Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-dvtzq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T19:10:22.883Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Evaluating Task-Based Language Programs

from Part VII - Task-Based Assessment and Program Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

By
John M. Norris  and
John McE. Davis
Edited by
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian  and
Michael H. Long
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Michael H. Long
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

At its most complete, task-based language teaching is a holistic approach to experiential language education. It consists of teachers and learners, materials, assessments, and other elements that combine in a particular logic to form complex programs of language learning. In order to understand, improve, and maximize their effectiveness, task-based programs should be evaluated comprehensively and regularly, as they are implemented in a variety of educational settings. This chapter describes how evaluation methods can be applied to developing task-based language programs and classes, determining their outcomes and impacts, and identifying aspects in need of adjustment. It also shows how good evaluations may provide the best test of how and how well TBLT theory can be put into practice for improving language learning.

Keywords

Program evaluationOutcomes assessmentTask-based assessmentTheory of change

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching , pp. 529 - 548
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Further Reading

Beretta, A. (1992). What can be learned from the Bangalore Evaluation. In Alderson, J. C. and Beretta, A., eds. Evaluating second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 250–71.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2015). Thinking and acting programmatically in task-based language teaching: Essential roles for program evaluation. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 27–57.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., Davis, J., and Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2017). Second language educational experiences for adult learners. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006). Training teachers: Task-based as well? In Van den Branden, K, ed. Task-based language teaching in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 217–73.Google Scholar

References

Beretta, A. (1990). Implementation of the Bangalore Project. Applied Linguistics, 11(4), 321–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beretta, A. (1992). What can be learned from the Bangalore evaluation. In Alderson, J. C. and Beretta, A., eds. Evaluating second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 250–71.Google Scholar
Beretta, A. and Davies, A. (1985). Evaluation of the Bangalore project. ELT Journal , 29, 121–27.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36–57.Google Scholar
Bryfonski, L. E. (2019). Task-based teacher training: Implementation and evaluation in Central American bilingual schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University: Washington DC.Google Scholar
Bryfonski, L. and McKay, T. H. (2017). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23, 603–32.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2019). Affirming the context of instructed SLA: The potential of curricular thinking. Language Teaching Research, 23, 514–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H., and Norris, J. (2010). Realizing advanced L2 writing development in a collegiate curriculum: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment [Monograph]. Modern Language Journal, 94.Google Scholar
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35(4),595–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. McE. (2015). The usefulness of accreditation-mandated outcomes assessment: Trends in university foreign language programs. In Norris, J. M and Davis, J. McE eds. Student learning outcomes assessment in college foreign language programs. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
Davis, J. McE (2016). Toward a capacity framework for useful student learning outcomes assessment in college language programs. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 377–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
East, M. (2012). Task-based language teaching from the teachers’ perspective: Insights from New Zealand. Vol. 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. ELT Journal, 51, 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2015). Teachers evaluating tasks. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 247–70.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., and Lambert, C. (2019). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frechtling, J. A. (2007). Logic modeling methods in program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M., Nielson, K. B. (2015). Evaluating TBLT: The case of a task-based Spanish program. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 525–49.Google Scholar
Iizuka, T. (2019). Task-based needs analysis: Identifying communicative needs for study abroad students in Japan. System, 80, 134–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, C.M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., and Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between interaction and acquisition: A quantitative meta-analysis. In Norris, J. and Ortega, L.. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 91–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., Jung, Y., and Tracy‐Ventura, N. (2017). Implementation of a Localized Task‐Based Course in an EFL Context: A Study of Students’ Evolving Perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 632–60.Google Scholar
Lambert, C. (2010). A task-based needs analysis: Putting principles into practice. Language Teaching Research, 14(1), 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 319–26.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In Hyltenstam, K. and Pienemann, M., eds. Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 77–99.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. and Norris, J. M. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In Byram, M., ed. Encyclopedia of language teaching. London: Routledge, pp. 597–603.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. and Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 107–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2006). The why (and how) of assessing student foreign language programs. Modern Language Journal, 90, 590–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In Doughty, C. and Long, M., eds. The handbook of language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 578–94.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2015). Thinking and acting programmatically in task-based language teaching: Essential roles for program evaluation. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 27–57.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2016). Language program evaluation. Modern Language Journal, 100(s), 169–89.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., Davis, J. McE., and Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2017). Second language educational experiences for adult learners. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., and Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communicative tasks for second language instruction. In Crookes, G. and Gass., S. M. eds. Tasks in a pedagogical context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 9–34.Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376–401.Google Scholar
Van Avermaet, P. and Gysen, S. (2006). From needs to tasks: Language learning needs in a task-based approach. In Van den Branden, K., ed. Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006), ed., Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2009). Diffusion and implementation of innovations. In Long, M. and Doughty, C., eds. The handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 659–72.Google Scholar
Willis, D. and Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×