This article was downloaded by: [Nova Southeastern University]On: 07 October 2014, At: 23:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Language Learning JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rllj20

Encouraging innovation in a modernforeign language initial teachereducation programme: What dobeginning teachers make of task-basedlanguage teaching?Martin Easta

a Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland, Auckland, NewZealandPublished online: 07 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Martin East (2014) Encouraging innovation in a modern foreign language initialteacher education programme: What do beginning teachers make of task-based language teaching?,The Language Learning Journal, 42:3, 261-274, DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2013.856455

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.856455

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Encouraging innovation in a modern foreign language initial teachereducation programme: What do beginning teachers make of task-basedlanguage teaching?

Martin East*

Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is an innovative learner-centred and experientialapproach to modern foreign language (MFL) teaching and learning that is not withoutcontroversy in the secondary MFL classroom. This article considers one secondary-level initial teacher education programme in New Zealand in which, following schoolcurriculum reform, TBLT has become a specific focus. Drawing on aspects ofparticipants’ critical reflections as part of the year-long programme, the articleexplores participants’ developing understandings of TBLT and its suitability for NewZealand’s secondary schools. It was found that beginning teachers were generallypositive about TBLT. They also perceived several challenges to its successfulimplementation. Reflections after experiences in schools revealed that local schoolcontexts, including the levels of understanding of, and receptivity to, innovationamong more experienced colleagues, made a difference to successful task utilisation.The article draws some conclusions about the role of teacher education in mediatinginnovation in MFL teaching successfully.

Introduction

This article considers the extent to which it is possible to enhance the successful introduc-tion of task-based language teaching (TBLT) in schools through focusing on the phenom-enon of TBLT in an initial teacher education (ITE) modern foreign languages (MFL)programme.

In the New Zealand context that is the focus of this article, a move towards TBLTin school MFL programmes has been precipitated by a revised subject-wide nationalcurriculum (Ministry of Education 2007), mandatory from 2010, which encourages alearner-centred and experiential pedagogical approach (such as the one adopted inTBLT) in contrast to a teacher-led didactic model (as found in more traditional MFLprogrammes). This has created the opportunity to explore TBLT as an alternative tomore established communicative approaches at both pre-service (ITE) and in-service(professional development) levels.

The article presents data from a group of New Zealand-based MFL beginning teacherswho recently completed a secondary (Years 9–13) Graduate Diploma in Teaching (Grad-DipTchg) qualification, equivalent to the UK’s secondary Postgraduate Certificate in Edu-cation (PGCE). Drawing on aspects of participants’ coursework, the article explores

© 2013 Association for Language Learning

*Email: m.east@auckland.ac.nz

The Language Learning Journal, 2014Vol. 42, No. 3, 261–274, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.856455

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

participants’ developing understandings of the suitability of TBLT for New Zealand’s sec-ondary schools. The article brings out the implications for the effective implementation ofTBLT as innovation and speculates on the broader implications of introducing innovativeMFL practices in schools.

Background

TBLT as innovation

An emphasis on Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is well-established in manyMFL ITE programmes in different contexts as a reflection of CLT approaches in schools(see, for example, Pachler, Barnes and Field 2009). The ‘brand’ of CLT that has come todominate in secondary schools is the so-called ‘weak’ model whereby, although the essen-tially communicative purpose of learning an MFL is acknowledged, grammar is often fore-grounded and taught in an explicit, teacher-led, systematic way via the ‘classic lessonstructure’ of Presentation/Practice/Production (PPP) (Klapper 2003).

TBLT, in contrast to PPP, is built on a learner-centred and experiential premise that ‘themost effective way to teach a language is by engaging learners in real language use in theclassroom… by designing tasks – discussions, problems, games and so on – which requirelearners to use language for themselves’ (Willis and Willis 2007: 1). Several theoreticaldefinitions of ‘task’ for the purposes of TBLT have been published (e.g. Ellis 2009;Samuda and Bygate 2008; Willis and Willis 2007), each of which emphasises, amongother things, a primary focus on meaning (rather than grammatical form) and a specificoutcome beyond the use of language (rather than merely practising an explicit [formal]aspect of language).

The phenomenon of TBLT has been gaining momentum since the 1980s and is nowacknowledged in many contexts worldwide as ‘a potentially very powerful language peda-gogy’ (Van den Branden, Bygate and Norris 2009: 1). Nevertheless, there are challenges tothe realisation of its power. Its relative newness effectively places TBLT into the category ofinnovation and its apparently radical departure from more conventional CLT approacheshas led to questioning of its viability for school MFL programmes (Bruton 2005;Klapper 2003; Swan 2005). In other words, although there may be ‘global interest in thevalue of TBLT to foster worthwhile language learning’ (Norris 2009: 578), the notion ofTBLT ‘comes with a price. It counters our traditions of practice, requires rethinking the out-comes of our programmes and implies an overhaul of the teaching and testing that is goingon in many language classrooms’ (591).

Norris (2009) argues that, for TBLT to be supportable long term, research is requiredthat goes beyond isolated experimental studies into task performance and that ‘seeks to illu-minate organic questions of interest to those who are responsible for making languagelearning happen (teachers, administrators, curriculum developers)’ (588). That is, if ourcurrent knowledge of language teaching and learning is to be enhanced and if TBLT asinnovation is to succeed, the phenomenon at hand must be investigated in ways that demon-strate what happens for real teachers and students working in real classrooms. In turn, theoutcomes of such practice-focused research may inform the developing theory aroundTBLT and its implementation.

A significant challenge to successful implementation is the perception of TBLT that tea-chers bring into their work. If, as Van den Branden (2009: 666) suggests, ‘[t]eachers teachin the way they themselves were taught, and show strong resistance toward radically mod-ifying the teaching behaviour that they are so familiar with,’ it is important for practitioners

262 M. East

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

to be introduced to the innovation, both in theory and in practice, in ways that enable prac-titioners to evaluate its claims for themselves. Such an approach will potentially both high-light the practical challenges to implementation and help form new evidence-based beliefsthat will support behaviour modification. One way of doing this, in Widdowson’s words, is‘developing pedagogic expertise’ through teacher education that encourages ‘critical reflec-tion on the part of the teacher’ (1993: 265).

Critical reflection as mediator of innovation

Critical reflection, although defined and operationalised in a variety of ways, is well estab-lished in many Western teacher education programmes (Collin, Karsenti and Komis 2013;Loughran 2002). There is evidence to suggest that such reflection can challenge teachers’existing beliefs and can help create new understandings successfully (Borg 2003; Richards,Ho and Giblin 1996).

A useful way of conceptualising reflection is to see it as a process through which tea-chers consider and analyse their practice with a view to improving their teaching (Williamsand Grudnoff 2011). Furthermore, reflection can be conceptualised as having three com-ponents. According to Schön’s early influential work (1983, 1987), embedding criticalreflection within actual practice facilitates opportunities for: (1) ‘reflection-in-action’(i.e. reflection during lesson delivery which may lead to immediate changes to practice);and (2) ‘reflection-on-action’ (i.e. reflection after lesson delivery which may lead to sub-sequent practice modifications). Additionally (3) ‘reflection-for-action’ (Killion andTodnem 1991) provides the opportunity for future-focused reflection, both before a teachingcycle has begun and after the cycle has been completed. For ITE teachers, reflection foraction provides the space for theoretical perspectives to be explored as part of teacher prep-aration (Too 2013). The three dimensions can be theorised as working in a cyclical way(Figure 1).

One pertinent example of the effectiveness of on-going teacher reflection to bring aboutchange is Cabaroglu and Roberts’ (2000) study which investigated whether participation ina 36-week PGCE Secondary MFL programme which followed an ‘explicitly reflective andexperiential’ model (390) would facilitate shifts in beliefs among participants. Threein-depth interviews elicited participants’ accounts of their beliefs and their perceptions ofdevelopments over time. Interview 1 took place at the beginning of the course and

Figure 1. Reflections for, in and on action.

The Language Learning Journal 263

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

before any practical teaching had been undertaken; Interview 2 occurred after classroomobservation but before the main teaching practice; Interview 3 was completed after maincourse activities were concluded. The design therefore took account of the interplaybetween theory and developing practice.

It was found that, of 20 participants who completed all three interviews, only one par-ticipant’s beliefs appeared to remain unchanged by the end of the programme. For theothers, there was evidence of cumulative and gradual belief development, with two partici-pants exhibiting radical changes in some aspects of their beliefs. Cabaroglu and Robertsargue that their findings are ‘consistent with studies which indicate that student teacher’s[sic] beliefs can be ‘flexible’ and that their pre-existing beliefs do develop’ (2000: 392).They assert furthermore that the observed belief development appeared to be contingenton ‘a reflective approach to teacher education as practised in the context of the study’ (400).

The present study

The present study involved participants in the 2012 cohort of ITE MFL teachers enrolled inthe PGCE-equivalent GradDipTchg (secondary) in one New Zealand tertiary institution, aone-year programme informed by a reflective practitioner approach. This was the firstcohort to take part in a programme that contained a dedicated focus on TBLT. As such,the study was exploratory, with a view to providing a preliminary evaluation of the effec-tiveness of the programme in developing participants’ understandings of TBLT. This articlepresents findings related to participants’ reflections for action, as they prepared for, and thenafter they had completed, in-school teaching practice (practicum placements). The follow-ing research questions are addressed:

RQ1: What understandings about TBLT and tasks do beginning teachers have as they begin toengage with a dedicated MFL methodology course in an ITE programme?RQ2: Do understandings about TBLT and tasks change and develop as beginning teacherscomplete the course and the programme?RQ3: What possibilities and challenges for the implementation of TBLT in schools are high-lighted by the data?

The participants

Twenty members of a 23-strong cohort gave their consent for aspects of their courseworkto be used for research purposes. The chosen MFLs of these 20 participants are given inTable 1.

Table 1. The participants.

Language No. of participants

Chinese 1Chinese/Japanese 1Frencha 5Japanese 2Samoan 1Spanish 9Spanish/French 1Total 20

Note: aOne student of French was also taking Latin.

264 M. East

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

The programme

The 2012 programme structure is illustrated in Figure 2. In the on-campus component, halfof participants’ time was dedicated to curriculum specialist work. Participants took a doublesemester (2 × 8 weeks 36 contact hours) theory-focused methodology course – TeachingLanguages – alongside at least one double semester (2 × 8 weeks 18 contact hours) prac-tice-focused specialist course in their chosen language(s) – e.g. Teaching Chinese; TeachingSpanish. In schools (one school in semester 1 and a different school in semester 2), begin-ning teachers worked with at least one experienced subject specialist teacher alreadyworking in the school, known as an Associate Teacher (AT). The role of the AT was toprovide support and critique in a number of ways, such as observation of teaching and com-mentary on lesson planning.

Procedures for encouraging critical reflection

Coursework assignments for Teaching Languages were designed to facilitate critical reflec-tion. Reflection for action was encouraged through a reading log assignment. The readinglog was based on a prescribed text (East 2012) that provided participants with a thoroughintroduction to the theory and practice of TBLT in the New Zealand context. Participantswere required, at different junctures throughout the year, to complete a reading assignmentand provide critical reflection in light of their developing experiences (Figure 3).

Additionally, on-going reflection was supported by additional readings, lecturer inputthat introduced participants to broader issues including theories of second language acqui-sition and different approaches to language teaching such as PPP and class discussion. Par-ticipants were also required, when in schools, to plan, implement and then reflect on theeffectiveness of at least one task which participants were required to justify in the lightof the theoretical characteristics of ‘task’ (see earlier). This requirement facilitated partici-pants’ reflection in and on action.

Data collection and analysis

A non-experimental before-and-after design was used, using data derived from the ‘criticalreflection’ section of each participant’s first reading log (Week 3, March 2012) and finalreading log (Week 27, November 2012) – see Figure 4.

A thematic analysis approach was adopted (Braun and Clarke 2006) whereby discretecharacteristics (perceived advantages and drawbacks of TBLT) provided the primary unitsof analysis. Initially the relevant section of each first reading log was scrutinised by theresearcher and emerging characteristics noted. Individual logs were then revisited anddichotomously coded according to whether or not the characteristic was referred to inthe log (referrals more than once were counted once only). A second dichotomous

Figure 2. The shape of the year.

The Language Learning Journal 265

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

coding was carried out several months later and an intra-coder reliability analysis usingCohen’s kappa was performed to determine consistency of the two codings.1

The characteristics that had emerged from participants’ first logs were subsequentlyapplied to the final logs to elicit comparative data. Chi-square tests were performed to

Figure 3. Summary of key reading log instructions.

Figure 4. Instructions to facilitate critical reflection.

266 M. East

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

test the null hypothesis of no significant difference between expected and observed frequen-cies, using frequencies derived from the first log (RQ1) and the final log (RQ2). Log entrieswere also examined to determine whether any additional themes emerged.

Additionally, comments from the final reading logs were scrutinised to ascertainwhat they revealed about how reflection on course content and practicum experiencesinfluenced participants’ future-focused understandings of the potential and challenges ofTBLT (RQ3).

Findings

Preliminary understandings

Analysis of the first reading logs was designed to answer RQ1 (What understandingsabout TBLT and tasks do beginning teachers have as they begin to engage with a dedicatedMFL methodology course in an ITE programme?). The first log entries presented the oppor-tunity for participants to reflect on TBLT in theory at the earliest practicable stage in thecourse. It was submitted after students had begun to engage with several theoretical per-spectives on effective instructed language pedagogy but before they had carried out anywork in schools.

Eight characteristics of TBLT emerged from the initial data coding. For six character-istics, intra-coder agreement was found to be substantial (Landis and Koch 1977), indicat-ing an acceptable level of coding reliability (Table 2). Intra-coder agreement for onecategory (promotes communicative proficiency) was only fair (κ = .342); intra-coder agree-ment for another (requires learner training) was less than what might be expected by chance(κ =−.136). These categories were removed from subsequent analyses.

The frequency data indicate that around two out of three participants mentioned auth-enticity and motivation as two positive characteristics of TBLT and about half notedlearner-centredness. Workload implications and hindrance to acquisition of grammaticalproficiency were commented on as concerns by around half the participants. Overall, per-ceived benefits of TBLT were more frequently mentioned than perceived limitations. Thisdifference was not significant, however (χ2 (1) = 2.86, p = .091).

Table 2. Intra-coder reliability of coding.

Observedcharacteristica Characteristic definition

Firstcoding

Secondcoding

%agreement κ

Authenticity Promotes authentic ‘real-world’communication

14 16 90 .737

Motivation Is a motivating pedagogicalapproach

13 13 90 .78

Learner-centredness

Is a learner-centred pedagogicalapproach

9 11 90 .802

Overall frequency perceived benefits 36 40Workload Increases workload for teachers 10 12 80 .8Grammar Hinders acquisition of

grammatical proficiency9 11 90 .802

Manageability Can create manageabilityproblems in class

4 6 90 .737

Overall frequency perceived limitations 23 29

Note. aGrouped as positive and negative characteristics and ranked in order of frequency of occurrence in the texts.

The Language Learning Journal 267

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

The following log entries provide illustrative examples of several characteristics as per-ceived by participants.

Positive characteristics

With regard to the positive benefits of tasks, Jennifer2 argued that TBLT ‘allows students tocarry out genuine interaction with the use of appropriate communicative language whereauthentic tasks are the central focus.’ In her opinion, this was ‘better preparation for stu-dents [for] when they are faced with these types of interactions in the target languageoutside the classroom and in the real world.’ Sarah similarly asserted that TBLT ‘allowsfor genuine, real-life communication… [which] can equip the learner to be better able tocommunicate in the target language in real-life contexts. After all, this is the point oflanguage learning in today’s world.’

These sentiments were repeated in several participants’ responses. TBLTwas ‘based onhaving genuine, authentic interaction’ (Françoise); created ‘a real world scenario wheremeaningful communication and language knowledge are more likely to develop’ (Stepha-nie); ‘encourages authentic communication between students as they use the language tocomplete a real world task’ (Claire); provides ‘opportunities to interact in “real-life situ-ations”, therefore preparing them for practical language use in the future’ (Sally).

Learner-centred tasks were also perceived as motivating. Students were ‘more likely toremain engaged and not as likely to switch off as they might in an approach that is moreteacher-centred’ (Sandra) because TBLT ‘lets them use the language in a freer and moreauthentic way rather than in a tightly-controlled environment’ (Sarah).

Negative characteristics

There was a perception that TBLTwould require a lot of extra work in terms of planning andresource creation, thereby ‘with the current lack of resources, putting a further strain on tea-chers’ time’ (Frances). The teacher time required was not only ‘to design tasks’ but also to‘monitor the students’ learning during the task’ (Chen). TBLT thus ‘puts a lot of extra respon-sibility on the teacher’ because teachers ‘are required to continually reassess and reflect on thelessons in order to maintain interest through various task-based activities’ (Sharon).

Perspectives by Chen and Jennifer suggest a belief that formal teacher-fronted grammarinstruction was a necessary component of language learning that was potentially absentfrom TBLT. Chen argued, ‘the approach of TBLT is based on inductive reasoning, i.e.developing rule-based competence through sufficient input. Yet some language learners,who are deductive-reasoning oriented, may prefer knowing the rules first.’ Jennifer likewisereflected, ‘if too much of an emphasis is put solely on the communication and interactionderived from these tasks, the grammar and structure are then ignored.’ As a consequence,‘this could cause an ineffective way of learning a language, as they [students] could struggleto use correct structures which are present in natural communication.’

Developing understandings

Data from the final reading logs were used to answer RQ2 (Do understandings about TBLTand tasks change and develop as beginning teachers complete the course and the pro-gramme?). Table 3 presents frequency data from the final logs.

End-of-course frequency data indicate that three out of four participants mentioned thepositive characteristics of authenticity and motivation, whereas workload and grammar

268 M. East

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

implications were commented on by, on average, only one in four. When compared with thestart-of-course frequency data (Table 2 above), in both categories (benefits and limitations)there were slight shifts in frequency of comment (upwards for benefits and, more notice-ably, downwards for limitations). Total frequencies with which benefits and limitationsof TBLTwere mentioned were highly significantly different (χ2 (1) = 12.52, p < .001). Fur-thermore, an additional negative characteristic was observed in the final logs – perceivedincompatibility of TBLT with some high-stakes assessments (noted by nine participants).If this frequency count is taken into consideration (with an assumed zero count from thefirst logs), the difference in frequencies is still significant (χ2 (1) = 4.587, p = .032).Overall, at the end of the course, participants mentioned potential benefits of TBLT signifi-cantly more frequently than limitations.

Positive characteristics

The following comments illustrate how teachers’ reflections on the positive attributes ofTBLT were influenced by their in-school experiences. All three positive attributes wereneatly expressed by Sandra, who suggested:

In view of what I’ve seen and what I’ve experienced in my pre-service teaching experience, awell-considered task-based communicative approach results in a far more engaging, learner-centred, and authentic language learning experience than other methods observed.… In thisway students are more likely to become confident communicators of the language and have fun.

Sharon similarly asserted that, having had ‘the opportunity to observe and implement TBLTin the classroom,’ she could ‘now say with confidence that when students are appropriatelyset up with a task which they understand and find interesting, they can have very effectivelearning experiences.’

Final log entries by Claire and Faye revealed how reflection was leading to modificationof previously held understandings of effective language teaching. Claire argued that,although she was ‘fairly doubtful about the effectiveness of TBLT at the beginning ofthe course,’ post-practicum reflection led her to realise that TBLT could be ‘very motivatingand enjoyable for both students and teachers and encourages students to use language morediversely than in other approaches.’ Faye noted that ‘actually trying it out on practicum hashelped me more in coming to my own position on this.’ That is, ‘[t]his year has challengedmy perceptions of language teaching.…While I really enjoy the more academic side oflearning a language, I have found integrating tasks to be beneficial to students, with boththeir mastery of the language and their motivation and engagement.’

Table 3. Frequency of comments – final reading log.

Characteristic Final log

Authenticity 15Motivation 16Learner-centredness 9Overall frequency perceived benefits 40Workload 7Grammar 3Manageability 4Overall frequency perceived limitations 14

The Language Learning Journal 269

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Negative characteristics

Chen’s final log provides evidence that, although enhanced understanding of the value ofTBLT can be promoted via actual experience, prior beliefs can be hard to modify. He com-mented on the one hand that ‘[t]he most important thing that I learnt from this course andmy practicum is to find ways that maximise the effectiveness of teaching and learning in myfuture classroom.’ On the other hand, he reiterated his stance from his first reading log:‘TBLT is incompatible with certain students’ learning style and certain schools’ culture,e.g. students who are deductive-reasoning orientated will prefer to know the rules first.’Chen went on to justify his stance with reference to the ‘large body of literature on FL peda-gogy besides TBLT. If we remain open-minded, we can always find inspiring ideas andmake use of them in teaching.’

Issues for the successful implementation of TBLT as innovation

The data raise several possibilities and challenges for the implementation of TBLT inschools (RQ3).

Frank’s final log provides an example of how summative reflection for future actionwould influence his potential future practice choices with regard to TBLT. Recognisingthat, by virtue of reflection, ‘[m]y depth of understanding around TBLT has changed,’ henoted, ‘I can now take into my [future] teaching practice much more information regardingthe possibilities, shortfalls and benefits of TBLT and make informed judgments about thebest way in which to implement it in the classroom.’ Whilst a comment such as thisdoes not guarantee that Frank will adopt more task-based practices into the future, it argu-ably improves the likelihood that this will happen, especially in the New Zealand context inwhich, via curriculum reform, TBLT is being encouraged.

Final log comments also indicate that positive endorsement for TBLT was oftenbalanced with concern about indiscriminate adoption. Faye, whose prior more ‘traditional’beliefs about language teaching had been challenged by her positive experiences of TBLTon practicum, ‘also found it interesting that students did at times prefer to work out of thetextbook, do a simple listening comprehension or look at verb charts.’ Chen’s summativereflection regarding grammar teaching has been noted above. With regard to future prac-tice, he concluded, ‘I will incorporate task-based lessons into my teaching practice, butcannot rely on it as the sole approach to language teaching.’ In Sofia’s words, ‘thereisn’t only one way of ‘Best Practice’? in the language classroom and we need to exper-iment with different theories and approaches depending on our learners’. This might mean‘considering using TBLT as a complementary teaching strategy’ (Frédéric, emphasisadded).

The final logs also reveal two external realities that might moderate comprehensiveadoption of TBLT: the perceived incompatibility of TBLT with some high-stakes assess-ments and the influence of local school contexts.

Chen noted that assessment demands might mean that ‘many teachers may not want totake the risk [in practice] to implement TBLT in their senior classes’ because, as Françoiseobserved, they are limited by ‘the restrictions of having to teach “the important” stuff for theexams’ even though in theory they may ‘want to implement it [TBLT] as much as possible.’That is, ‘time is so scarce [in the senior school] that teachers struggle to get through theassessments,’ and the need to secure pass grades for students ‘is determining the waythey are being taught’ (Sandra).

As regards local school contexts, Santos explained:

270 M. East

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

I have had the opportunity to teach at very different settings, one at a semi-rural low decile [lowsocio-economic] school and also at one of the most resourceful and prestigious [city] privateschools… and the differences in students’ self-management, responsibility and disciplinewere significant.

Santos went on to speculate that ‘because of the nature of TBLT, if these conditions [self-management, responsibility and discipline] are not available the implementation of TBLTand the achievement of effective learning become more difficult.’

Allied to school environments were the attitudes and understandings of ATs. Stephanieargued that in her second placement ‘my associates encouraged TBLT use in the classroom.Thiswas great as I found I could experience and relatemore towhat we had discussed through-out the course.’ In her first placement, by contrast, she was ‘unable to use very much TBLT’because ‘I mostly had to follow a textbook.’ Santos commented that ‘during my two place-ments, I have been able to observe the level of knowledge regarding TBLT among teachersand itwas revealing todiscover thatmanyof themhavedoubts how to implement it effectively.’

In this regard, Frédéric’s final log entry brings out clearly a shift in understanding. Hecommented that in his first reading log he had looked at TBLT from the learners’ perspec-tive. He had ‘analysed its impact on students’ learning’ and drawn the conclusion that‘TBLT will have a positive impact on them as long as students are prepared to adapt tothis new method of learning.’ At the end of the course he asserted, ‘I now think that themain obstacle to TBLT is the teachers themselves.… I now consider that teachers are thefirst who need to be accustomed to this teaching approach. Practitioners’ understandingof TBLT is the key to its implementation in schools.’

Discussion

Evidence from the reading logs suggests that practitioners’ thinking and understandingabout TBLT had developed between the start and the end of the course in the sense that,at the end, positive characteristics of TBLT were significantly more frequently mentionedthan limitations. The logs also suggest that, at least with regard to these teachers’ self-reports of their work in schools in the context of the ITE programme, aspects of TBLTcan be introduced successfully in classrooms.

Seen in comparison with Cabaroglu and Roberts’ (2000) study, this study providesfurther evidence that pre-existing beliefs can change by means of critical reflection andnew understandings can be forged. In their study, it was also found that one participant’sbeliefs did not appear to change. In this study, Chen provides an interesting example ofsomeone whose beliefs regarding formal systematic grammar instruction appeared toremain static from beginning to end but who nonetheless was willing to see some potentialin TBLT. His case would suggest that, even when some prior beliefs do not shift, comp-lementary understandings can be developed when there is sufficient opportunity toreflect critically on theory and practice.

Critical reflection also opened other practitioners to seeing the limitations of innovativepractice with greater clarity. Reflections led a number to conclude that, despite the clearadvantages of TBLT, a balanced and eclectic MFL approach might be of most benefit forstudents. It appeared this perspective was influenced not only by participants’ past experi-ences and beliefs but also by the contexts and attitudes they encountered on school place-ments. Indeed, school environments, reservations and uncertainty about TBLT among moreexperienced colleagues and incompatibility with certain aspects of high-stakes assessmentsbecame issues of concern for several participants by the end of the programme.

The Language Learning Journal 271

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

These practitioners’ reflections reveal the complexity of implementing innovation inpractice. The successful application of innovation is not simply a matter of challengingor developing the beliefs and understandings of beginning teachers. Even when this canbe done successfully (and the data from this study suggest that it can), the local contextsin which new practitioners will eventually work are complex and will enhance, hinder ormoderate the implementation of innovation.

This does not mean that innovation should be abandoned. Widdowson (1993: 271)acknowledges that recognising local contexts is laudable but argues that ‘taking local con-ditions into account in devising appropriate programmes is not the same as conceding tothem as determinants of what can be done.’ He goes on to assert:

There must always be the possibility of change, and that means that ideas from outside do havea legitimate role to play.… There is no advantage to be gained in putting up protective barriersagainst incoming ideas in order to conserve the integrity of traditional practices. (1993: 271)

Nevertheless, Widdowson (1993: 271) recognises that ‘new ideas do need to be mediatedeffectively and appropriately, that is to say, evaluated for relevance by critical appraisal andapplication. And this is where teacher education comes in’ [My emphasis]. For beginningteachers in ITE MFL programmes such as the one described here, it is evident that teachereducation, which ‘while indicating the relevant parameters, leaves them open, and soencourages enquiry’ (1993: 269), can be effective in encouraging innovation in a waythat still provides the possibility to evaluate and critique.

However, reservation and misunderstanding among more experienced colleaguessuggests that teacher education must move beyond ITE programmes. As Van denBranden (2009: 665) makes clear, ‘[c]hange in language teachers’ beliefs and practices… should be seen as a process rather than an event; it entails an unfolding of experienceand a gradual development of skill and sophistication in using the innovation’ [My empha-sis]. Pachler, Barnes and Field (2009: 2) argue that to become an effective MFL teacher‘requires a commitment… to keep up with new developments in the field as well as…will-ingness to engage in continuing professional development and to challenge sometimesdeeply held personal views on what constitutes effective MFL teaching.’

The data also reveal a genuine tension between encouraging TBLT as innovation(through teacher education) and moderating TBLT in practice in the light of genuine con-straints. As earlier stated, implementing TBLTcomes with a price (Norris 2009). If a price isto be paid, how high should that price be? Or what negotiations are required to reduce theprice? Put another way, when is innovation to be embraced wholeheartedly, when is it to beeschewed and when is it to be moderated? There are no easy answers to these questions.Ongoing research to inform our growing understanding of the efficacy of TBLT in bothexperimental and real-world contexts is required.

Limitations and directions for future research

This study was designed to be exploratory and evaluative in nature and is therefore limitedin several respects which might be addressed in future studies.

First, this article focused principally on participants’ reflections for action as revealedthrough aspects of one coursework assignment only – the reading log. Reflections willinevitably have been influenced by the content of the prescribed readings. The possibilityalso exists that participants reflected in their logs the kinds of perspective that they believedtheir lecturer may have wanted to find, thereby potentially leading to an artificially biased or

272 M. East

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

overly positive account. Data from several independent sources would enable triangulation.This may include participants’ actual use of tasks in classrooms and what this reveals abouttheir understanding of tasks, including their value and limitations. (As previously stated,beginning teachers were also required to develop and use a task in the classroom,thereby providing opportunities for reflection in and on action.)

Also, the frequency data must be treated with caution. These data were derived from thenumber of times a particular attribute (e.g. authenticity) was referred to in log entries andwas not based on responses to a list of criteria. The absence of a characteristic in a logcannot be taken to mean that the characteristic was not of concern to a participant, justthat it was not mentioned. Moreover, characteristics were sometimes determined byinterpretation (e.g. mention of ‘real life’ was taken to refer to the characteristic of authen-ticity). Future research might draw on more objective means to elicit quantitative pre- andpost-intervention data, such as closed-ended survey responses.

Finally, longitudinal studies are required that can investigate both the extent to whichtask-based practices can be sustained longer term and the extent to which task-based prin-ciples require adaptation and modification.

Despite these limitations, findings of this small-scale study provide some preliminaryevidence that critical reflection contributes to positive understandings of the potential ofTBLT and the successful introduction of aspects of TBLT in school classrooms. In thecontext in which this study was carried out – a school curriculum that encourages TBLTand a dedicated focus on TBLT in an MFL ITE programme for the first time in 2012 –

the findings support the direction in which the programme is going. Future more robuststudies will provide opportunities to build on the preliminary picture about the value ofcritical reflection in encouraging innovation that is emerging.

Notes1. Cohen’s κ is primarily used to determine inter-coder (i.e. two coder) reliability but has been used

in some instances to establish intra-coder reliability. Because it controls for chance agreement, κprovides a more conservative and robust measure than simple percentage agreement.

2. Following East (2012) participants’ names have been replaced by pseudonyms that reflect theethnicity and the gender of the participant and the primary language taught. Thus, Jennifer isa European female teacher of Japanese. Additionally, minor spelling errors were corrected.

ReferencesBorg, S. 2003. Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language tea-

chers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching 36: 81–109.Braun, V. and V. Clarke 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology 3, no. 2: 77–101.Bruton, A. 2005. Task-based language teaching: for the state secondary FL classroom?. The Language

Learning Journal 31, no. 1: 55–68.Cabaroglu, N. and J. Roberts 2000. Development in student teachers’ pre-existing beliefs during a

1-year PGCE programme. System 28, no. 3: 387–402.Collin, S., T. Karsenti and V. Komis 2013. Reflective practice in initial teacher training: critiques

and perspectives. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives 14,no. 1: 104–17.

East, M. 2012. Task-based language teaching from the teachers’ perspective: Insights from NewZealand. Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Ellis, R. 2009. Task-based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings. InternationalJournal of Applied Linguistics, 19, no. 3: 221–46.

The Language Learning Journal 273

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Killion, J. and G. Todnem 1991. A process of personal theory building. Educational Leadership 48,no. 6: 14–6.

Klapper, J. 2003. Taking communication to task? A critical review of recent trends in language teach-ing. The Language Learning Journal 27: 33–42.

Landis, J.R. and G.G. Koch 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics 33, no. 1: 159–74.

Loughran, J.J. 2002. Effective reflective practice: in search of meaning in learning about teaching.Journal of Teacher Education 53: 33–43.

Ministry of Education 2007. The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.Norris, J. 2009. Task-based teaching and testing. In The Handbook of Language Teaching, ed.

M. Long and C. Doughty, 578–94. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Pachler, N., A. Barnes and K. Field. 2009. Learning to Teach Modern Foreign Languages in the

Secondary School (3rd ed.). London / New York: Routledge.Richards, J.C., B. Ho and K. Giblin 1996. Learning how to teach in the RSA Certificate. In Teacher

Learning in Language Teaching, ed. D. Freeman and J.C. Richards, 242–59. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Samuda, V. and M. Bygate. 2008. Tasks in Second Language Learning. Basingstoke, UK: PalgraveMacmillan.

Schön, D.A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: BasicBooks.

Schön, D.A. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching andLearning in the Professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Swan, M. 2005. Legislation by hypothesis: the case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 26,no. 3: 376–401.

Too, W.K. 2013. Facilitating the development of pre-service teachers as reflective learners: aMalaysian experience. The Language Learning Journal 41, no. 2: 161–74.

Van den Branden, K. 2009. Diffusion and implementation of innovations. In The Handbook ofLanguage Teaching, ed. M. Long and C. Doughty, 659–72. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

Van den Branden, K., M. Bygate and J. Norris 2009. Task-based language teaching: Introducing thereader. In Task-based Language Teaching: A Reader, ed. K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate andJ. Norris, 1–13. Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Widdowson, H.G. 1993. Innovation in teacher development. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics13: 260–75.

Williams, R. and L. Grudnoff 2011. Making sense of reflection: a comparison of beginning andexperienced teachers’ perceptions of reflection for practice. Reflective Practice: Internationaland Multidisciplinary Perspectives 12, no. 3: 281–91.

Willis, D. and J. Willis. 2007. Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

274 M. East

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014