts using an innovative web-based design tool. Thirty-five primary school teachers participated, with their design activities captured through think-aloud protocols. This approach provided a detailed view of teachers’ strategies, challenges, and iterative refinements during task creation. The findings reveal previously undocumented aspects of task design, including how teachers navigate the task cycle, their cognitive processes during design, and the 18 micro-stages involved in the task design process. Additionally, the results highlight teachers’ attention to linguistic features within their tasks and their choice of Focus on Form techniques. The study underscores the complexity of task design and highlights the potential of web-based tools and think-aloud methodologies for examining authentic pedagogical practices. These insights have implications for teacher education and professional development, offering guidance to enhance task design skills and support digital integration in teaching practices.
AndonN.EckerthJ. (2009). Chacun à son gout? Task-based L2 pedagogy from the teacher’s point of view. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 286–310.
2.
BowlesM. A. (2018). Introspective verbal reports: Think-alouds and stimulated recall. In PhakitiA.De CostaP.PlonskyL., et al. (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology (pp. 339–357). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_16
3.
BrandlK. (2017). Task-based instruction and teacher training. In Van Deusen-SchollN.MayS. (Eds.), Second and foreign language education (pp. 425–438). Springer.
BryfonskiL. (2021). From task-based training to task-based instruction: Novice language teachers’ experiences and perspectives. Language Teaching Research, 28, 1255–1279.
6.
BryfonskiL.McKayT.H. (2019). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23, 603–632.
7.
CarlessD. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools. System, 31, 485–500.
8.
CarlessD. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 639–662.
9.
ChanS.P. (2012). Qualitative differences in novice teachers’ enactment of task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms. In ShehadehA.CoombeC.A. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 187–214). John Benjamins.
10.
ClarkJ.LoY.C.HuiM.F., et al (1999). An investigation into the development and implementation of the TOC initiative with special reference to professional competencies, professional development and resources: Final report. Hong Kong Institute of Education.
11.
DunnW.GutiérrezX.RantaL. (2023). Teacher leadership as the missing link between TBLT research and pedagogical practice. In ReindersH. (Ed.), Language teacher leadership (pp. 229–254). Palgrave Macmillan.
12.
DuranG.RamautG. (2006). Tasks for absolute beginners and beyond: Developing and sequencing tasks at basic proficiency levels. In Van den BrandenK. (Ed.), Task-based language education: from theory to practice (pp. 47–75). Cambridge University Press.
13.
EastM. (2021). Teacher preparation and support for task-based language teaching. In AhmadianM.J.LongM.H. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp. 447–462). Cambridge University Press.
14.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
15.
EllisR.SkehanP.LiS.ShintaniN.LambertC. (2019). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
16.
ErlamR. (2016). ‘I’m still not sure what a task is’: Teachers designing language tasks. Language Teaching Research, 20, 279–299.
17.
GilabertR.MalickaA. (2021). From needs analysis to task selection, design, and sequencing. In AhmadianM.J.LongM.H. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp. 226–249). Cambridge University Press.
18.
González-LloretM. (2019). Task-based language teaching and L2 pragmatics. In TaguchiN. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 338–352). Routledge.
19.
González-LloretM. (2022). Technology-mediated tasks for the development of L2 pragmatics. Language Teaching Research, 26, 173–189.
20.
GutiérrezX.BryfonskiL.OgilvieG. (in press). Teacher education for task-based language teaching. TASK.
21.
HasnainS.HalderS. (2023). Exploring the impediments for successful implementation of the task-based language teaching approach: A review of studies on teachers’ perceptions. The Language Learning Journal, 51, 208–222.
HuhS. (2006). A task-based needs analysis for a business English course. Second Language Studies, 24, 1–44.
24.
JeonI.-J.HahnJ.-W. (2006). Exploring EFL teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching: A case study of Korean Secondary School classroom practice. Asian EFL Journal, 8, 123–139.
25.
JohnsonK. (2003). Designing language teaching tasks. Palgrave Macmillan.
26.
LittlewoodW.KongH. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243–249.
27.
LongM.H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In HyltenstamK.PienemanM. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–79). Multilingual Matters.
28.
LongM.H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching (1st ed.). Wiley Blackwell.
29.
MackeyA. (2020). Interaction, feedback and task research in second language learning: Methods and design. Cambridge University Press.
30.
MichaudG. (2024). Task-based language teaching: Implications for the classroom symposium. Conference presentation. ACLA Conference, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.
31.
MoraJ.C.LevkinaM. (2017). Task-based pronunciation teaching and research: Key issues and future directions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 381–399.
32.
MoraJ.C.Mora-PlazaI. (2023). From research in the lab to pedagogical practices in the EFL classroom: The case of task-based pronunciation teaching. Education Sciences, 13, Article 1042.
33.
NunanD. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge University Press.
34.
O’ConnorC.JoffeH. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19.
35.
PattonM. (2018). Expert sampling. In FreyB.B. (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation: Volume 4 (pp. 648–649). Sage.
36.
RobinsonP. (Ed.) (2011). Second language task complexity. John Benjamins.
37.
RobinsonP.GilabertR. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 161–176.
38.
SamudaV. (2005). Expertise in pedagogic task design. In JohnsonK. (Ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching (pp. 230–254). Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
SamudaV.BygateM. (2021). Exploring the nuts and bolts of task design. In The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108868327
40.
SatoM.LoewenS. (2022). The research–practice dialogue in second language learning and teaching: Past, present, and future. The Modern Language Journal, 106, 509–527.
41.
SkehanP. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. https://doi.org/10.1093
42.
SkehanP. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, assessment. (pp. 1–336). Routledge.
43.
TaguchiN.KimY. (Eds.). (2018). Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/TBLT.10
44.
TaouriteF.Ruiz CeciliaR. (2020). Perceptions and application of task-based language teaching among primary school EFL teachers in Spain. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 1289–1298. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080420
45.
ThiN.A.TranN.P.B. (2017). In-service teachers’ reaction to a training program of task-based language teaching: A case study of English language teachers in Vietnam. IOSR Journal of Research and Method in Education (IOSRJRME), 7, 53–68.
46.
TigchelaarM.DavidV.EldemerdashA.ProtacioS.PiazzaS. (2023). K-12 content teachers designing language tasks: A follow-up to Erlam, 2016. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221148449
47.
TragerV. (in press). Task-based needs analysis: Enabling targeted task design for primary school-aged refugees. In GilabertR.MalickaA. (Eds.), From task-based needs analysis to task and syllabus design: Insights from across educational contexts. John Benjamins.
Van SomerenM. W.BarnardY. F.SandbergJ. J. (1994). The think aloud method : A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. Academic Press.
50.
WillisJ. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
51.
ZhengX.BorgS. (2014). Task-based learning and teaching in China: Secondary school teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 18(2), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813505941
52.
ZieglerN. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190516000039
