Abstract
This paper reports on a piece of classroom research involving a group of Liberal Arts/TEFL undergraduates from the Federal University of Amazonas. Informed by Jane Willis’s framework for task-based language learning and Michael Breen’s insights into the involvement of learners in the evaluation of learning task cycles, a unit of study was designed and implemented to experiment with clustered tasks as a means of maintaining peer-peer oral/aural interaction in the classroom at substantial levels. While the results indicate that Breen’s suggestion is effective in keeping learners engaged in meaningful interactions in the classroom for an extended period of time, it is still only intuitively established that Willis’s framework is an adequate way of dealing with the focus-on-form versus focus-on-use dilemma in the second/foreign language classroom. A key assumption underlying the experiment is that the longer learners use the target language to communicate in the classroom the more their interlanguage is enhanced. Furthermore, it is suggested that this analytical approach can be an alternative to the task-repetition approach proposed by Martin Bygate.

Keywords: analysis of learning tasks, clustered tasks, meaningful interaction, enhancement of interlanguage

* Funding for this project was provided by SEDUC-AM and FAPEAM. 

[Teaching is] the purposeful creation of situations from which motivated learners should not be able to escape without learning or developing.
Cowan, 1998, p. 112

1. Introduction

In a previous paper, I reported the results of a study as an attempt to probe for the actual teacher talking time versus student talking time in my foreign/second language (L2) classrooms. And, one of the groups investigated was attending an undergraduate Liberal Arts-TEFL course at the Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM). The results revealed that 85 per cent of the total of classroom talk in the sessions recorded with this intermediate-level group was done by the students (Hitotuzi, 2005, p. 103). Nonetheless, behind these figures there is painstaking and time-consuming preparation of a considerable amount of small activities handed over to the students in order to keep them talking.

Working on a large variety of short activities may seem interesting from the point of view of the students; but it is quite an overload of work for the teacher who, depending on his or her teaching context, may have to cope with several numerous groups in different educational institutions. Thus, no sooner had I confirmed empirically that, in terms of talking time, there was a comfortable level of learner empowerment in that intermediate group than my classroom-management style began posing this somewhat challenging problem. It was obvious to me though that whatever the solution to this deadlock, it had to do with parsimony. That is, the number of small activities had to be reduced without compromising student talking time. Grounded in this hypothesis, I decide to design and implement a tentative unit of work capitalising basically on Willis’s (1996) framework for task-based learning and Breen’s (1989) evaluation of learning task cycles.

Based on the unit work plan, the students were required to go through a series of integrated micro task cycles that constituted the building blocks ofa macro task cycle. The macro task, in turn, consisted of the evaluation of the activities comprising the whole of the micro-task frameworks. Nevertheless, while some specific learning aims of the activities conducted through this task-within-a-task model were outlined in terms of grammar, lexis and pronunciation, there were no expectations as to what the group would exactly learn from them, since, as many language-oriented theorists and practitioners suggest, the process of learning an L2 does not seem to be linear (e.g. in the same order as the teacher presents it in the classroom), or cumulative (Corder, 1967; Selinker, 1972; Rutherford, 1987; Ellis, 2003 and others). It was expected, however, that to some extent the unit would contribute to the development of the students’ target-language system (Breen, 1989). This could be observed through the comparison between their performances in writing, reading, speaking and listening prior to the experiment and those thereafter.

If, on the one hand, the apparent purpose of the experiment reported here was to check whether or not clustered tasks would prove effective in keeping the participants  engaged in face-to-face meaningful oral/aural interactions for an extended period of time; on the other, its immanent aim seemed to be in line with those of the designed unit of work, and the tenets of the task-based learning (TBL) approach (Willis, 1996; Skehan, in Willis & Willis, 1996; Ellis, 2003; Leaver & Willis, 2004; Nunan, 2004; Van den Branden, 2006; Willis & Willis, in press). The choice of this approach for the experiment was based on the literature reviewed in this paper, which suggests that a task-based learning approach towards teaching an L2 is likely to contribute to the development of learner interlanguage, which ultimately is the language with which people communicate in an alternative language (Selinker, 1972).

2. In defence of a task-based learning approach towards L2 teaching

In this section, on the basis of the latest research developments on task-based language learning and teaching, a case will be made in favour of the adoption of this approach in the L2 classroom. But first, for the sake of contextualisation, it seems important to briefly trace back the roots of TBL.

2.1 The emergence of TBL in the L2 classroom

The literature presents three major predecessors of TBL within the field of language teaching: (1) the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM); (2) the Audiolingual Method (ALM); and (3) Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). During many centuries, The GTM was the common methodological tool used in the teaching of Latin and Greek in Europe (Rivers, 1981). According to Bowen, Madsen and Hilferty(1985), until the advent of the World War II, this method was widely applied to the process of learning and teaching modern languages around the world. Typically, the GTM capitalised on the teaching of grammar and translation practice, being focussed mostly on reading and writing (Richards & Rogers, 2001, cited in Flowerdew & Millier, 2005).

      Howatt (1984) argues that the Reform Movement in the second half of the nineteenth century arose from language-oriented professionals’ dissatisfaction with the GTM. As a result of this movement, a number of methods ensued, such as Lambert Sauveur’s Natural Method, the Direct Method (popularise by Maximilian Berlitz), and the Audiolingual Method. The major priority of these methods was the speaking and listening skills. The ALM, which outlasted the other offspring of the Reform Movement, was heavily relied on by L2 teachers between the 1950’s and the 1970’s. Broadly speaking, the formula of this method was quite simple: intensive rote learning plus avoidance of error equalled assimilation and accurate L2 use in any context (Leaver & Willis, 2004). 

      Nonetheless, for its behaviouristic nature, the ALM would soon suffer severe criticisms from scholars such as David Ausubel (Hitotuzi, 2006) and Noam Chomsky. The latter, for instance, argued that the child is equipped with an innate basic rule system which accounts for his or her potential to learn any given language to which he or she may be exposed:

To learn a language, then, the child must have a method for devising an appropriate grammar, given primary linguistic data. As a precondition for language learning, he must possess, first, a linguistic theory that specifies the form of the grammar of a possible human language, and, second, a strategy for selecting a grammar of the appropriate form that is compatible with the primary linguistic data.
(Chomsky, 1965, p. 25)

      The proposal of a genetic universal mould in which any language could be cast was undoubtedly a serious argument against behaviourism. This foundation of the ALM was further undermined by research into second language acquisition. Corder (1967), for instance, found evidence that errors can be instrumental in the developmental process of L2 learning. Moreover, according to Leaver and Willis (2004, p. 5), an investigation conducted by Pienemann (1988) indicated that the order in which learners acquire linguistic items may not correlate with the one in which these are presented to them. It seems learners have an “inbuilt internal syllabus” which regulates the intakes of the target language to which they are exposed.

      CLT is the teaching model from which TBL stems directly (Leaver & Willis, 2004). It began taking shape in the early 1970’s, as a reaction to focus-on-form language teaching methods of the time. As such, CLT has mustered insight from a number of fields of knowledge. The notions of competence and performance, for instance, are associated with Chomsky’s (1965) Transformational-Generative-Grammar theory. Furthermore, from the stand of Anthropology and Sociolinguistics, Hymes’s disagreement with Chomsky on the boundaries of competence led to a redefinition of this concept, which, from his perspective, should comprise language use (performance) as well. Thus, focusing on language in actual performance, Hymes devised an interdisciplinary (Hayes Jacobs, 1989) model of communicative competence which was summarized by Canale and Swain (1980, p. 16, quoted in Neves, 1993) as:

[…] the integration of grammatical (what is formally possible), psycholinguistics (what is feasible in terms of human information processing), sociocultural (what is the social meaning or value of a given utterance), and probabilistic (what actually occurs) systems of competence.

      The seminal posthumous work of the philosopher of language John Langshaw Austin, How to Do Things With Words (Austin, 1962), is another contribution to the development of CLT. Later, one of Austin’s disciples, John Searle, fully developed a speech-acttheory, which is credited to his master (Searle, 1970). This theory was welcomed by the ‘artisans’ of the communicative approach mostly for its focus on the functional aspects of language, and its argument that meanings derive less from grammatical form than from rules of interpretation prevalent in a given social context. Following suit, in Learning how to mean, published in1975, the English linguist Michael Alexander Kirkwood Halliday presented a typology of language functions, which was added to the theory of communicative competence.

      CLT has also received important contributions from the field of psycholinguistics. Through his input+1 theory hypothesis, for instance, Krashen (1982, 1985) suggests that exposure to authentic language is fundamental for language acquisition.  

It is important to point out, though, that regarding the purpose of this paper one could not do justice here to the various scholars, from different fields of knowledge, whose works have played a major role in the development of Communicative Language Teaching. It seems to suffice to say that from an interdisciplinary invisible movement CLT emerged, a version of which, known as task-based language learning, began to materialise some twenty years ago. On the issue of paradigm shifting, Hermans (1999) argues for the existence of an invisible college which mostly unnoticed establishes or changes theory paradigms. And it appears that Prabhu’s Communicational Teaching Project in Bangalore (Prabhu, 1987) was a major milestone in the process of “changing winds and shifting the sands” (the phrase is from Albert Marckwardt, 1972, p. 5, quoted in Brown, 2000, p. 13) towards this new language-teaching paradigm (Leaver & Willis, 2004; Van den Branden, 2006). In reality, the results of this project seemed to have indicated that TBL might represent a promising alternative to existing methods of the 1980’s, as suggested by Tarone and Yule (1989, p.102):

Reports from the Bangalore Project indicate that a syllabus organized around problem-solving tasks and feedback can effectively accomplish, and in many respects improve on, what a traditional linguistic syllabus provides.
But before presenting any further evidence as a justification for applying TBL in the L2 classroom, it is deemed of necessity to introduce the definition of ‘task’ upon which the investigation reported in this paper is based.

2.2 Defining a communicative task

As language-oriented scholars’ interest in task-based approaches to language teaching have increased from the last quarter of the last to the beginning of the present century, so has the literature on TBL where one can find a variety of ways in which a task can be defined. Nonetheless, after close examination of a number of task definitions, it was decided that the one proposed by Rod Ellis appears to be more adequately in line with the kinds of activities developed in the study reported here:

A task is a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or receptive, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes.
(Ellis, 2003, p. 16)

In other words, an educational task should resemble an outside-world task insofar as it requires interaction among participants and the application of all abilities and cognitive processes involved in actual language use. And this is what I had in mind when designing the unit for the experiment.

2.3 Support from second-foreign language research findings

Since the implementation of the Bangalore Project, considerable amounts of research findings have provided reasonably firm grounds for the adoption of a task-based approach in the L2 classroom, in various guises, to meet specific requirements of different classroom contexts (Bygate, Skehan & Swain, 2001). Such flexibility of the model seems to account for the variety of task definitions recurrent in the works of some scholars, such as Ellis (2003), Nunan (2004), Leaver and Willis (2004) and Van den Branden (2006). Thus, in this section I shall present a summary of findings deriving from tasks which may not conform entirely to the task definition proposed by Ellis (2003).

Amongst the many language-oriented researchers who have informed TBL with their empirical investigations is Cathcart (1986, cited in Chaudron, 1988) who, after observing eight Spanish-speaking kindergarten children in various activities for a year, pointed out that ‘An increase in utterance length or complexity was found […] in those peer-peer interactions, involving tasks with a joint goal (as in a joint block-building activity)’ (Chaudron, 1988, p. 98).

The results of Rulon and McCreary’s (1986, cited in Chaudron, 1988, p. 108) ‘comparison between teacher-fronted and group work negotiation for meaning’ also seem to endorse the reliability of TBL. The point they make is that through group work focussed on meaning, interaction is promoted and, eventually, L2 learning ensues (see also Johnson, 1983; Gaies, 1983b; Pica & Doughty, 1985; Duff, 1986, all cited in Chaudron, 1988).

      On the aspect of meaning negotiation during the interaction event, Long (1990), one of the pioneers of TBL according to Van den Branden (2006), identified a larger volume of negotiation in tasks in which the participants need to respond to a common problem. Pica, Kanagy and Falodun (1993) also suggest the possibility of an increase in the volume of negotiation from specific interactive activities.

      Studies based on experiments with tasks requiring justifications indicate that these generate highly complex utterances. By the same token, results from comparisons between interactive and monologic tasks showed that the former produces much more precision and complexity, whereas the latter generates more fluency (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997, 1999). In several studies conducted by Foster and Skehan (1996, 1999), Foster (1997, 1999), Mehnert (1998) and Ortega (1999), it was verified that task planning produces positive influence on these two aspects of learner performance.  
   
      Experiments with task repetition have also demonstrated the positive results of TBL in the L2 classroom. Grounded in several studies, Bygate (1996, 1999, 2001) establishes that task repetition contributes substantially to the enhancement of the development of L2 learners. He argues that it produces more propositional density and syntactic quality insofar as the tasks are repeated. Following suit, Lynch and Maclean (2001) report that, after conducting a number of tasks, an ESP group of medical specialists expressed the perception of their improvement in the target language as a result of undergoing the process of task repetition.

      Lochana and Deb’s (2006) project in a school run by the Basaveshwara Education Society in India is yet another evidence in support of a task-based approach to language teaching and learning. They developed an experiment in which non-task-based textbook activities were converted into task-based ones in order to test two hypotheses: (1) ‘Task-based teaching enhances the language proficiency of learners’; and (2) ‘Tasks encourage learners to participate more in the learning processes’ (Lochana & Deb, 2006, p. 149). Their findings suggest that TBL is beneficial to learners not only in terms of proficiency enhancement but also motivationwise. Similar results were also obtained by Rocha (2005) and Gutiérrez (2005).

Reports of research findings such as these are likely to encourage teachers to comfortably apply TBL to their classrooms, inasmuch as it seems to fulfil fundamental conditions for learning a second language, namely exposure (or input), meaningful use, motivation and language analyses, as Willis (in Willis & Willis, 1996) makes the point.

2.4 The ‘backbone’ of the unit of work

It appears that the great challenge facing teachers and researchers in the 1970s, and in years to come, was learning how to cope with form and use in the L2 classroom (Morrow, 1981).  For one thing, the kind of approach which overemphasised the teaching of form would be likely to provide learners with the ability to produce well-formed sentences and yet lacking in, for instance, communicative and sociolinguistic competences (Tarone & Yule, 1989). For another thing, the approach focussed solely on use would probably yield ‘ungrammatical’ L2 communicators (Stern, 1992; Tarone & Yule, 1989).

      Along the years, defenders of TBL have also addressed this question, perhaps as an attempt to swerve the radicalism of focus on meaning (or use) in the initial stage of this new language-teaching paradigm. From the late 1980’s a number of theorists and practitioners began admitting of tasks focussed on form as a preparation for later focus on use (Breen, 1989; Tarone & Yule, 1989; Widdowson, 1990). Recently, this approach has been classified as “task-supported language teaching” as opposed to “task-based language teaching” (Ellis, 2003, p. 27 and elsewhere).

      Current discussions on task-based learning have also contributed to striking a balance between these two binary features of the L2 classroom, as evinced by the most recent addition to the TBL literature (e.g. SKEHAN, 2003; Ellis, 2003, 2005 and 2006; Nunan 2004; Nunn, 2006; Van den Branden 2006, just to mention a few). Nevertheless, as much as this array of laudable insights may represent an expansion of investigations into the field of language teaching and learning, in my view, Jane Willis’ seminal work, A Framework for Task-Based Learning, published in 1996, still provides the groundwork for an adequate way of addressing the dilemma of form versus use in the L2 classroom (Dave Willis and Jane Willis’s (in press) Doing Task-Based Learning seems to be a detailed explanation and expansion of the ideas proposed in that work). Willis divides her TBL framework into three major stages: pre-task, task, and language focus (Table 1).

Close scrutiny of Willis’s framework seems to indicate that its last stage is the key component to achieving a desirable balance between use and form. Nonetheless, it is important to point out that the teacher’s conception of language learning is crucial to establishing such equilibrium. Apparently, teachers who hold a holistic view of language learning may comfortably work with TBL, and may be happy with applying consciousness-raising (C-R) activities to their students during the language-focus stage. The simple fact that they offer learners the opportunity to reflect on the possibilities and mechanisms of the language seems to make C-R activities a useful instrument in preparing students to use the target language effectively (Rutherford, 1987; Willis, 1990; Nunan, 1991; Widdowson, 1990; Willis & Willis, 1996; Lewis, 1993).

      For the design of the unit of work tested on the group of undergraduates from UFAM, in conjunction with Jane Willis’s ideas, I have also capitalised on Michael Breen’s argument concerning the involvement of L2 learners in the evaluation of learning task cycles as a means for target-language development and use. Although my focus was on lengthening student talking time while reducing the number of tasks carried out in the classroom, I felt comfortable with electing these two TBL-oriented authors as the “backbone” of the experiment for the valuable insights that they provide. Besides, it appears that, irrespective of any specific remedial purposes for which a task-based approach may be used, tasks are likely to provide L2 development, as Breen (1989, p. 192) makes the point:

Every task is, in essence, a means for learning. Its purpose is to provide an opportunity for language learners to move from their present state of knowing and capability towards a new aspect of knowledge and specific use of skills and abilities.

But it is Breen (1989, p. 192) himself who signals caution in terms of expectations as to learning outcomes deriving exclusively from a task-based approach. He argues that ‘a task cannot predict what a learner will actually contribute to it or learn from it.’ This appears to be a relevant point, but, although establishing precise results through workplans (to use Breen’s terms) might seem unrealistic, there was a tentative attempt at defining the learning objectives of the unit. Thus, by the end of the experiment the participants may display enhancement in terms of:

1. awareness of some uses of perfect tenses;
2. listening comprehension;
3. production of more coherent e cohesive oral and written texts;
4. pronunciation;
5. spelling;
6. vocabulary repertoire.
7. understanding of the rationale and principles informing TBL;

As can be seen, these learning goals cover both receptive and productive skills, the development of which can be promoted by tasks, according to Leaver and Willis (2004).
    
3. Method
3.1 Participants

The experiment was conducted on a group of thirteen Brazilian students in their second year at the Federal University of Amazonas studying for a First Degree in Liberal Arts/TEFL. The participants (4 males and 9 females) attending the 60-hour IHE104 – English IV course held twice a week in 100-minute sessions were in the 20-35-age range; all but one had part-time jobs. Moreover, from the working group eight students had teaching posts as teachers of English themselves.

      In the term that the study was conducted, part B of the intermediate level of the True to Life series (Gairns & Redman,1996a and b) was adopted as the core coursebook for IHE104 – English IV, as part A had been used experimentally in the previous term. Thus a selection of activities both from the Student’s Book and the Workbook of the series were used in the experiment.

3.2 Materials

3.2.1. Sources of language input (other than the teacher’s and the learners’ input): A 6-minute extract from a coverage of May Day demonstrations on BBC News (Sambrook, 2001); the book Basic Law for Road Protestors (Gray, 1996); a tape-recorded Speak Up (Gould, 1988) interview with Nadine Gordimer (both the tapescript in the magazine and the audiotape accompanying it were used in the experiment), and Peter Roach’s English Phonetics and Phonology (Roach, 1991).

3.2.2. Recording equipment: An NV-VJ60PN Panasonic video camera and one 90-minute VHSC TC-30 Panasonic videotape were used for the recording of the lesson involving the task informing the answer to the initial question. In addition, a DW-003 CASIO stopwatch was used to time peer-peer interaction during this final task, the timing of which was done when I viewed the 64-minute video recording in private (Table 4). Moreover, for the recording of (1) an enactment of Nadine Gordimer interview, and (2) an original monologue on types of protests, the participants were given thirteen 60-minute HF Sony audiocassettes. The equipment for these two recordings was provided by the participants themselves.

      In passing, at least two variables seem to have affected these two micro-task outcomes. For one thing, the words on the 13-minute audio recording of the Speak Up interview with Nadine Gordimer were somewhat ‘muffled’. For this reason, the participants complained they had difficulty in listening to the recording without the help of the script. For another, some of the cassette recorders used by the participants were of poor quality. It seems nothing could be done about this, insofar as I was unable to provide adequate recording equipment.

3.2.3. Worksheets: Five different kinds of C-R activities were devised: two on perfect tenses (Worksheets 1 and 4), two on pronunciation (Worksheets 2 and 3), and another one (Worksheet 5) containing some of the students’ utterances during the videotaped lesson.

3.3 Procedure
3.3.1Phases of the macro-task framework

The unit was structured in a peculiar fashion. A macro-task framework was designed into which data from four micro-task frameworks were fed in order to be analysed by the participants in its task-cycle stage. As demonstrated in Table 2, the four micro tasks functioned as a pre-text for the macro task to materialize (Cecily O’Neill uses the expression ‘pre-text’ as an umbrella term to cover any ‘text’ that can provide ‘occasions for initiating dramatic action’ (O’Neill, 1995, p.19).

Table 2: The planned unit of work

 The pre-task: After being briefed about the whole cycle of activities comprising the unit of work, the group first watched a video sequence on May Day demonstrations, discussing it in small groups afterwards. They then read Gray’s book (14,292 words), and were requested to write an essay on protests (Appendix I). Subsequently, the group listened to and read the tapescript of the interview with Nadine Gordimer; here, in pairs, the students tape-recorded the enactment of the dialogue between the interviewer (Peter Panton) and the interviewee. Next, they also tape-recorded the monologue expressing their views on different kinds of protests. Finally, in a videotaped session, they reflected on the whole cycle of TBL activities, and prepared a report on its strong and weak points, presenting possible solutions for the flaws.

The task cycle:  (a) The task – in small groups, the students analysed each one of the phases of the micro-task frameworks within the planned unit, detecting positive and/or negative aspects of the phases, and of the whole process as well as possible solutions for the weak points. b) The planning – each group prepared a report about the strong and weak points of the entire cycle of activities that they had carried out so far, presenting some possible solutions for the flaws.  (c) The report – a spokesperson elected within each group presented their group’s report in front of the class. The whole sequence of this phase of the macro-task framework was captured on videotape. As demonstrated here, the outcome (i.e., the end-product, or the ‘successful completion of the task’, as Leaver and Willis (2004, p.13) put it) of the macro task was evinced by the participants’ completion of the evaluation of the activities within the frameworks of the micro tasks, and their suggestions presented to the entire class.

The language focus: After analysing the video in private, I prepared the following C-R activities. Small groups were given a list of some of their assertions captured on tape, and were requested to identify possible errors, justify their views, and think of more appropriate ways of rephrasing the sentences or chunks that they thought were incorrect (Appendix II: Worksheet 5: Spot the error). The whole class viewed the videotaped lesson, and again responding to my request, attempted to identify problems concerning pronunciation. I then called their attention to pronunciation problems overlooked during the ‘spot-the-error’ activity. The activities carried out by the participants at this stage are labelled as focused tasks by Ellis (2003).  
     
3.3.2. Summary of the videotaped lesson: This lesson was conducted in a 64-minute session, and all 13 participants attended it.

Table 3: My original list of activities for the whole cycle of TBL activities
Because they are part and parcel the macro-task framework, both the task cycle and the language focus of the videotaped lesson coincide with those within it.

3.4 Analysis

In order to find out whether or not the participants would in fact be engaged extensively in peer-peer meaningful interaction in the classroom as a result of their engagement in the macro task, the total amounts of talking time in the classroom captured in the videotaped lesson was timed. Moreover, to reckon the amounts of time the students spent interacting with each other, the length of classroom talk (LCT) was divided into teacher talking time (TTT), student talking time (STT), and periods that neither the teacher nor the students spoke (henceforth, silence length (SL)), as it is demonstrated in Table 4 (For a similar approach in a different study, see also Hitotuzi, 2005.).

4. Results
4.1 On the outcome of the macro task

The graphic in Table 4 indicates that 85 per cent of LCT was spent on STT, which is above my expectations for intermediate-to-advanced STT in a 64-minute session (e.g. 45 to 70 per cent). This seems to show that a few integrated small learning tasks, used as a pre-text, can provide scaffolding for extended face-to-face meaningful interaction amid learners engaged in task-cycle analyses. Furthermore, these results also point to the fact that such an approach can be more economical in terms of time allocated for preparation of lessons aiming at the provision of ‘fodder’ for massive student talk than one involving a variety of small tasks. At any rate, because the bulk of the macro task consisted essentially of discussions, it appears that these were an important variable accounting for the high proportion of STT. According to Skehan (2003, p. 5) a discussion task provides ‘facilitation for extended turns’, and allows learners to reach ‘the greater depth of interaction’.  

Another important dimension of this task-within-a-task (TWAT) model seems to be its implications for the development of the learner as a whole. Besides the opportunity with which they provide learners to use the target language purposefully, they can be an important enhancer of learner autonomy. With the participants of the experiment, for instance, the approach was particularly useful in this respect, because it placed them on both sides of the classroom. Through the analysis of task cycles, the participants became more aware of the objectives of the lessons and important aspects of the teaching methodology, amongst other aspects relevant for their teaching qualification.

Planning is yet another important characteristic of the TWAT model. The fact that this metacognitive learning strategy (Oxford, 2006) seems to allow learners to work on tasks more comfortably and confidently may account for its beneficial influence on fluency and complexity, as demonstrated in a number of studies (Foster & Skehan, 1996, 1999; Foster, 1997, 1999; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999).

Lastly, but equally important, is the fact that the figures from the videotaped lesson evince that the macro-task cycle provided interactional data that are consistent with its workplan. This may not be the case with most task-based planned activities. Seedhouse seems to concur to that. He claims that ‘The vast majority of studies do not provide task-in-process interactional transcript data that may be compared with the task-as-workplan’ (Seedhouse, 2005, p. 548). Nonetheless, one should be quick to point out that, in order to support his argument in “Task” as Research Construct, Seedhouse capitalises only on the task-supported-learning (Ellis, 2003) view of task definition (which is not the one adopted in the study reported here), despite his claims otherwise: ‘These conceptions of task-as-workplan and task-in-process, then, apply to any and all activities that are planned and occur in second language (L2) classrooms, whether or not they conform to definitions of ‘‘task’’ in the TBL literature’ (Seedhouse, 2005, p. 535).

4.2 Feedback on skill development

Retrospectively, the cycles of TBL activities described here seem to have contributed to integrating the learners’ target-language skills. This was verified by simple comparison between the participants’ performances in writing, reading, speaking and listening prior to the experiment and those during and after it. Although thought was not assessed in the experiment, it is likely that it has been developed throughout the stages of the investigation, inasmuch as the cycles of activities involved a thinking process (Ur, 1981, p. 13).

4.2.1. Writing: It was observed that the approach adopted towards the writing task that the participants were asked to carry out as a result of their reflections on the theme underlying the tasks they had done so far, yielded positive results. It appears that the use of acronyms to pinpoint errors in the group’s first drafts, and the opportunity that the students were given to edit them may have contributed to the drastic decrease in the number of errors normally found in their essays prior to the study. The effectiveness of the approach can be amply exemplified by the comparison between the learners’ first drafts and the edited essays (Appendix Ia and Ib -for lack of space, only two pairs of the participants’ essays are appended to this paper).
   
4.2.2. Reading: Basically, the feedback on this skill was derived from the essay on Peter Gray’s book plus the discussion in the classroom involving the video sequence, Nadine Gordimer’s interview, and the book proper. It was observed, however, that some of the learners avoided referring to the content of the book in crucial occasions, perhaps for the same reason that other L2 learners strategically avoid using complex-structure forms (Tarone & Yule, 1989; Schachter, 1974, cited in Richards, 1985). At least two plausible hypotheses can be proposed in light of such avoidance strategy adopted by the participants: (1) either they had difficulties in understanding the content of the book, or (2) they did not appreciate it. In hindsight, to solve the problem of comprehension, a glossary of the relevant technical jargon in the book should have been provided, as one of the participants pointed out in the analysis stage (see participants’ quotes below). Probably allowing the learners to choose a book of their liking would have invalidated the second hypothesis.
 
4.2.3. Speaking: While not following Willis’s TBL framework ipsis litteris, the group had already been working interactively in the classroom for the last two terms. Thus, perhaps for this reason, most of them spoke with fluency compatible with the level of the course. Nonetheless, it was observed, during the implementation of the unit, that the learners were more focussed on the discussions than before. Apparently this is accounted for by the necessity to produce a tangible outcome found in Willis’s framework. Additionally, perhaps on account of their knowledge of the purpose of the set of activities, the participants tried to ‘show off’ their English. However, many are likely to agree that the halo effect (Brown, 1988) in such a context cannot be seen as a threat to the validity of this kind of experiment, since ultimately it is aimed at the enhancement of the participants’ performance in the target language. Ellis (2005) provides support for the beneficial effects of massive L2 use in terms of discourse skills.  

4.2.4. Listening: Due to its brevity, any improvement in the listening comprehension skills of the participants as a result of the experiment was unlikely to be measurable. However, it is possible that the administration of TBL activities for long periods of time can have a positive influence on L2 learners’ listening abilities. And this may be the case because a genuine TBL model capitalises heavily on authentic input (Nunan, 2004), which seems to be the crux of language skills enhancement in general. In fact, it appears that exposure to concocted texts cannot harness L2 learners to cope adequately with the demands of language tasks in the outside world (Van den Branden, 2006).

    The perception that a task-based approach to language learning can be productive in terms of listening comprehension development is also shared by the chief actors of the learning process. An example of that is the investigation on the effects of TBL on learning outcomes in the ESP classroom conducted by Kavaliauskienè (2005). Responding to a questionnaire on this topic, ESP learners elected listening as one of the skills which were positively influenced as result of their engagement in TBL activities.

4.3 The participants’ comments on the cycles of TBL activities

The participants had had genuine opportunity for meaningful communication in and outside the classroom throughout some of the phases of the cycles of TBL activities. This was especially the case with the task in which they were requested to analyse the micro-task frameworks as a whole, and present suggestions for improving future TBL activities. Notwithstanding all the intimidation a video camera can cause (Allwright & Barley, 1991), the students spent over 50 minutes (precisely 54’02”) engaged in genuine oral/aural interaction in the target language in the attempt to convey their viewpoints on each and every stage of the planned unit. Thus, contrary to Nunan’s (2004, p.14) suspicion of ‘rhetoric’ not matching ‘reality’, the experiment has revealed how effective a task-based learning approach can be in terms of creating the necessity for real communication in the classroom.
Here are some of the participants’ comments on the cycles of TBL activities, which seem to demonstrate the students’ purposefulness and engagement in the discussions:

Nadine Gordimer’s interview was nice because (...) it gave us the opportunity to see how native speakers express themselves.

We learned a lot of things from this video passage.

We learned some expressions... idiomatic expressions.

We could test our listening skill.

It was a kind of activity that really got us involved.

It also increased our knowledge about British culture and their law [system].

We had the opportunity to be in touch with different levels of registers.

We improved our speech and pronunciation when we recorded and listened to ourselves.
We developed the four skills.

The difficulties were not exactly a negative point.

We should have more contact with the video... use video passages more often.

The first time we saw the video it was hard to understand everything.

I couldn’t understand what I was supposed to do.

The book was very boring.

One thing I consider very important is the composition, you know.

We had contact with natural and real-time English.

A negative point about the book is that there were many technical words. I think we should have a kind of glossary [on] a separate [sheet].

We didn’t have a special microphone, a special tape recorder, and things like that.

I think we should have a special laboratory, a special palace to do [the recording].

We didn’t have special [equipment] to record the tape.

We had to listen to [the interview], and later had to record it. After [recording it], we could listen to our own voice and sy... so I have improved [on] this, I’m good [at] that (...).

When I heard my voice I was so surprised [at] myself because... I... I... It was funny because er... I said: ‘It’s my voice! I don’t believe!’ And I [was] surprised, especially because I’m improving now. Yes... I think this experience was great for me.

About the composition that we [wrote] er linking the three activities... we had er a little bit of difficulty to to that because, in our opinion, it was hard to link the three because they were three different kinds of speech.

5. Conclusions
In conclusion, despite the limited scope of the experiment, the results as well as the entire process reported in this paper seem to indicate that the main objective of the unit of work was successfully achieved; and that the major factor accounting for it was the set of integrated micro tasks and its subsequent analysis by the participants. For one thing, each phase within the four micro-task frameworks fed important cumulative data into the task cycle of the macro-task framework, which was a key element informing the results of the experiment. For another thing, as the participants experienced each component of Willis’s framework, they grew more familiar with the TBL model, and, as a corollary, their performance improved significantly in the subsequent micro task cycles and in the macro task cycle. The principle behind this finding is echoed in the following assertion by Rod Ellis (See also Foster & Skehan 1996; Skehan & Foster 1997):
When learners know what they are going to talk or write about they have more processing space available for formulating the language needed to express their ideas with the result that the quantity of the output will be enhanced and also fluency and complexity (Ellis, 2006, p. 23).

The main task of the macro-task framework described here can be categorised as both a pedagogic task and a target task, following Nunan’s (2004) task classification. At the same time that it was conducted in the classroom and had an educational aim, it was a real-world task to the extent that those were real TEFL undergraduates engaged in analysing methodological approaches to language teaching and learning.
On the face of it, at least four assumptions emerge from the experiment. Firstly, micro tasks within a macro task may lend themselves as a useful tool for familiarising learners with the task-based learning process, which in turn may enhance their proficiency in the target language (Bygate, 1996). Secondly, micro cycles of TBL activities as an element in the pre-task stage of a macro cycle may provide data for genuine communication to take place in the classroom in an economical fashion. Thirdly, integrated workplans can be designed to cater for learners’ needs in terms of all five skills, namely listening, speaking, reading, writing and thinking. Lastly, a TWAT model can provide enough ‘fodder’ for meaningful peer-peer interactions over extended periods of time. Additionally, there is also room in this approach for work on lexis and grammar through C-R activities, which are most likely to play a pivotal role towards striking the complex balance between form and use in the L2 classroom, as suggested by a number of theorists and practitioners (Leaver & Willis, 2004).

These assumptions seem to suggest positive implications for the L2 classroom. One such is that the accomplishment of a task-cycle evaluation involving the learners might be an important component in the developmental process of proficiency in the target language (Breen, 1989). Additionally, this approach might be a less uniformroute towards achieving the results of the task-repetition approach proposed by Bygate (1996, 1999, 2001), which may not be welcomed in certain classroom contexts (Plough & Gass, 1993). Seemingly, another beneficial implication is rendered by the ability to develop all the five skills, and to tackle structural and lexical problems through activities that raise learners’ awareness of the target language.

While it might be argued that the assumptions outlined here are forgone conclusions, validating them in the classroom may not bear so clear-cut predictability. The prime example of this is the usual lack of homogeneity in the L2 classroom in terms of learner level of proficiency. Consequently, the notion of small groups of learners involved in processing a meaningful final task may be easily dispelled by huge gaps in their levels of proficiency. There is more to the TBL model than collaborative work in small groups though. Learners’ preconceptions of how languages are learnt can be equally dismissive of such predictability (Stern, 1992; Johnson, 1989). Even if half the group has understood and accepted the rationale and principles of the approach, the other half willing, say, to focus exclusively on form might be likely to hinder unimpeded meaningful peer-peer interaction in the course of the cycles of activities. Finally, providing learners with inadequate kinds of input is yet another factor working against this ‘obviousness’. All of the previous caveats being dismissed, still the foregoing assumptions would be unrealistic had the learners been unable, or found it too hard, to digest the material to which they were exposed (Krashen, 1982, 1985).

Further research
The present study has raised a number of questions that may merit further attention, three of which will be listed here:
1. Considering Gardner’s (1991, 1993, 2001, 2006) suggestions on multiple intelligences and learning styles, how would this task-within-a-task approach benefit learners who, for instance, prefer to keep aloof in the classroom?
2. Other than analysing the phases in cycles of pedagogic activities with the purpose of identifying positive and negative aspects, as well as presenting alternative strategies to tackle possible flaws, what other outcomes (if any) can the learners aim at as they carry out a macro task? Perhaps a study on the development (if feasible) of a typology of possible macro-task outcomes would be desirable at this point.
3. Would a TWAT model be adequate for beginner-level learners?

References
Allwright, D. & Bailey, M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bowen, J. D. Madsen, H. & Hilferty, A. (1985). TESOL techniques and procedures. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.

Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning: A teacher’s guide to statistics and research design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136-146). Oxford: Heinemann.

Bygate, M. (1999). Task as context for the framing, reframing, and unframing of language. System, 27,33−48.

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23-48). London: Longman.

Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (Eds.) (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. London: Longman.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5(4), 162-170.

Cowan, J. (1999). On becoming an innovative university teacher: Reflection in action. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-224.

Ellis, Rod. (2006). The methodology of task-based teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 19-43.

Flowerdew, J. & Miller, L. (2005). Second language listening: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299−324.

Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1999). The effect of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 185−214.

Gardner, H. (1991). Intelligence in seven steps. New Horizons for Learning. Retrieved March 22, 2007 from
http://www.newhorizons.org/future/ Creating_the_Future/crfut_gardner.html

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Gardner, H. (2001, March). An education for the future: The foundation of science and values. Paper presented at the Royal Symposium Convened by Her Majesty, Queen Beatrix Amsterdam, Netherlands. Retrieved March 06, 2002 from http://www.pz.havard.edu/WhatsNew/Amsterdam.htm

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple Intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books.

Gairns, R. & Redman, S. (1996a). True to life: Intermediate: Personal study workbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

Gairns, R. & Redman, S. (1996b). True to life: Intermediate: Student’s book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

Gould, B. (Ed.) (1988). The speak up interview – Nadine Gordimer. Speak Up – A revista que fala inglês com você, 11.

Gray, P. (1996). Basic law for road protestors (2nd ed.). Retrieved December 08, 2001 from http://www.urban75.com/Action/protest.html

Gutiérrez, D. G. (2005). Developing oral skills through communicative and interactive tasks. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 6, 83-96.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean. London: Edward Arnold.

Hayes Jacobs, H. (Ed.) (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Hermans, T. (1999). Translation in systems. London: St Jerome.

Hitotuzi, N. (2005). Teacher talking time in the EFL classroom. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 6, 97-106.

Hitotuzi, N. (2006). The learner's mother tongue in the L2 learning-teaching symbiosis. PROFILE: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 7, 161-171.

Johnson, R. K. (Ed.) (1989). The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kavaliauskienè, G. (2005). Task-based learning and learning outcomes in the ESP classroom. Studies about Languages, 7, 1-6.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.

Leaver, B. L. & Willis, J. R. (Eds.) (2004). Task-based instruction in foreign language education: Practice and programs. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.

Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

Lochana, M. & Deb, G. (2006). Task based teaching: learning English without tears. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 140-164.

Long, M. H. (1990). Task, group, and task-group interactions. In A. Sarinee (Ed.) (1990). Language teaching methodology for the nineties (pp. 31-50). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre (Anthology Series 24)

Lynch, T. & Maclean, J. (2001). ‘A case of exercising’: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 141-162). London: Longman.

Mehnert, U. (1998).The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83−108.

Morrow, K. (1981). Principles of communicative methodology. In K. Johnson & K. Morrow (Eds.) Communication in the classroom (pp. 59-66). Essex: Longman.

Neves, M. de S. (1993). Communicative teaching of English as a foreign language: An approach haunted by traditional and structural myths. Unpublished MA Dissertation, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching: A comprehensively revised edition of designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Language Teaching Library).

Nunn, R. (2006). Designing holistic units for task-based learning. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 69-93.

O’Neill, C. (1995). Drama worlds: A framework for process drama. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109−148.

Oxford, R. L. (2006). Task-based language teaching and learning: An overview. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3).

Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.). Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Cleve-don, England: Multilingual Matters.

Pienemann, M. (1988). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. AILA Review, 40–67.

Plough, I. & Gass, S. M. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effect on interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.). Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 35–56).Cleve-don, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy: A perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richards, J. C. (1985). The context of language teaching. London: Cambridge University Press.

Rivers, W. M. (1981). Teaching foreign language skills (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Roach, P. (1991). English phonetics and phonology: A practical course. London: Cambridge University Press.

Rocha, Y. F. (2005). Promoting oral interaction in large groups through task-based learning. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 6, 73-81.

Rutherford, W. E. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. New York: Longman.

Sambrook, R. (Director). (2001, May 1). BBC News [Television broadcast].United Kingdom: The British Broadcasting Corporation. 

Searle, J. R. (1970). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seedhouse, P. (2005). “Task” as research construct. Language Learning, 55(3), 533-570.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage, IRAL, 10(3), 209-231.

Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.). Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 17-30). Oxford: Heinemann.

Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211.

Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93−120.

Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. The Language Teacher, 36, 1–14.

Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tarone, E. & Yule, G. (1989). Focus on the language learner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ur, P. (1981). Discussions that work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van den Branden, K. (Ed.) (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (The Cambridge applied linguistics series).

Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Essex: Longman.

Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus. London: Collins Cobuild.

Willis J. & Willis D. (Eds.) (1996). Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.

Willis, D. & Willis, J. (in press). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.