任务型教学法在高中英语阅读教学中的应用研究综述

摘要

关键词

引言

任务型语言教学法的发展和理论基础

the results show that task design, task evaluation,TBLT reflections, and technology-assisted learning are current prominent trends
结果表明，任务设计、任务评价、TBLT 反思和技术辅助学习是当前突出的趋势

76任务型教学已逐渐成为二语习得研究领域的核心议题 (Ellis et al. 2019；邢加新、罗少茜

2016)。Ellis, R., P. Skehan, S. Li, N. Shintani & C. Lambert. 2019. Task-Based Language Teaching: Theory and Practice[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2016）。Ellis, R., P. Skehan, S. Li, N. Shintani & C. Lambert. 2019. Task-Based Language Teaching: Theory and Practice[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

邢加新 罗少茜 . 2016. 任务复杂度对中国英语学习者语言产出影响的元分析研究[J]. 现代外语,(4): 528-538.

70 任务型教 学在中国的发展趋势主要表现在以下四方面：系统介绍和研究国外任务型教学；不 断提升任务型教学的本土化水平；促进任务型教学理论和实践的有效结合；强化任 务型教学的跨学科研究。任务型教学以关 注 “做中学”、鼓励学 生 创 造 性 地 使 用 语 言 等 优 点，赢得语言教学界的认可，成为语言教学研究 领域的热点和外语教育的国际主流。２０世纪９０ 年代，任务型教学日益成熟，受到诸多国家的关 注，实践应用日趋广泛。在中国，任务型教学自 １９９７年引进至今已有近２０年的历史，作为一种 重要的外语教学方法被提倡 和应用到我国大、 中、小学英 语 教 学 实 践，也 有 １０ 余 年 的 历 史。

70尽管作为强交际教学法的任务型教学已经分 化，但第一次系统地把 “任务”作为英语课堂教 学的重要部分且引发重视，源于英籍印度语言学 家珀 拉 胡 （Ｎ．Ｐｒａｂｈｕ）于 １９７９—１９８４ 年 间 在 印度班加罗 尔 地 区 小 学 进 行 的 “Ｂａｎｇａｌｏｒｅ　Ｐｒｏ－ ｊｅｃｔ”。该实验是 “强”交际教学法的典型代表， 并率先将 “任务”作为英语课堂教学活动的主要 形式，认为学习者只有将注意力集中在任务的完 成上，而不是正在使用的语言上，学习才能更加 有效。珀拉胡所做的这一教学实验的意义在于， 他第一次系统地把 “任务”作为课堂教学的重要 构成要 素，并 将 其 运 用 于 第 二 语 言 教 学 实 践 之 中，形成了任务型教学的雏形。 珀拉胡在教学中将任务分成三大类：信息差 活动，即学 习 者 运 用 目 的 语 交 流 和 传 递 各 种 信 息；推理差活动，即学习者通过推断、演绎、推 理等过程，从已知信息中获取所需信息；观点差 活动，即学习者针对某一特定情境识别和表达个 人的喜好、感受或态度。［６］这三种任 务 为 学 习 者 营造接近自然的语言学习环境和开展真正有意义 的交际活动提供了基础，至今仍然是任务型教学 的主要任务类型。在具体的教学实践中，珀拉胡把课堂教学分 为 “前任务、任务、反馈”三个阶段。在前任务 阶段，教师通过讲解某些表达法、提供与随后要 完成任务相类似的任务情景等，帮助学生了解任 务、激活与任务相关的语言；在任务阶段，学生 自己完成任务，如果遇到困难可向教师求援；在 反馈阶段，教师对学生任务完成情况给出反馈， 反馈结果既可以让学生了解自己的水平，也可以 为教师随后的课堂教学计划提供信息。［６］

70任务型 教学的研究已取得以下几方面进展。１．何谓任务型教学２．任务型教学的理论基础３．任务型教学的原则４．任务型教学的具体应用５．信息技术与任务型教学融合６．任务型教学的本土化探索

70 任务型教学的趋势​：系统介绍和研究国外任务型教学；不断提升任务型教学的本土化水平；促进任务型教学理论和实践的有效结合；强化任务型教学的跨学科研究。

64近 ２０ 年来，研究者开始探索教育技术对任务型语言教学（ Ｔａｓｋ⁃ｂａｓｅｄ Ｌａｎｇｕａｇｅ Ｔｅａｃｈｉｎｇ， ＴＢＬＴ）的赋能潜力，以促进教育技术与 ＴＢＬＴ 的协同发展。

60任务型教学途径，这一教学理念是交际法的最新发展，克服了交际法 的教学活动中出现大量非真实交际的问题，提出通过引导学生完成真实生活中的任务来学习运用英语，从而 培养学生运用英语的能力。 任务型教学途径在教学实践中应该首先设计出真实生活的任务，然后在课堂上将 任务呈现给学生，学生通过学习教学内容获得完成任务必须的知识与能力，然后完成任务，从而在完成真实的 生活任务的过程中学习知识，培养能力。 任务型教学既强调在运用中学习，也强调为了运用而学习。

54 Results showed that TBLT was still mostly approached from the traditional cognitive-interactionist and psycholinguistic perspectives with a focus on tasks, individuals (i.e., learners and teachers), task-related variables (e.g., task complexity and task repetition), task performance, and the resultant linguistic forms.While this field of research has witnessed a growing interest in learners’ individual differences and computermediated, technologies-assisted learning, a decreasing trend has been observed in topics related to error and recast
54 结果显示，任务型教学法（TBLT）仍然主要从传统的认知-互动主义和心理语言学的视角来研究，重点关注任务、个体（即学生和教师）、与任务相关的变量（例如任务复杂性和任务重复）、任务表现以及由此产生的语言形式。尽管这个研究领域已经越来越关注学生的个体差异和计算机辅助、技术支持的学习，但与错误和重述相关的话题却呈现出下降趋势。.

54 Task-based language teaching (TBLT), also labeled as task-based language learning and task-based instruction, constitutes an approach to language teaching and learning that prioritizes the use of authentic language to complete meaningful tasks in the target language. Pedagogically originating from communicative language teaching and solidly grounded in second language acquisition (SLA) theories and research, TBLT has been exerting a significant influence on the teaching and learning of a second or foreign language (L2/FL) since its initiation in the 1980s (Candlin, 1987; Long, 1985; Nunan, 1989; Prabhu, 1987). By focusing on authentic, communicative tasks, TBLT emphasizes learners’ incidental acquisition of and engagement with language as a meaning-making tool. Hence, it constitutes a radical departure from the traditional, structural approaches that consider language as an object to be systematically taught and intentionally learned (Ellis et al., 2020; Long, 2016; Van den Branden, 2016).
54 任务型语言教学（TBLT），也被称为任务型语言学习和任务型教学，是一种以在目标语言中运用真实语言完成有意义的任务为核心的语言教学和学习方法。在交际语言教学的基础上，并牢固地根植于第二语言习得（SLA）理论和研究，自 20 世纪 80 年代兴起以来（Candlin, 1987; Long, 1985; Nunan, 1989; Prabhu, 1987），任务型语言教学对第二语言或外语（L2/FL）的教学和学习产生了重大影响。通过聚焦真实、交际性的任务，任务型语言教学强调学习者将语言作为意义构建工具的偶然习得和参与。因此，它与传统将语言视为需要系统教授和有意学习的对象的结构性方法形成了根本性的转变（Ellis et al., 2020; Long, 2016; Van den Branden, 2016）。

54 The two versions of TBLT hold different viewpoints regarding the role of tasks in language teaching. The strong version argues that tasks should be the unit of language teaching, while everything else should be subsidiary. In contrast, the weak version claims that although tasks are a vital part of language instruction, they may be preceded or followed by focused instruction (see Skehan, 1996, for a more elaborate discussion).
54 两种任务型教学法对任务在语言教学中的作用持有不同观点。强版本认为任务应该是语言教学的单位，而其他一切都应处于从属地位。相比之下，弱版本声称尽管任务是语言教学的重要组成部分，但它们可以由针对性的教学活动所引导或跟随（参见 Skehan, 1996 的更详细讨论）。

54 Over the past three decades or so, TBLT has gained a well-respected status among SLA researchers and language teachers (Ellis, 2003; Robinson, 2001; Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996). It has recently attracted more attention and a growing number of works concerning TBLT have been published, such as monographs (e.g., Ellis et al., 2020; Long, 2015), edited volumes (e.g., Ahmadian & Long, 2021; Samuda et al., 2018), state-of-the-art articles (e.g., Ellis, 2017; Long, 2016; Van den Branden, 2016), and empirical studies (e.g., Michel et al., 2020; Qin & Zhang, 2022). Moreover, an international conference (The International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching) and a newly launched journal (Journal on TaskBased Language Teaching and Learning) have been dedicated to the discussion of tasks and TBLT. A number of meta-analyses have been conducted by synthesizing the effects of features of TBLT on various outcome measures. Some of them have focused on the overall effects of task-based, interaction-related features of TBLT on learners’ acquisition of specific grammatical and lexical structures (e.g., Cobb, 2010; Keck et al., 2006; Mackey & Goo, 2007). Others have laid emphasis on particular issues of task features, in particular task complexity, within TBLT (e.g., Jackson & Suethanapornkul, 2013; Johnson, 2017; Sasayama et al., 2015). In comparison, few of the meta-analyses have targeted the implementation and evaluation of long-term TBLT programs (e.g., Bryfonski & McKay, 2019). These meta-analyses, along with other research syntheses (e.g., Plonsky & Kim, 2016), have contributed much to our understanding of task-based research (e.g., taskbased interaction in Mackey & Goo, 2007).
54 在过去的三十多年左右，任务型教学法（TBLT）在二语习得（SLA）研究人员和语言教师中获得了备受尊敬的地位（Ellis，2003；Robinson，2001；Skehan，1996；Willis，1996）。它最近吸引了更多的关注，关于 TBLT 的研究成果也日益增多，例如专著（如 Ellis 等，2020；Long，2015）、编著（如 Ahmadian & Long，2021；Samuda 等，2018）、综述文章（如 Ellis，2017；Long，2016；Van den Branden，2016）以及实证研究（如 Michel 等，2020；Qin & Zhang，2022）。此外，还举办了一个国际会议（任务型语言教学国际会议）并创办了一本新期刊（任务型语言教学与学习期刊），专门用于讨论任务和 TBLT。许多元分析通过综合 TBLT 特征对各种结果指标的影响进行了研究。其中一些研究重点关注基于任务的、与互动相关的 TBLT 特征对学习者掌握特定语法和词汇结构的影响（如 Cobb，2010；Keck 等，2006；Mackey & Goo，2007）。 其他人则侧重于任务型教学法（TBLT）中任务特征的具体问题，特别是任务复杂性（例如，Jackson & Suethanapornkul, 2013; Johnson, 2017; Sasayama et al., 2015）。相比之下，很少有元分析针对长期 TBLT 项目的实施与评估（例如，Bryfonski & McKay, 2019）。这些元分析以及其他研究综述（例如，Plonsky & Kim, 2016）极大地增进了我们对于基于任务研究的理解（例如，Mackey & Goo, 2007 中的基于任务的互动）。

51Over the past 15 years, task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been applied in primary and middle schools in China as a requirement of the national curriculum standard. In 2003, the National English Curriculum Standards for Senior High School (experimental draft) promulgated by the Ministry of Education explicitly proposed to use the TBLT approach in English classrooms. After 14 years, the Ministry of Education issued the National English Curriculum Standards again in 2017, mentioning the core competence and activity approach to English teaching, proposing teaching activities and evaluation based on core competence. The new curriculum standards continue to highlight the language use abilities and adopt holistic tasks in language teaching and evaluation.
51 在过去的 15 年里，任务型教学法（TBLT）作为国家课程标准的要求，已被应用于中国的中小学。2003 年，教育部颁布的《普通高中英语课程标准（实验稿）》明确提出了在英语课堂中使用 TBLT 方法。14 年后，教育部于 2017 年再次颁布了《普通高中英语课程标准》，提到了英语教学的核心素养和活动途径，提出了基于核心素养的教学活动和评价。新的课程标准继续强调语言运用能力，并在语言教学和评价中采用整体性任务。

50Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is an approach which developed during the communicative era, focusing on the use of meaningful and purposeful activities to promote language learning (Prabhu 1987; Willis 1996). According to Jeon and Hahn (2006), TBLT provides learners with real opportunities to be exposed to language use in the classroom, which is of great importance for the Asian EFL environment, where learners are limited in their accessibility to English on a daily basis. Butler (2011) and Littlewood (2007) note that a number of Asian countries have been promoting Communicative language teaching (CLT) and TBLT in their curricula and English education policies since the 1990s. In particular, Nunan (2003) highlights the importance of TBLT, based on a study of curriculum guidelines and syllabi in the Asia-Pacific countries including Japan, Vietnam, China, Korea and Malaysia. The National English Curriculum standards (NECS) in mainland China, published by the Ministry of Education (MOE), in particular, advocate the use of TBLT (MOE 2001: 2, 2015).
50 任务型语言教学（TBLT）是在交际教学法时代发展起来的一种教学方法，它注重使用有意义和有目的的活动来促进语言学习（Prabhu 1987；Willis 1996）。根据 Jeon 和 Hahn（2006）的观点，TBLT 为学习者提供了在课堂中接触真实语言使用机会，这对亚洲英语作为外语（EFL）环境尤为重要，因为在这个环境中，学习者每天接触英语的机会有限。Butler（2011）和 Littlewood（2007）指出，自 20 世纪 90 年代以来，许多亚洲国家已经在其课程和英语教育政策中推广交际语言教学（CLT）和 TBLT。特别是 Nunan（2003）基于对包括日本、越南、中国、韩国和马来西亚在内的亚太国家课程指南和教学大纲的研究，强调了 TBLT 的重要性。中国的国家英语课程标准（NECS）由教育部（MOE）发布，尤其提倡使用 TBLT（MOE 2001：2，2015）。

50As the use of TBLT developed, different ways to implement it emerged. Researchers such as Ellis (2003) and Long (2015a) proposed a ‘strong’ form and a ‘weak’ form of TBLT, which are named ‘task-based language teaching’ and ‘task-supported language teaching’, respectively, by Ellis (2003, 2013). According to Long, task-based language teaching is an approach ‘employing task as the unit of analysis at all stages in program design, implementation, and evaluation’ (2015a: 3). What Ellis (2013: 5) terms ‘task-supported language teaching’, on the other hand, has simply incorporated tasks into traditional language-based approaches to teaching. Tasks in the weak version of TBLT are normally used to ‘practise items in an overt or covert, pre-set linguistic syllabus of some kind’ (Long 2015a: 3). Ellis (2013: 5) also states that in task-supported language teaching the tasks are just used in the ‘practice’ part of a traditional present–practice–produce methodology. In this study, based on other researchers (for example Ellis 2003; Long 1985; Skehan 1998), the criterial features of a task in TBLT can be summarised as follows:. Tasks are goal-oriented activities; . The target language is used for a communicative purpose in order to achieve an outcome; . Tasks exclude language-free activities; . Tasks should be authentic and engaging; . Tasks should be primarily focusing on meaning.
50 随着任务型教学法（TBLT）的应用发展，出现了不同的实施方式。埃利斯（Ellis, 2003）和朗（Long, 2015a）等研究者提出了 TBLT 的“强形式”和“弱形式”，分别由埃利斯（Ellis, 2003, 2013）命名为“基于任务的英语教学”和“任务支持的英语教学”。根据朗的观点，基于任务的英语教学是一种“在项目设计、实施和评估的所有阶段都将任务作为分析单位的教学方法”（2015a: 3）。另一方面，埃利斯（Ellis, 2013: 5）所说的“任务支持的英语教学”，仅仅是将任务融入传统的基于语言的教学方法中。在 TBLT 的弱形式中，任务通常用于“练习某种显性或隐性的预设语言大纲中的项目”（Long 2015a: 3）。埃利斯（Ellis, 2013: 5）还指出，在任务支持的英语教学中，任务仅用于传统“练习”部分的“呈现—练习—产出”方法中。在本研究中，基于其他研究者（例如埃利斯 2003；朗 1985；斯凯恩 Skehan 1998）的研究，TBLT 中任务的标准特征可以总结如下：. 任务是目标导向的活动；. 目标语言用于实现交际目的以达成结果；任务不包括无语言的活动；任务应该是真实且引人入胜的；任务应主要关注意义。

50In Asia-Pacific countries in general, there have been a number of research studies on TBLT. Chooma (2013), for instance, investigated the effects of TBLT on enhancing English reading skills for Thai undergraduate students and found that these improved with this methodology. He concluded that the use of task-based learning could motivate students and help them enjoy their learning. Hadi’s (2012) study with Iranian female EFL learners on their perceptions of TBLT revealed them to have a high level of understanding of the TBLT concept and positive attitudes toward using tasks in the classroom. Hadi (2012: 103) notes that ‘the learners are willing to adapt themselves to this new approach of language teaching’ and he encourages EFL teachers to apply TBLT on this basis. However, other studies, such as Jeon and Hahn (2006) researching in the Korean secondary school context, suggest that despite having high levels of understanding about TBLT, teachers retain some fears about it as an instructional method, because of perceived disciplinary problems related to classroom practice.
50 在亚太国家，关于任务型教学法（TBLT）的研究有很多。例如，Chooma（2013）研究了 TBLT 对泰国本科生英语阅读能力提升的影响，发现这种方法确实能提高学生的阅读能力。他得出结论，任务型学习可以激发学生的学习动机，帮助他们享受学习过程。Hadis（2012）对伊朗女性英语作为外语（EFL）学习者的 TBLT 认知研究显示，她们对 TBLT 概念有很高的理解水平，并且对在课堂中使用任务持积极态度。Hadi（2012: 103）指出，“学习者愿意适应这种新的语言教学方法”，并鼓励 EFL 教师在此基础上应用 TBLT。然而，其他研究，如 Jeon 和 Hahn（2006）在韩国中学环境中的研究，表明尽管教师对 TBLT 有很高的理解水平，但他们对这种教学方法仍存有一些顾虑，因为担心与课堂实践相关的纪律问题。

45 Skehan (2003) distinguished between strong form and weak form of TBLT. The strong form advocates tasks as the central unit for classroom teaching by focusing on meaningful language use. The weak form positions tasks as complementary parts of a teacher-lectured approach to teaching. Also, there are different approaches to TBLT. Given the strong form of TBLT, proponents have proposed ‘meaning-focused instruction’ by emphasising that learning evolves out of meaningful language use. However, some researchers have highlighted the critical need for learners to attend to form (Long & Robinson, 1998). Long (1991) advanced two different ways to do so: ‘focus on forms’, which uses traditional ways to teach forms and ‘focus on form’, which induces learners to attend to form during their meaning-focused communication. Both ways have been ascribed to a cover term ‘form-focused instruction’ (Ellis, 2001) in which, however, the approach ‘focus on form’ has been widely accepted by most TBLT researchers (Skehan, 2003). Empirically, substantial research on TBLT has been conducted in various contexts. Below, we briefly review the results related to its benefits and challenges.
45 Skehan (2003) 区分了任务型教学法（TBLT）的强形式和弱形式。强形式主张以任务作为课堂教学的核心单位，通过关注有意义的语言使用来实现。弱形式则将任务定位为教师讲授式教学方法中的补充部分。此外，TBLT 存在不同的方法。在强形式的 TBLT 下，支持者提出了“意义导向的教学”这一概念，强调学习源于有意义的语言使用。然而，一些研究者强调了学习者关注语言形式的迫切需求（Long & Robinson, 1998）。Long (1991) 提出了两种实现这一目标的不同方法：“形式聚焦”（focus on forms），该方法使用传统方式教授语言形式；“形式意义结合”（focus on form），该方法引导学习者在意义导向的交流过程中关注语言形式。这两种方法都被归入一个总称“形式导向的教学”（form-focused instruction）（Ellis, 2001），尽管其中“形式意义结合”这一方法已被大多数 TBLT 研究者广泛接受（Skehan, 2003）。在实证研究方面，关于 TBLT 的研究已在各种情境下进行。以下，我们将简要回顾与其益处和挑战相关的研究结果。

43 Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is viewed as a development within the Communicative Language Teaching movement (Littlewood, 2014), having been described as the ‘strong version’ of this approach (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011).
43 任务型语言教学法（TBLT）被视为交际语言教学法运动（Littlewood，2014）的发展，被描述为这一方法的“强化版”（Larsen-Freeman & Anderson，2011）。

36 From its early manifestation in American Government Language Institutions for teaching
36 它早期在美国政府语言机构为成人教授外语时出现（Shehadeh，2005），以及班加罗尔交际教学法

adults foreign languages (Shehadeh, 2005) and the Bangalore Communicational Teaching
1 Swan 这样评价交际教学法：它过度泛化有效但有限的见解，直到它们几乎变得毫无意义；它夸大了其理论和创新的威力；它歪曲了它所取代的思想潮流；它常常表现出严重的智力混乱；它充斥着术语。

Project (Prabhu, 1987), task-based language teaching (TBLT) has evolved into a prominent
项目（Prabhu，1987 年），任务型语言教学（TBLT）已经发展成为一项突出的

trend in second language instruction (Kumaravadivelu, 2006).
第二语言教学趋势（Kumaravadivelu，2006）。

28 Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is an empirically investigated pedagogy that has garnered attention from language programs across the globe. TBLT provides an alternative to traditional grammar translation or present-practice-produce pedagogies by emphasizing interaction during authentic tasks.
28 任务型语言教学（TBLT）是一种经过实证研究的教学法，吸引了全球语言项目的高度关注。TBLT 通过强调在真实任务中的互动，为传统的语法翻译法或呈现-练习-产出教学法提供了替代方案。

1 Swan evaluated the communicative approach in this way: it over-generalizes valid but limited insights until they become virtually meaningless; it makes exagger-ated claims for the power and novelty of its doctrines; it misrepresents the currents of thought it has replaced; it is often characterized by serious intellectual confusion; it is choked with jargon.
1 Swan 这样评价交际教学法：它过度泛化有效但有限的见解，直到它们几乎变得毫无意义；它夸大了其理论和创新的威力；它歪曲了它所取代的思想潮流；它常常表现出严重的智力混乱；它充斥着术语。

2 These and other reports suggest that, in spite of the positive features mentioned earlier, CLT offers perhaps a classic case of a center-based pedagogy that is out of sync with local linguistic, educational, social, cultural, and political exigencies. The result has been a gradual erosion of its popularity, paving way for a renewed interest in task-based language teaching (TBLT)
2 这些及其他报告表明，尽管之前提到了其积极方面，交际语言教学法（CLT）可能是一个典型的以中心为基础的教学法案例，它与地方语言、教育、社会、文化和政治需求脱节。其结果是其受欢迎程度逐渐下降，为任务型语言教学（TBLT）的重新兴起铺平了道路。

89 In spite of its methodological disconnect, TBLT has been considered an offshoot of CLT (Nunan, 2004; Savignon, 1991; Willis, 1996). 2 TBLT is considered more psycholinguistically oriented compared to CLT, which is more sociolinguistically oriented.
89 尽管在方法论上存在脱节，任务型语言教学（TBLT）仍被认为是交际语言教学法（CLT）的一个分支（Nunan，2004；Savignon，1991；Willis，1996）。2 与 CLT 相比，TBLT 被认为更具心理语言学导向，而 CLT 则更具社会语言学导向。

9 10 The TBI model is attractive, offering the possibility of combining ‘the best insights from communicative language teaching with an organized focus on language form’ (J. Willis 1996: 1), and thus avoiding the drawbacks of more narrowly form-centred or communication-centred approaches.
9 10 TBI 模型具有吸引力，它提供了结合“交际语言教学的最佳见解与对语言形式的系统性关注”（J. Willis，1996：1）的可能性，从而避免了更狭隘的形式中心或交际中心方法的缺点。

11 Similarly, researchers have also debated how tasks should be used in instruction. A number of different versions of TBLT have been proposed, ranging from a strong version (task-based teaching; see Willis, 1996) to a weaker version (task-supported teaching; see Ellis, 2003). Whereas the former sees tasks as the central component of syllabus design, the latter uses tasks for communicative practice in conjunction with a grammar- or function-based syllabus.
11 类似地，研究者们也辩论了任务应该如何在教学中使用。已经提出了多种不同版本的 TBLT，从强版本（基于任务的教法；参见 Willis, 1996）到弱版本（任务支持的教法；参见 Ellis, 2003）。前者将任务视为课程设计的核心组成部分，而后者则将任务与基于语法或功能的课程结合使用，用于交际实践。

2 Given the various challenges it faces in its implementation, CLT has gradually lost its popularity to TBLT among TESOL professionals, according to Kumaravadivelu (2006).
2 由于其在实施过程中面临的各种挑战，CLT 在 TESOL 专业人士中的受欢迎程度逐渐被 TBLT 取代，根据 Kumaravadivelu (2006)的观点。

14 TBLT was, initially, a proposal for improving pedagogy with only a slight foundation in empirical research into the SLA processes listed earlier. Arising out of pedagogic proposals for a greater emphasis on communicative activities in language teaching (see, e.g., Brumfit & Johnson, 1979; Skehan, 2003; Valdman, 1978, 1980; Widdowson, 1978, for reviews), TBLT places the construct of “task” at the center of curricular planning. As Cook (2010) recently noted, TBLT “sees second language learning as arising from particular tasks that students do in the classroom. . . .In a sense it reconceptualizes communicative language teaching as tasks rather than the language or cognition-based syllabuses of communicative language teaching,” and TBLT is the approach to language teaching “that has attracted most attention in the past decade” (p. 512). Although attention to proposals for TBLT still primarily comes from teachers and educational authorities charged with designing, implementing, and coordinating effective programs of language instruction at local, national, and international levels (e.g., Council of Europe, 2001; Leaver & Willis, 2004; Van den Branden, 2006; Willis & Willis, 2007), utilizing an increasing range of available instructional technologies (e.g., Thomas & Reinders, 2010), attention to TBLT has also come from SLA researchers concerned with explaining the effects of design features of tasks, and their implementation, on learning.
14 TBLT 最初是一个旨在改进教学法的提议，其基础仅是对先前所列的 SLA（第二语言习得）过程进行实证研究的微弱基础。TBLT 源于对语言教学中更强调交际活动的教学法提议（例如，参见 Brumfit & Johnson, 1979; Skehan, 2003; Valdman, 1978, 1980; Widdowson, 1978，这些是综述），TBLT 将“任务”这一概念置于课程规划的核心。正如 Cook（2010）最近指出的，TBLT“认为第二语言学习源于学生在课堂中完成的特定任务……从某种意义上说，它将交际语言教学重新概念化为任务，而不是交际语言教学的语言或认知型课程”，“TBLT 是过去十年中引起最多关注的语言教学方法”（第 512 页）。 尽管对任务型教学法（TBLT）的关注仍主要来自负责设计、实施和协调地方、国家和国际层面有效语言教学项目的教师和教育主管部门（例如，欧洲理事会，2001 年；Leaver & Willis，2004 年；Van den Branden，2006 年；Willis & Willis，2007 年），以及利用日益增多的可用教学技术（例如，Thomas & Reinders，2010 年），但对 TBLT 的关注也来自第二语言习得（SLA）研究者，他们关注解释任务的设计特征及其对学习的影响。

15For studying English, task-based approaches, referred to as task-based learning, are also a key component of recent syllabi (Curriculum Development Council, 1997, 2002) that replaced the communicative syllabi, which were adopted in name but not widely implemented in the classroom (Evans, 1996).
15 在英语学习方面，任务型方法，也称为任务型学习，是最近课程大纲（课程发展委员会，1997 年，2002 年）中的一个关键组成部分，这些课程大纲取代了虽然名义上采用但未在课堂上广泛实施的交际型课程大纲（Evans，1996 年）。

16 In L2 pedagogy, task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been described as reaching the status of a new orthodoxy because of its popularity among policy makers, course book writers, and educators (Erlam, 2016).
16 在第二语言教学法中，任务型语言教学（TBLT）因其受到政策制定者、教材编写者和教育者的欢迎而被描述为达到了新的正统地位（Erlam，2016 年）。

18 Over the last few decades, task-based language teaching (TBLT) has garnered increasing attention from researchers and educators alike. With a strong and growing body of research demonstrating the efficacy of tasks to support and facilitate second language development and performance (e.g., Keck, Iberri-Shea, Tracy-Ventura, & Wa-Mbaleka, 2006), TBLT has become a leading pedagogical approach.
18 在过去的几十年里，任务型语言教学（TBLT）引起了研究人员和教育工作者越来越多的关注。随着大量研究有力地证明了任务在支持和发展第二语言能力方面的有效性（例如，Keck, Iberri-Shea, Tracy-Ventura, & Wa-Mbaleka, 2006），TBLT 已成为一种主要的教学法。

理论和实证

第二语言习得理论：输入和输出假说

建构主义学习理论

69任务教学法的 哲学心理学理论基础是建构主义。建构主义认为学习是在一定的情境即社会文化背景下‚借助其他 人的帮助即通过人际间的协作活动而实现的意义建 构过程。在这一过程中‚学生的亲身体验、探索、 发现尤其重要。学生是信息加工的主体、是意义的 主动建构者‚而不是外部刺激的被动接受者和被灌 输的对象。教师是意义建构的帮助者、促进者‚而 不是知识的传授者与灌输者

57任务型教学法的核心是“以学习者为中心” 和“以人为 本”‚其哲学心理学的依据是当前流行的“建构主义” （constructivism）。Fosnot （1996：ix） 指出‚建构主义是一种有关知 识和学习的理论。建构主义以心理学、哲学和人类学为基 础‚认为知识是暂时的、发展的和非客观的‚是经过学习者内 心建构并受社会文化影响的。该理论认为人的认知是与经 验共同发展的‚知识是经验的重组与重新构建‚是一种连续 不断的心理建构过程‚是体验、发现和创造的过程。真实自 然的教学任务正是为学习者提供了这种宝贵的体验过程。 由于任务真实自然‚它必然容易激活学习者已有的知识结构 和认知图式；由于它包含有待实现的目标和需要解决的问 题‚就必然会激发学习者对新知识、新信息的渴求。学习者 正是通过实施任务和参与活动‚促进了自身知识的“重组”与 “构建”‚促进了摄入的新信息与学习者已有的认知图式之间 的互动、连接、交融与整合。而且一旦学习者体验到参与活 动的意义‚感受到新知识构建的成功‚他们会更加主动积极‚ 从而加速语言信息的内化。 建构主义同时主张要通过互动与合作建构知识‚特别强 调要通过社会的互动与合作进行学习‚认为孤立的学习不能 导致知识能力的增长‚学习只有通过与周围的人进行互动、 与同伴合作才能激活内在各种因素。以建构主义为理念的教学应为 学生提供机会‚让他们参与真实自然和有交际意义的活动‚ 由他们去寻找知识‚提出问题‚建构自己的模式、概念和策 略。

62 社会建构 主义理论认 为 ， 学 习 和发展是社 会活动和合作活动 。 这种活动是无法 教会 的 。 知识是 由学 习者个人 自己建构 的 ， 而不是 由他 人传递 的 。 这 种建 构发 生 在 与 他 人 交 往 的环 境 中 ， 是社会互 动的结果 。 它强 调学 习 者个 人 从 自身经验背景 出发 ， 建构对客 观事物 的 主 观 理解 和 意义 ， 重视学习过程而 反 对现成 知识 的 简单传授 。 它 强 调 人 的学 习 与 发 展 发 生 在 与 其他人 的交往 和互 动之 中 。 教学 应 该 置 于 有 意义 的情景 中 ， 而最理想 的情景是 所学 的知 识可 以 在其 中得 到运用 。 学生个人 的发 展 是 教学 的核 心 ， 因此 ， 教 师在组织教学 的过程 中 ， 要特别注意学 生 的主 体作用 ， 尽可能多地 为学生 提供丰富的语 料和 语境 ， 将学生校外 的生活经历 与校 内的学 习 活 动联系起来 ， 让 学 生 自己 进 行 意义 的 建构 ， 而 不是令其接受现成 知识 ， 直达结果 。 教师最重 要 的作用 是激活学生 的内在知识系统 ， 并 给学 生提供一 个 可 同时 进行 探究 的环 境 。 课 堂 应 该充满对学生具有挑 战性 的各种真实 的机会 ， 学生应 有 自由按 自己 的 节 奏 ， 通 过 自己 的 经 历 ， 可 自我调控 的发展过程去发展 。 教 师要使 外语教学 富有教育性 ， 就必须 了解学 习者 的个 人特征和个人需求 。 社会建构 主义 理论 支持 下 的任务 型 语 言 教学 主张学 习过程应充满真实的个人意 义 ， 要 求外语教师学会促进学 习者的全人发展 、 学 习 能力 的发展 、 积极 的情感 因素和健康人格 的发 展 。

认知心理学理论

任务型语言教学法的说明和解释

任务的定义和分类，特征结构、难度

要素59 作 为任 务 型 教学 法 中的课 堂教学 任 务 ， 至少 应 包含 以 下 六 个基 本构成要 素 。目标 /。内容 /程序/ 输 入 材 料/ 教 师 和 学 习 者 的角 色 /情 景 。

70 （Ｄ．Ｎｕｎａｎ）１９８９年出版的 《交际课堂的任

务设计》他认为，任务由六个部分构成：任务目标 （ｇｏａｌｓ）、 材料输入（ｉｎｐｕｔ）、活 动 （ａｃｔｉｖｉｔｉｅｓ）、教 师 角 色 （ｔｅａｃｈｅｒｒｏｌｅ）、学 习 者 角 色 （ｌｅａｒｎｅｒ　ｒｏｌｅ）、环 境 （ｓｅｔｔｉｎｇ），具有以意义为中心和以解决交际 问题为目的等特征。

58

​目的性​：具有明确的导向（如完成工作、达成沟通、实现学习目标等），区别于无意义的机械重复；

​过程性​：需要主体通过思考、信息处理、互动协作或资源整合等主动行为实现目标，而非被动接受；

​意义性​：以“真实或模拟的交际/实践意义”为核心，强调在语境中运用语言或技能完成具体目标，而非单纯聚焦形式规则；

​结果性​：最终产出可衡量的成果（如报告、解决方案、有效交流等），体现活动的完整性；

​情境性​：常与具体场景（如社会交往、职业需求、学习任务）关联，要求主体在特定情境中协调语言、策略与目标的关系。

57 任务型教学法中的任务其实就是根据教学内容设计的 教学活动。Peter Skehan（1998：122－126）总结了 Candlin （1987）‚Numan （1989）‚Long（1989）等研究者的观点‚ 对“任务型”中的任务做了五点定义：①任务以意义为主；② 任务中要有问题需通过语言交际进行解决；③任务与真实世 界的活动有类似之处；④首先要完成任务；⑤根据结果评估 任务。

50‘Tasks’ came on the language learning scene during the communicative era – their first iteration was in Prabhu’s Second Language Pedagogy (1987) in which he reported on a language syllabus based purely on practical tasks with no formal language work. The approach evolved into TaskBased Learning (Willis 1996) in which it was given an overarching tripartite structure (pretask, task, language focus), with, importantly, a reinstatement of a dedicated language focus stage. Nevertheless, like Prabhu’s original concept, and like CLT, its underlying principles were the use of meaningful and purposeful communicative activities to promote language learning.
50 “任务”在交际教学法时代进入语言学习领域——它们的首次出现是在 Prabhu 的《第二语言教学法》（1987 年）中，他报告了一种完全基于实际任务的课程大纲，没有正式的语言教学。这种教学法后来演变为任务型学习（Willis 1996 年），其中被赋予了一个总体的三部分结构（前任务、任务、语言聚焦），重要的是，重新引入了一个专门的语言聚焦阶段。然而，与 Prabhu 的原始概念一样，也像交际语言教学法（CLT）一样，其基本原理是使用有意义和有目的的交际活动来促进语言学习。.

44TBLT-informed tasks can be understood and designed along a continuum from a general classroom task, or a pedagogic language task, to a more complex real-world task (Bygate, Skehan & Swain, 2013; González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014). Willis (1996) defines a classroom task as a communicative activity that is goal oriented with an emphasis on exchanging meaning and reaching a specific outcome. On the other side of the continuum, real-world tasks are defined as more holistic activities in which language learners engage more broadly to attain an objective using the target language (Van den Branden, 2006). Norris (2009) indicated that such tasks are part of a carefully organized TBLT program that subscribes to elements of needs analysis, task selection and sequencing, materials and instruction development, teaching, assessment, and evaluation. Within this framework, many studies have examined particular aspects of task-based learning, such as the development of materials, instructions, and learning activities to fully exploit the benefits of TBLT approaches.
基于任务型教学法（TBLT）的任务可以从一般课堂任务或教学语言任务，到更复杂的现实世界任务，在理解与设计上沿着一个连续体进行（Bygate, Skehan & Swain, 2013; González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014）。Willis（1996）将课堂任务定义为一种以目标为导向的交际活动，强调意义交换并达成特定结果。在连续体的另一端，现实世界任务被定义为更整体性的活动，语言学习者在其中更广泛地运用目标语言来达成目标（Van den Branden, 2006）。Norris（2009）指出，这类任务是精心组织的 TBLT 项目的一部分，该项目遵循需求分析、任务选择与排序、材料与教学设计、教学、评估与评价等要素。在这一框架内，许多研究考察了任务型学习的特定方面，例如材料、指令和学习活动的发展，以充分发挥 TBLT 方法的优势。

43 In TBLT the primary unit for designing a language programme and for planning individual lessons is the ‘task’ (Ellis, 2009). However, there has been a lack of consistency in the way that the language task has been defined (Ellis, 2003). Definitions drawn from both research and pedagogic literature include those by Breen (1989), Skehan (1996), Bygate, Skehan and Swain (2001) and others, all of which differ in scope. Van den Branden (2006) points out that, despite differences, the various definitions nevertheless share a common understanding, that is, that people not only learn language in order to make functional use of it, but also that they learn by making functional use of it.
43 在任务型教学法（TBLT）中，设计语言课程和规划个别课程的主要单位是“任务”（Ellis，2009）。然而，在定义语言任务的方式上一直缺乏一致性（Ellis，2003）。来自研究和教学文献中的定义包括 Breen（1989）、Skehan（1996）、Bygate、Skehan 和 Swain（2001）等人的定义，它们在范围上都有所不同。Van den Branden（2006）指出，尽管存在差异，但各种定义仍然有一个共同的理解，即人们不仅为了功能性使用而学习语言，而且也通过功能性使用来学习语言。

41Various deffnitions of tasks have been introduced over the last two decades (e.g., Ellis, 2003; Long, 1985). A commonality among them is the need for tasks to “focus on meaning, be goal-oriented, and have an outcome apart from merely practicing the language” (González-Lloret & Rock, 2022, p. 38). Despite critiques of TBLT, several review papers (Ellis, 2017; Long, 2016) and meta-analyses (Bryfonski & McKay, 2019) have emphasized the abundant empirical support for the beneffts of using tasks for L2 instruction.
41 在过去的二十年中，人们提出了各种关于任务的定义（例如，Ellis, 2003; Long, 1985）。它们之间的共性在于，任务需要“注重意义、具有目标导向，并且除了练习语言之外还要有结果”（González-Lloret & Rock, 2022, p. 38）。尽管对任务型语言教学（TBLT）存在批评，但几篇综述论文（Ellis, 2017; Long, 2016）和元分析（Bryfonski & McKay, 2019）都强调了使用任务进行第二语言（L2）教学的大量实证支持。

36 there is general agreement that tasks are language learning activities that are focused on meaning (e.g. Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004; Skehan, 1998), that involve a clear goal or outcome (e.g. Breen, 1987; Ellis, 2003; Prabhu, 1987; Skehan, 1998; Willis, 1996), and that reflect how language is used in ‘authentic’ non-pedagogical contexts (e.g. Ellis, 2003; Long, 1985; Skehan, 1998). Because most current approaches to second language pedagogy make some use of tasks, Ellis (2003) proposed the terms ‘task-based’ and ‘task-supported’ as a way of distinguishing TBLT from approaches that use tasks primarily as a means of practicing linguistic forms after they have been explicitly taught. As noted by Ellis (2003), some task-supported approaches use a Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP) model, in which a particular linguistic form is first presented, then practiced through controlled activities such as drills, and finally used in freer language production. The assumption underlying this model is that language learning proceeds in a linear fashion through formal instruction that is followed by activities to reinforce learning and promote automatization. In contrast, TBLT represents innovation at both the philosophical and methodological levels. At the philosophical level, TBLT views second language acquisition as an organic process that is not directly influenced by formal instruction, but which is fostered through the meaningful use of language. At the methodological level, TBLT invites students to act as language users rather than learners, with the explicit analysis of language structures and forms emerging from difficulties experienced during the completion of tasks (e.g. Willis, 1996). Thus, rather than being organized around pre-determined ‘teaching points’ (Allwright, 2005), a task-based syllabus is organized around, and proceeds from, tasks.
36 人们普遍认为，任务是一种以意义为中心的语言学习活动（例如 Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004; Skehan, 1998），它包含明确的目标或结果（例如 Breen, 1987; Ellis, 2003; Prabhu, 1987; Skehan, 1998; Willis, 1996），并且反映了语言在“真实”的非教学环境中的使用方式（例如 Ellis, 2003; Long, 1985; Skehan, 1998）。由于当前大多数二语教学法都使用任务，Ellis (2003) 提出了“基于任务”和“支持任务”这两个术语，以区分 TBLT 与那些主要将任务作为在明确教授语言形式之后练习语言形式手段的方法。正如 Ellis (2003) 所指出的，一些支持任务的方法使用“呈现、练习、产出”（PPP）模式，其中特定的语言形式首先被呈现，然后通过如练习等控制性活动进行练习，最后在自由的语言产出中使用。该模式背后的假设是，语言学习通过正式教学按线性方式进行，随后通过活动来巩固学习并促进自动化。 相比之下，任务型教学法在哲学和方法论层面都代表了创新。在哲学层面，任务型教学法将第二语言习得视为一个有机过程，它不受正式教学的直接影响，而是通过语言的实质性使用来培养。在方法论层面，任务型教学法邀请学生作为语言使用者而非学习者，语言结构的明确分析源于完成任务过程中遇到的困难（例如，Willis，1996）。因此，任务型课程不是围绕预定的“教学点”（Allwright，2005）组织，而是围绕任务组织，并从任务出发。

82

特点：

73“任务”是以意义和语言运用为主要导向的活动，具有有意义、可完成、有差距、运用性、真实性等特点。

60真实生活任务的特征：①有意义。 任务应具有素质教育所要求的全面提供学生综合素质的意义。 ②可完成。这项任务应是学生通过学习所学内容可以完成的任务，不是学生无法完成的任 务，也不是与所学内容无关的任务。 ③有差距。这项任务应与学生现有的知识能力有一定差距，学生必须在学习所学内容之后 才能完成。 这些差距可以是知识差距（ knowledge gap） 、能力差距（ ability gap） 、技能差距（ skill gap ） 、信息差距（ information gap） ，以及文化差距（ culture gap） 。 （ 有人将 gap 译作“沟”，这与 “差距”没有本质上的不同。） ④运用性。 这项任务应该是运用性的任务，大多是交际性任务，也可以有少量的是非交际 性运用任务。 但这些任务应该不是通常的学习性任务。 完成这项任务应让学生尽可能充分地 运用他们通过教学内容获得的知识、技能、能力、信息和文化理解。 ⑤真实性。 这项任务应该语用真实、语境真实、语义真实，符合学生真实兴趣、针对学生真 实困难。 ⑥动态性。 运用任务应该是经常变化、不断调整的。

59任 务 具 有 目 的 性 。任 务通 常会 产生非语 言性 结 果 ， 而 练 习 总是 产生 语 言性 结 果 。第 三 ， 任 务 具 有 开 放 性 ，四 ， 任务具有 交 际性 或 互 动性 。

47 According to Rohani (2011), tasks are worth usingbecause they help learners in focusing on meaning, learning real language, and stimulating natural acquisition process
47 根据 Rohani（2011）的观点，任务值得使用，因为它们有助于学习者专注于意义、学习真实语言，并激发自然的习得过程。

46 As defined by Ellis (2009), a task should meet the following four criteria: (1) primary focus on meaning; (2) some kind of gap observed; (3) reliance of learners in their own linguistic resources to complete the activity; and (4) the specification of a non-linguistic outcome.
46 根据 Ellis（2009）的定义，一项任务应满足以下四个标准：（1）主要关注意义；（2）观察到某种差距；（3）学习者依赖自身的语言资源来完成活动；（4）非语言结果的明确说明。

43 Ellis (2012) proposes a set of definitional criteria against which a given activity may be judged as more or less task-like. These are first introduced in Ellis (2003, p. 35) as a way of ‘assessing with some rigour to what extent an activity is a task’. Ellis claims that these criteria draw on definitions provided by Bygate et al. (2001), Samuda & Bygate (2008) and Willis (1996). He further elaborates on and explains these four key criteria, which are presented below, in Ellis and Shintani (2013, p. 135). 1. The primary focus should be on ‘meaning’ (i.e. learners should be mainly concerned with encoding and decoding messages, not with focusing on linguistic form). 2. There should be some kind of ‘gap’ (i.e. a need to convey information, to express an opinion or to infer meaning). 3. Learners should largely rely on their own resources (linguistic and non-linguistic) in order to complete the activity. That is, learners are not ‘taught’ the language they will need to perform the task, although they may be able to ‘borrow’ from the input the task provides to help them perform it. 4. There is a clearly defined outcome other than the use of language (i.e. the language serves as the means for achieving the outcome, not as an end in its own right). Thus, when performing a task, learners are not primarily concerned with using language correctly but rather with achieving the goal stipulated by the task’.
43 艾利斯（2012）提出了一套定义性标准，用以判断某项活动是否更像或更不像任务。这些标准最初在艾利斯（2003，第 35 页）中被提出，作为“以一定严谨程度评估某项活动是否为任务”的方式。艾利斯声称这些标准借鉴了拜盖特等人（2001）、萨穆达与拜盖特（2008）以及威利斯（1996）提供的定义。他进一步阐述并解释了这四个关键标准，这些标准在艾利斯和 shin-tani（2013，第 135 页）中呈现如下：1. 主要关注“意义”（即学习者应主要关注信息的编码和解码，而不是关注语言形式）。2. 应存在某种“差距”（即需要传递信息、表达观点或推断意义）。3. 学习者应主要依赖自身的资源（语言和非语言资源）来完成活动。也就是说，学习者不是“被教授”执行任务所需的语言，尽管他们可能能够“借鉴”任务提供的输入来帮助自己执行任务。4. 除了语言的使用之外，还有一个明确的结果（即语言是实现结果的手段，而不是其本身的目的）。因此，在执行任务时，学习者主要关注的不是正确使用语言，而是实现任务规定的目标。

42Although task-based programs vary in scope and practical application, they are all developed according to clearly defined methodological principles (see Norris, 2009, for an in-depth discussion), for example, begin with a needs analysis, use tasks (rather than linguistic concepts) as the units of analysis, and provide just-in-time grammatical instruction when it is relevant to the learners’ communicative needs (Doughty and Long, 2003). A key principle of TBLT is that learning is experiential (Dewey, 1938), and we acquire skills, including language skills, by doing things. We learn a language by using the language, and tasks offer a framework for the structuring of language actions. In the strictest sense, these tasks are real activities that we need to do in real-life situations. These methodological principles of TBLT differentiate it from other forms of communicative language instruction, which often refer to ‘tasks’, but generally use a syllabus organized around linguistic or functional units, rather than the tasks themselves.
42 尽管任务型课程在范围和实际应用上有所不同，但它们都是根据明确的方法学原则开发的（参见 Norris, 2009 的深入讨论），例如，从需求分析开始，以任务（而非语言概念）作为分析单位，并在与学习者交际需求相关时提供即时语法教学（Doughty and Long, 2003）。任务型语言教学（TBLT）的一个关键原则是学习是体验式的（Dewey, 1938），我们通过做事来获得技能，包括语言技能。我们通过使用语言来学习语言，而任务为语言行为的结构提供了一个框架。在最严格的意义上，这些任务是我们需要在现实生活中进行的真实活动。这些任务型语言教学的方法学原则将其与其他形式的交际语言教学区分开来，后者虽然也常提到“任务”，但通常使用围绕语言或功能单位的课程表，而不是任务本身。

41 In contrast to other pedagogical approaches, such as the structural approach (which focuses on teaching discrete grammatical structures), TBLT prioritizes meaning while still addressing form. TBLT emphasizes the signiffcance of engaging learners’ natural abilities by promoting incidental language learning through the performance of tasksthat drawlearners’ attention toward the target language ratherthan solely on the isolated linguistic forms(Ellis et al., 2020).
41 与其他教学法（如侧重于教授离散语法结构的结构教学法）不同，任务型教学法（TBLT）在关注形式的同时更强调意义。TBLT 强调通过执行能吸引学习者注意力转向目标语言的、促进偶然语言学习的任务，来发挥学习者自身能力的重要性，而不是仅仅关注孤立的语言形式（Ellis et al., 2020）。

23 In addition, the notion of task has been framed around various approaches and theoretical perspectives. First, a socio-cultural perspective provides the idea that an essential aspect inherent to the concept of tasks is the contribution of the learner in defining or representing the task assigned. Based on the socio-cultural theory, this view postulates that ‘‘participants always co-construct the activity they engage in, in accordance with their own socio-history and locally determined goals’’ (Ellis, 2009 p. 121). This implies that execution of a task is linked directly to ‘‘the interaction of individual and task’’ more than the pure properties of the task itself (Ellis, 2009). In order to complete a task, learners have to interpret it, engaging in interesting mental processes to help them establish the objectives of the task and develop a plan to perform it. Recent work in this area has strengthened the need to continue research on learner’s interpretation of tasks (Macaro, 2014; Mancho´n, 2014) as a crucial factor to understand the allocation of resources by learners in the act of composing and attention to linguistic forms. However, since this position goes beyond the aim of this study, it will not be further treated in this report
23 此外，任务的概念已被围绕各种方法和理论视角进行构建。首先，社会文化视角提供了这样的观点：任务概念的一个基本方面在于学习者在定义或表征所分配的任务中的贡献。根据社会文化理论，这一观点主张“‘参与者总是根据他们自己的社会历史和当地确定的目标共同构建他们参与的活动’”（Ellis，2009 年，第 121 页）。这意味着任务的执行直接与“个体与任务的互动”相关，而不仅仅是任务本身的纯粹属性（Ellis，2009 年）。为了完成任务，学习者必须对其进行解读，参与有趣的思维过程，帮助他们确立任务目标并制定执行计划。该领域最近的研究加强了继续研究学习者对任务解读的必要性（Macaro，2014 年；Mancho'n，2014 年），将其视为理解学习者在创作和关注语言形式时资源分配的关键因素。 然而，由于这一立场超出了本研究的范围，本报告将不再进一步探讨

17 Proponentso f task-based languaget eachingh ave argued thati t is an ideal mediumf or implementinfgo cuso nf orm, a methodologicapl rinciple in whichl earners'a ttentioni s drawnt o formi n the contexto f meaning
17 任务型语言教学的支持者认为，这是一种理想的媒介，用于实施以意义为中心的方法论原则，即学习者的注意力被吸引到有意义的语境中形成

17 Long's (2000) approach to task-based languaget eaching, the emphasiso n learner-centeredneasnsd relevancei s achievedb y analyzing the learners'r eal-worldn eeds and interests
17 长的（2000）任务型语言教学方法，强调以学习者为中心意味着相关性，这是通过分析学习者的现实需求和兴趣来实现的

17 Long's (2000) approach to task-based language teachinge mphasizes learners'r eal worldn eeds.
17 长的（2000）任务型语言教学方法强调学习者的现实需求

20 Long (1985; 2015; 2016) has consistently argued that the tasks in a course should be needs-based. He proposes that the starting point for establishing the content of a task-based syllabus should be the identification of those target tasks that a specific group of learners need in order to ‘function adequately in a particular target domain’ (Long 1985: 91).
20 长久（1985；2015；2016）一直主张课程中的任务应该是基于需求的。他提出，建立基于任务的教学大纲内容的起点应该是确定特定学习群体为了“在特定的目标领域中适当运作”而需要的目标任务（长久 1985：91）。

定义

35a task should be a goal-oriented, meaningful activity, involving holistic oral and/or written language use.Additionally, a task must provide a context for the activation of acquisition processes and hence “promote language development through process or product or both” (Samuda & Bygate, 2008, p. 69).
35 任务应该是一个目标导向、有意义的活动，涉及整体的口语和/或书面语言使用。此外，任务必须提供一个激活习得过程的语境，从而“通过过程或产品或两者促进语言发展”（萨姆达和拜盖特，2008 年，第 69 页）。

33 Pedagogic tasks are a type of second language (L2) instructional activity that provide learners with opportunities to acquire implicit or fully automatized language knowledge in line with their own developing communicative resources and experiences (Lambert, 2018). In contrast to other types of L2 learning exercises, tasks overtly focus learners on the semantic and pragmatic meanings of what they are saying, have a gap in information or opinion that necessitates communication, and require learners to achieve a communicative outcome beyond the use of language for its own sake. Importantly, tasks also require learners to meet these demands in their own ways by accessing the full range of their own L2 resources during task performance (Ellis, 2009).
33 教学任务是一种第二语言（L2）教学活动，为学习者提供了根据其自身正在发展的交际资源和经验获取隐性的或完全自动化的语言知识的机会（Lambert，2018）。与其他类型的第二语言学习练习相比，任务明显将学习者的注意力集中在他们所说内容的语义和语用意义上，存在信息或观点的差距，需要交际，并要求学习者在语言本身之外实现交际成果。重要的是，任务还要求学习者在任务执行过程中通过运用他们全部的 L2 资源来满足这些要求（Ellis，2009）。

34 任务是学习者为了实现特定交际目标而使用语言的活动，强调意义优先于形式（Ellis, 2009）。

29 Tasks are authentic, communicative uses language learners have for the target language (Long, 2005).
29 任务是学习者对目标语言的真实、交际性使用（Long，2005）。

21 According to Winne and Marx (1989), tasks can be used as logical models that elicit what students are doing in classrooms.
21 根据 Winne 和 Marx（1989）的观点，任务可以用作逻辑模型，以引出学生在课堂上的活动。

20Nunan (1989) first introduced the distinction between ‘real-world tasks’ and ‘pedagogic tasks’. In a sense, any task carried out in a classroom ends up being ‘pedagogic’ but the distinction is useful because it encapsulates two kinds of authenticity – situational and interactional (Bachman & Palmer 1996). Real-world tasks aim at situational authenticity as they are based on the target tasks performed in the outside world. A pedagogic task lacks situational authenticity but aims at interactional authenticity
20Nunan (1989) 首次提出了“真实世界任务”与“教学任务”的区别。从某种意义上说，任何在课堂上完成的任务最终都会成为“教学任务”，但这个区别是有用的，因为它概括了两种真实性——情境真实性和互动真实性（Bachman & Palmer 1996）。真实世界任务旨在追求情境真实性，因为它们基于在现实世界中执行的目标任务。教学任务缺乏情境真实性，但追求互动真实性。

17 F or pedagogicalc ontexts,r esearchers (e.g., BygateS, kehan,& Swain,2 001) have defineda taska s "an activitysu, sceptible to briefo r extendedp edagogic intervention,w hichr equires learnerst o use language,w ith emphasiso n meaning, to attaina n objective"( p. 11).
17 对于教学环境，研究者（例如，Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001）将任务定义为“一种可能受到短暂或持续教学干预的活动，要求学习者使用语言，强调意义，以达成目标”（第 11 页）。

15 The definition of task has received much attention in the literature
15 任务的定义在文献中受到了广泛关注

(e.g., Breen, 1987; Bygate, 2000; Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Candlin,
（例如，Breen, 1987；Bygate, 2000；Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001；Candlin,

1987; Ellis, 2000, 2003; Skehan, 1998, 2003). Skehan (1998) defines tasks
1987 年；Ellis（2000 年，2003 年）；Skehan（1998 年，2003 年）。Skehan（1998 年）将任务定义为

using four criteria: Meaning is primary, it works toward a goal, it is outcome-evaluated, and it is related to the world outside the classroom.
使用四个标准：意义是首要的，它旨在实现一个目标，它是结果评估的，并且它与课堂外世界相关。

TOC defines task using five main elements (Clark, Scarino, & Brownell, 1994; Curriculum Development Council, 1997): • a purpose or underlying real-life justification for doing the task that involves more than simply displaying knowledge or practicing skills • a context in which the task takes place that may be real, simulated, or imaginary • a process of thinking and doing • a product or the result of thinking and doing • a framework of knowledge and skills
任务型教学法（TOC）使用五个主要元素定义任务（Clark, Scarino, & Brownell, 1994; 课程发展委员会, 1997）: • 任务的目的或进行任务的现实生活依据，这不仅仅是展示知识或练习技能 • 任务发生的背景，可以是真实的、模拟的或想象的 • 思考和行动的过程 • 思考和行动的产物或结果 • 知识和技能的框架

19 Samuda and Bygate (2008) define a task as ‘a holistic activity which engages language use in order to achieve some nonlinguistic outcome while meeting a linguistic challenge, with the overall aim of promoting language learning, through process or product or both’ (p. 69).
19 Samuda 和 Bygate (2008) 将任务定义为“一种整体活动，通过使用语言来达成某种非语言的结果，同时应对语言挑战，其总体目标是促进语言学习，通过过程或产品或两者”（第 69 页）。

19 Scrivener (2011) defines task-based learning (TBL) as ‘a variant of CLT [communicative language teaching] … which bases work cycles around the preparation for, doing of, and reflection and analysis of tasks that reflect real-life needs and skills’ (p. 32).
19 Scrivener (2011) 将任务型学习（TBL）定义为“交际语言教学法（CLT）的一种变体……其工作周期围绕准备、执行和反思与分析反映现实生活需求和技能的任务”（第 32 页）。

Task and task-based language teaching (TBLT) mean different things to different people.
任务和任务型语言教学（TBLT）对不同的人来说意味着不同的事情。

3 Breen (1987) defined task broadly as “a range of workplans which have the overall purpose of facilitating language learning—from the simple and brief exercise type to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem-solving or simulations and decision-making” (p. 23). In a more recent work, 4 Ellis (2003) synthesizes various definitions to derive a composite one: 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. (p. 16)
3 布林（1987）将任务广义地定义为“一系列工作计划，其总体目的是促进语言学习——从简单且短暂的活动类型到更复杂和漫长的活动，如小组问题解决或模拟和决策”（第 23 页）。在更近期的著作中，4 艾利斯（2003）综合了各种定义，得出一个综合性的定义：任务是一个要求学习者以实际应用语言的方式来处理语言，以达成一个可以评估其是否传达了正确或恰当命题内容的结果的工作计划。为此，它要求他们主要关注意义，并利用他们自己的语言资源，尽管任务的设计可能会使他们倾向于选择特定的形式。任务旨在导致语言使用与真实世界中语言的使用方式相似，无论是直接还是间接。与其他语言活动一样，任务可以涉及创造性或接受性，口语或书面技能，以及各种认知过程。（第 16 页）

5 Kumaravadivelu (1993b) argues, that TBLT is not linked to any one particular method. He reckons that it is beneficial to look at task for what it is: a curricular content rather than a methodological construct. In other words, different methods can be employed to carry out language learning tasks that seek different learning outcomes. Using a three-part classification of language teaching methods, he points out that there can very well be language-centered tasks, learner-centered tasks, and learning-centered tasks. Language-centered tasks are those that draw the learner’s attention primarily to linguistic forms. Tasks presented in 6 Fotos and Ellis (1991) and in 7 Fotos (1993), which they appropriately call grammar tasks, come under this category. Learnercentered tasks are those that direct the learner’s attention to formal as well as functional properties. Tasks for the communicative classroom suggested by Nunan (1989) illustrate this type. Learning-centered tasks are those that engage the learner mainly in the negotiation, interpretation, and expression of meaning, without any explicit focus on form. Problemsolving tasks suggested by Prabhu (1987) are learning centered.
5 库马尔瓦迪维卢（1993b）认为，任务型教学法与任何特定教学法都没有关联。他认为，看待任务应该从其本质出发：任务是一种课程内容，而不是一种方法论结构。换句话说，不同的方法可以用来完成寻求不同学习成果的语言学习任务。他使用一个三部分的语言教学方法分类，指出完全可以存在以语言为中心的任务、以学习者为中心的任务和以学习为中心的任务。以语言为中心的任务是指那些主要吸引学习者注意语言形式的任务。6 Fotos 和 Ellis（1991）以及 7 Fotos（1993）中呈现的任务，他们恰当地称之为语法任务，属于这一类别。以学习者为中心的任务是指那些引导学习者注意形式和功能属性的任务。Nunan（1989）为交际课堂提出的任务说明了这一点。以学习为中心的任务是指那些主要让学习者参与意义协商、解释和表达的任务，而不明确关注形式。Prabhu（1987）提出的解决问题任务是以学习为中心的。

12 Bruton (2002a, p. 282), for instance, listed nine task types: “problem-solving, decision-making, spontaneous role-playing, etc.”; “information/opinion gap resolution”; “cued prompted interaction”; “question-answer exchanges”; “prepared role plays”; “focused receptive language (+/- itemized)”; “focused written language (+/- itemized) [reproduction]”; “understanding”; and “written expression.” Based on such a miscellany of activities, skills, modalities, pedagogic procedures, language, conversational moves, and cognitive processes, it would be impossible to define task or task type or know what would and would not qualify as examples of either.
12 例如，Bruton (2002a, p. 282) 列出了九种任务类型：“解决问题、做决策、即兴角色扮演等”；“信息/观点差距的解决”；“提示性互动”；“问答交流”；“准备好的角色扮演”；“聚焦接受性语言（+/- 项目化）”；“聚焦书面语言（+/- 项目化）[再现]”；“理解”和“书面表达”。基于这样五花八门的活动、技能、方式、教学程序、语言、会话行为和认知过程，不可能定义任务或任务类型，也无法知道什么可以和什么不可以作为它们的例子。

13 A pedagogic activity where the learners are provided with L2 data in some form and required to perform some operation on or with it, the purpose of which is to arrive at an explicit understanding of some linguistic property or properties of the target language. (R. Ellis, 1997, p. 160)
13 一种教学活动，其中学习者以某种形式获得第二语言数据，并被要求对其进行某些操作，其目的是明确理解目标语言的一些语言特性。（R. Ellis，1997，第 160 页）

14 A task, Candlin (1987, p. 19) wrote, is “one of a set of differentiated, sequencable, problem-posing activities involving learners and teachers.”
14 Candlin（1987，第 19 页）写道，一项任务“是一系列差异化、可排序、提出问题的活动，涉及学习者和教师。”

key features of tasks that task designers should be able to accommodate and that teachers could provide, to optimally promote classroom learning: • Input. This is the written, visual, or aural information that learners performing a task work on to achieve the goal of the task. • Roles. These are the roles that learners have in performing a task, such as information-giver and information-receiver. • Settings. These are the grouping arrangements in and outside of classrooms for which pedagogy prepares learners to communicate. • Actions. These are the procedures to follow in performing the task or the various steps that learners must take along the road to task completion. • Monitoring. This is the supervisory process of ensuring that the task performance remains on track. • Outcomes. These are the oral, written, and/or behavioral outcomes in which the task is intended to result. • Feedback. This includes evaluation of the whole or parts of a task performance by the teacher or other learners, including corrective feedback on language use as well as other helpful feedback. Many ofthese features oftasks and theirimplementation—in the yearssince Candlin (1987) first described them—have been operationalized and studied with respect to their influence on task-based learning and performance.
任务型教学法在高中英语阅读教学中的应用研究综述.docx 任务设计者应能够适应且教师可以提供的任务关键特征，以优化课堂学习： • 输入。这是学习者执行任务时处理以达成任务目标的书面、视觉或听觉信息。 • 角色。这是学习者执行任务时的角色，如信息提供者和信息接收者。 • 环境。这是为学习者准备在课堂内外进行沟通的分组安排。 • 行动。这是执行任务时需要遵循的程序或学习者完成任务过程中必须采取的各种步骤。 • 监控。这是确保任务执行保持在正确轨道上的监督过程。 • 结果。这是任务旨在产生的口头、书面和/或行为结果。 • 反馈。这包括教师或其他学习者对任务执行的全部或部分进行的评价，包括语言使用的纠正反馈以及其他有帮助的反馈。 自 Candlin（1987）首次描述任务及其实施以来，许多任务的特征及其实施方式已被具体化和研究，以探讨它们对任务型学习和表现的影响。

分类

74 丁文提出了初中课堂教 学的七种任务：拼图任务、信息差任务、比较任务、观点交 换任务、解决问题任务、作决定任务和创造性任务。蒋秋阳 把任务分为绘画式任务、表格式任务、挑战记忆式任务、比 较式任务、写作式任务、重组任务、辩论式任务、解决问题 任务、作决定任务和预测任务。韦红把任务分为五类：罗列 型任务、排列、分类型任务、比较型任务、解决问题型人 物、交流个人经历型任务和创造性学习任务。

[11]丁文.任务型教学在初中英语课堂教学中的运用[J].中小 学英语教学与研究,2002,(04).

61任务型语言教学的任务有不同的分类。从信 息交流的角度来看‚有单向交流任务‚有双向交 流任务。比如说‚我们听广播、看电视‚从中获 得信息属于单向交流‚因为‚我们不可能对广播 电视说话；我们面对面地讨论问题是双向交流‚ 双方都从对方获取信息‚并向对方反馈信息。从 结果来看‚任务可以分为封闭式任务和开放式任 务。比如‚我们让学生解决一个问题‚如果这个 问题只有一个答案‚这个任务就是封闭式任务； 如果这个问题有多种解决方案‚那它就属于开放 式任务。从任务的真实性来看‚可以分为真实性 任务和学习型任务。真实性任务 （ａｕｔｈｅｎｔｉｃｔａｓｋｓ 或者叫 ｒｅａｌ-ｗｏｒｌｄｔａｓｋｓ）‚就是真实生活、真实世 界中的任务；学习型任务 （ｐｅｄａｇｏｇｉｃｔａｓｋｓ）‚就 是从教学的需要来设计的任务‚这些任务在生活 中可能不存在‚但是它有利于学生学习知识或发 展某种技能。所以‚任务型语言教学中任务的分 类标准不一样‚就有不同类型的任务。

60 通常分为两大类型：学习性 任务（ pedagogic tasks） 、真实生活任务（ rea-l life tasks） （ D.Nunan，2000） 。 前者是指学习语言 知识的活动，如 Listen and repeat．Read and write．等等；后者是指在日常真实生活中运用语 言的活动，如 Listen to the instruction and then fill out the form．Read the advertisements of two book clubs and decide which you would like to join in．

58 D．Nunan（1989）在《交际课堂的任务设计》一书中把任 务分成两种类型：真实性 （rea-l world） 的交际任务和教学型 （pedagogic） 的交际任务。前者指学生能在外部世界碰到的 任务‚或在日常真实生活中运用语言的活动‚真实生活任务型教学强调直接通过课 堂让学生去用英语完成各种真实的生活、学习、工作等任务 （即做各种事情）‚从而培养学生运用英语的能力（用英语做 事的能力）。后者指学习语言知识的活动‚即为教学而设计 的活动‚

14Long distinguished between “target tasks”—what learners are expected to do on exit from instructional programs (identified via a needs analysis)—and “pedagogical tasks”—the tasks teachers and students work on in classrooms, which can be gradually increased in complexity so as to approximate target task demands. In contrast to a number of others who have subsequently argued for the important contribution that tasks can make to language pedagogy (e.g., Ellis, 2003; Skehan, 1998; Willis, 1996), Long (1985, 1998, 2005; Long & Crookes, 1992; Long & Norris, 2004) proposed that needs analysis was the necessary first stage in course design, allowing target tasks to be identified.
14Long 曾长期区分“目标任务”——即学习者完成教学项目后预期要完成的工作（通过需求分析确定）——和“教学任务”——教师和学生课堂上进行的工作，这些任务可以逐渐增加复杂性，以接近目标任务的要求。与随后许多主张任务对语言教学法有重要贡献的学者（例如，Ellis，2003 年；Skehan，1998 年；Willis，1996 年）不同，Long（1985 年，1998 年，2005 年；Long & Crookes，1992 年；Long & Norris，2004 年）提出需求分析是课程设计的必要第一阶段，使目标任务得以确定。

14Three taxonomies in particular continue to predominate in task-based language research. The earliest of these was proposed by Pica et al. (1993), who described a typology of “communication tasks,” each with different configurations of activity (the role relationships between participants, and direction of information flow between them) and goal (the outcomes the task was expected to result in). They further analyzed the goals and activities tasks that could result in terms of the opportunities they provided for learning. For example, where task goals are the same or convergent, then they claimed it was “expected” that the task would lead to (a) comprehension of input, (b) feedback on production, and (c) interlanguage modification. In contrast, where interactants have divergent goals, then each of these was only “possible,” therefore providing fewer opportunities for learning. The task types that Pica et al. identified were Jigsaw, Informationgap, Problem-solving, Decision-making, and Opinion exchange.
14 在基于任务的语言研究中，有三个分类法尤其持续占据主导地位。其中最早的是由 Pica 等人（1993）提出的，他们描述了一种“交际任务”的类型学，每种任务都有不同的活动配置（参与者的角色关系以及他们之间信息流动的方向）和目标（任务预期产生的结果）。他们进一步分析了任务的目标和活动，根据它们为学习提供的机遇来分类。例如，当任务目标相同或趋同时，他们声称“预期”任务将导致（a）输入的理解，（b）对输出的反馈，以及（c）中介语的改变。相反，当互动者的目标不同时，这些结果只是“可能”的，因此提供了较少的学习机遇。Pica 等人识别的任务类型包括拼图任务（Jigsaw）、信息沟任务（Information-gap）、问题解决任务（Problem-solving）、决策任务（Decision-making）和观点交换任务（Opinion exchange）。

38 Prabhu的任务类型框架为任务型教学提供了可操作的蓝图，其分类逻辑（信息差Information Gap Tasks、推理差Reasoning Gap Tasks、观点差Opinion Gap Tasks）和分级体系（垂直序列、水平分级）至今仍被广泛应用于课程设计中，尤其在强调“做中学”（learning by doing）的交际课堂中具有重要价值。

39​Willis的任务类型​：文章提到Jane Willis提出的三种任务类型：

​列举型任务​（Listing）：如头脑风暴、列购物清单。

​排序与分类任务​（Ordering and sorting）：如按时间顺序排列事件、分类物品。

​比较任务​（Comparing）：如对比不同文化习俗。

​Pica和Doughty的任务分类（Pica & Doughty, 1985）​​
​Pica 和 Doughty 的任务分类（Pica & Doughty, 1985）​​

Pica和Doughty从互动角度提出了四类任务，强调语言交际的真实性和动态性：

​拼图任务（Jigsaw tasks）​​：

小组成员各自持有不同信息片段，通过协作完成任务。例如：

每人掌握故事的一部分，共同重组完整情节。

​信息沟任务（Information-gap tasks）​​：

学习者因信息不对称需通过交流填补空缺。例如：

学生A描述地图A，学生B根据描述在地图B上标出位置。

​解决问题任务（Problem-solving tasks）​​：

学习者需运用语言协商解决方案。例如：

讨论“如何解决班级预算不足的问题”。

​决策任务（Decision-making tasks）​​：

学习者通过权衡利弊做出集体决策

目标导向​：

​语言形式聚焦任务（Form-focused tasks）​​：显性教授语法结构（如通过填空练习学习被动语态）。

​意义聚焦任务（Meaning-focused tasks）​​：以交际目标为核心（如讨论环保问题）。

​操作方式​：

​个体任务（Individual tasks）​​：独立完成（如写作任务）。

​小组任务（Group tasks）​​：多人协作（如角色扮演）。

​全班任务（Whole-class tasks）​​：师生互动（如班级辩论）。

​复杂度层级​：

​低复杂度任务​：封闭式、答案唯一（如填空）。

​高复杂度任务​：开放式、需创造性思考（如设计解决方案）。

20 Various typologies of task types have been proposed. These often consist of lists of the pedagogic tasks commonly found in task-based teaching (e.g. information/opinion gap, roleplaying, personal, problem-solving, story-completion) – see, for example, Bruton (2002) and Willis (1996).
20 已提出了多种任务类型的分类。这些分类通常包括任务型教学中常见的教学任务清单（例如信息/观点差距、角色扮演、个人任务、问题解决、故事完成）——例如参见 Bruton (2002) 和 Willis (1996)。

20 作者在前人的基础上分为了Input-based – tasks that do not require but do not prohibit production.和Output-based – tasks that require speaking and/or writing to achieve the outcome.Unfocused – tasks involving general samples of language和Focused – tasks designed to elicit the processing of specific, pre-determined linguistic features.
20 作者在前人的基础上分为 Input-based——不需要但也不禁止产出产出的任务。和 Output-based——需要通过说话和/或写作来实现结果的产出。Unfocused——涉及语言一般样本的任务。和 Focused——旨在引发特定、预先确定的语言特征的处理的任务。

The distinction between input- and output-based tasks is an important one for a number of theoretical and practical reasons. Input-based tasks are needed for beginners, who lack the resources to produce in the L2; they provide learners with the comprehensible input that helps get them started in learning an L2.Input-based tasks are also useful forintroducing task-based teaching to learners who are accustomed to a more traditional, structural approach and who may be resistant to a mode of teaching that requires them to treat language as a tool rather than as an object. Input-based tasks are easily conducted with the whole class making them well-suited to large classes and to teachers more used to teaching in lockstep. Output-based tasks are needed to develop higher levels of proficiency (Swain1985). They provide greater opportunities for the negotiation of meaning (Long 1996) and of form (Lyster 2001), which have been shown to promote L2 acquisition.
输入型任务和输出型任务之间的区别，在理论和实践上都有重要意义。输入型任务对初学者是必要的，因为他们缺乏在第二语言中产出的资源；它们为学习者提供了可理解输入，帮助他们开始学习第二语言。输入型任务也适用于向习惯于更传统、结构化方法的学习者介绍任务型教学法，这些学习者可能对一种将语言视为工具而非对象的教学方式持抵触态度。输入型任务易于在全班范围内进行，因此非常适合大班教学，也适合那些更习惯于统一教学步调的教师。输出型任务是为了发展更高水平的熟练度（Swain 1985）而需要的。它们为意义协商（Long 1996）和形式协商（Lyster 2001）提供了更多机会，这些协商已被证明能促进第二语言习得。

难度

46 The issue of setting a task at an appropriate level is a fundamental concern and can largely determine the efficacy of a task. In fact, a practical challenge facing teachers, especially those who are inexperienced, is students’ perception of tasks as excessively difficult (Skehan and Foster, 2001; Van den Branden, 2006). Essential for the success of task-based instruction is the ability of teachers to design and implement language learning tasks at an appropriate level of difficulty so that students can engage with and learn effectively from the materials provided.
46 设置任务适当难度的问​​题是一个基本关注点，并很大程度上决定了任务的有效性。事实上，教师面临的一个实际挑战，尤其是那些经验不足的教师，是学生认为任务过于困难（Skehan and Foster, 2001; Van den Branden, 2006）。任务型教学的成功关键在于教师具备设计和实施适当难度语言学习任务的能力，以便学生能够有效参与并从提供的材料中学习。

12Much good work has been published on task complexity and on task syllabus design (see, e.g., Gilabert, Barón, & Levkina, 2011; Révész, Michel, & Gilabert, 2015; Robinson, 2009, 2011; Skehan, 2014), and more is under way
12 关于任务复杂性和任务课程设计已有很多优秀的研究成果发表（例如参见 Gilabert, Barón, & Levkina, 2011; Révész, Michel, & Gilabert, 2015; Robinson, 2009, 2011; Skehan, 2014），并且还有更多研究正在进行中

14 Simple task demands can promote access to and automatization of the currently emerged interlanguage means for meeting these demands, with consequences for improved fluency of production.
14 简单的任务要求可以促进对当前出现的介于母语和外语之间的语言手段的运用和自动化，从而提高语言输出的流利度。

14 Following attempts to perform simpler versions, complex tasks can prompt learners to attempt more ambitious, complex language to resolve the demands they make on communicative success, thereby stretching interlanguage and promoting syntacticization, with consequences for improved complexity of production.
14 在尝试完成更简单的版本后，复杂的任务可以促使学习者尝试更雄心勃勃、更复杂的语言来解决他们对交际成功的需求，从而扩展介于母语和外语之间的语言能力，促进句法化，从而提高语言输出的复杂性。

14Task complexity refers to the intrinsic cognitive complexity of tasks, such as their reasoning demands. Robinson distinguished three different kinds of reasoning demands: (a) spatial reasoning, as involved in navigating through, and giving directions about, places like cities while driving, or giving instructions on how to back a car into a small parking space; (b) causal reasoning, involved in understanding and explaining why a natural or mechanical event occurred (why a bridge fell down in a storm, why exchange rates fluctuate); and (c) intentional reasoning, as involved when explaining behavior with reference to the intentions, beliefs, and desires of others (why Tom suddenly left the party, why Jill has stopped speaking to Mary, etc.).
14 任务复杂度是指任务的内在认知复杂度，例如其推理需求。Robinson 区分了三种不同的推理需求：(a)空间推理，如驾驶时导航城市或给出方向，或给出如何将车倒进小停车位的指令；(b)因果推理，涉及理解和解释自然或机械事件发生的原因（如为什么桥梁在风暴中倒塌，为什么汇率波动）；(c)意图推理，如解释行为时参考他人的意图、信念和欲望（如为什么 Tom 突然离开派对，为什么 Jill 停止和 Mary 说话等）。

任务型教学法的定义、特点原则、过程

任务设计原则59 任务 型教 学法 的另 一 个 核心 问题就是 怎样进 行 任务设计 ， 任 务设计 所依据 的原 则 是 什 么 。：一 真实 性 原 则 。二 形 式功能原则 三 连贯 性 原 则 。 。可 操 作 性 原 则 。实用 性 原 则 。趣 味 性 原 则 。

63英语 任务型 语 言教学是一 种 以 任 务为 中心 的 英语教学 法 ， 它 是师生 通 过用 英语 对话 、 交 流 和 意 义创 生 等方式 ， 让 学 生 完成一 系列 根据 其 发展 需 求而设计 的教学 任务 ， 使学 生 通 过 用 英 语做事 情 去 达 到学 习 目标 ， 实现跨 文化交 流 和创 新 。根据任务 型 语 言教学 的 内涵 ， 它具有 目的性 、 主 体性 、 交 际 性 、 合作性 和 生 活性 等基本 特点 。

49 TBLT courses are based on a series of such tasks, which are designed to replicate as closely as possible real-world situations that the students might encounter. Learning may be enriched by occasional 'focus on form', when students can turn their attention temporarily to conscious learning of language features, but the predominant focus is communication.
49 TBLT 课程基于一系列这样的任务，这些任务旨在尽可能真实地模拟学生在现实生活中可能遇到的情况。学习可以通过偶尔的“关注形式”得到丰富，当学生可以暂时将注意力转向有意识地学习语言特征时，但主要关注点是交流。

51There are two ways of using tasks in language teaching: tasksupported language teaching and task-based language teaching (Ellis, 2003). The former is simply incorporating tasks into traditional language-based approaches to teaching, while the latter treats tasks as units of teaching in their own right and designs whole courses around them.
51 语言教学中使用任务有两种方式：任务支持型语言教学和任务型语言教学（Ellis, 2003）。前者是将任务简单融入传统的语言教学方法中，而后者将任务视为独立的教学习单元，并围绕任务设计整个课程。

51The methodological procedures for task-based lessons involve three principal phases: the first phase is “pre-task” and concerns the various activities that teachers and students can undertake before they start the task; the second phase, the “during task” phase, centers around the task itself and affords various instructional options; the final phase is “post-task” and involves procedures for following up on the task performance. Only the “during task” phase is obligatory in task-based teaching. (Ellis, 2003)
51 任务型课的方法程序包括三个主要阶段：第一阶段是“课前任务”，涉及教师和学生可以在开始任务前进行的各种活动；第二阶段是“课中任务”阶段，围绕任务本身，提供各种教学选择；最后阶段是“课后任务”，涉及对任务表现进行后续处理的程序。在任务型教学中，只有“课中任务”阶段是必须的。（Ellis, 2003）

45 Research has shown L2 learning related to a number of task variables such as task design, task implementation, task sequence, and task complexity (Robinson, 2005; Skehan, 1998).
45 研究表明，第二语言学习与任务设计、任务实施、任务顺序和任务复杂性等多个任务变量有关（Robinson, 2005; Skehan, 1998）。

42A TBLT program, then, is structured around tasks that are selected according to the results of a needs analysis and sequenced into a syllabus. These main tasks, or the tasktypes that have been derived from them, serve as students’ final, end-of-program objectives. Throughout a TBLT program, learners build their language skills as they work toward mastery of the course’s main tasks by completing a series of pedagogic tasks, which are designed to give them the language practice they need to ultimately accomplish the course’s final objectives, or target tasks. Pedagogic tasks are manipulated (in their features, conditions, and complexity) so that certain types of language development are enhanced (Norris, 2009), with an alternating focus on,
42A 任务型教学法（TBLT）课程，因此是围绕根据需求分析结果选择的任务来构建的，并按顺序编排到课程大纲中。这些主要任务，或从它们中衍生出的任务类型，作为学生的最终、课程结束时的目标。在整个 TBLT 课程中，学习者通过完成一系列教学任务来构建他们的语言技能，这些教学任务的设计旨在为他们提供所需的语言实践，以便最终完成课程的最终目标，即目标任务。教学任务被操纵（在其特征、条件和复杂性上），以增强某些类型的语言发展（Norris, 2009），并交替关注，

37​任务支持型教学（TSLT）​​：TSLT基于技能学习理论，通过展示-练习-产出（PPP）的教学方法，强调通过显性教学和练习来发展语言的准确性。其核心是通过显性教学帮助学习者掌握特定的语言结构，然后在实际交流中进行应用和自动化。

​任务型教学（TBLT）​​：TBLT基于使用为基础的学习理论，强调通过完成任务来促进语言的隐性学习。其核心是通过在真实或接近真实的交际任务中，让学习者在无意识中习得语言结构。主张通过任务中的“形式聚焦”（focus on form）促进隐性语言习得。

28，30 31 Task-based language teaching (TBLT) utilizes task, as opposed to language, as the unit
28，30 31 任务型教学法（TBLT）以任务而非语言作为单位

of instruction in language classrooms (Long, 1985, 2015).
在语言课堂中的教学方法（Long，1985，2015）。

31 TBLT emphasizes authentic, communication-driven tasks that provide task-related focus on form purported to be congruent with a learner’s own internal syllabus. The aim of TBLT is to prepare students to use their linguistic skills in meaningful interactions outside the classroom (Long, 2015).
31 TBLT 强调真实、以交流驱动的任务，这些任务提供与任务相关的形式关注，据称与学习者的内部课程大纲相一致。TBLT 的目的是让学生在课堂外使用他们的语言技能进行有意义的互动（Long, 2015）。

28TBLT项目的开发和实施遵循一系列步骤，包括需求分析、任务分组和排序、任务复杂度调整、任务执行中的形式聚焦，以及基于任务的评估。

43 Ellis (2009) outlines a number of principles, which he suggests will facilitate the successful implementation of TBLT in a given educational context. One of these is that teachers need to have a clear understanding of what a language task is. Andon and Eckerth (2009) also point to a relationship between the successful implementation of TBLT and teachers’ understanding of the concepts of a task and task-based teaching.
43 艾利斯（Ellis，2009）概述了一系列原则，他认为这些原则将有助于在特定教育环境中成功实施任务型教学法（TBLT）。其中之一是教师需要明确理解什么是语言任务。安德恩（Andon）和埃克瑟斯（Eckerth，2009）也指出了任务型教学法的成功实施与教师对任务概念和基于任务的教学理解之间的关系。

10 While proponents of TBI naturally vary in their emphases and beliefs, there is broad agreement on the following principles: Instructed language learning should primarily involve ‘natural’ or ‘naturalistic’ language use, based on activities concerned with meaning rather than language (e.g. Prabhu 1987; Nunan 1989; J. Willis 1996; Skehan 1998; R. Ellis 2003). Instruction should favour learner-centredness rather than teacher control (e.g. J. Willis 1996; Skehan 1998; D. Willis 2003). Since purely naturalistic learning does not normally lead to target-like accuracy (Harley and Swain 1984), intervention is necessary, in order to foster the acquisition of formal linguistic elements while retaining the perceived advantages of a ‘natural’ approach. This can best be done by providing opportunities for ‘focus on form’, which will ‘[draw] students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication’ (Long 1991). Communicative tasks are a particularly appropriate vehicle for such an approach (Nunan 1989; J. Willis 1996; Skehan 1998; R. Ellis 2003). More formal pre- or post-task language study may be useful (J. Willis 1996; Skehan 1998; R. Ellis 2003). This may contribute to acquisition by priming or boosting ‘noticing’ of formal features during communication (Schmidt 1990, 2001). ‘Traditional’ approaches are ineffective and undesirable, especially where they involve proactive formal instruction and practice decoupled from communicative work (e.g. Doughty and Williams 1998; Fotos 1998; Willis and Willis 2001; Robinson 2001).
10 尽管 TBI 的支持者在其侧重点和信念上自然存在差异，但就以下原则已达成广泛共识：教学语言学习应主要涉及“自然”或“自然主义”的语言使用，其活动应关注意义而非语言（例如 Prabhu 1987；Nunan 1989；J. Willis 1996；Skehan 1998；R. Ellis 2003）。教学应倾向于以学习者为中心而非教师控制（例如 J. Willis 1996；Skehan 1998；D. Willis 2003）。由于纯粹的自然主义学习通常不会导致目标语的准确性（Harley and Swain 1984），因此有必要进行干预，以在保留“自然”方法所感知优势的同时促进正式语言要素的习得。这最好通过提供“关注形式”的机会来实现，这将“[吸引]学生的注意力到语言要素上，这些要素在以意义或交际为主要关注点的课程中偶然出现”（Long 1991）。交际任务尤其适合这种方法（Nunan 1989；J. Willis 1996；Skehan 1998；R. Ellis 2003）。任务前或任务后的更正式语言学习可能是有用的（J. Willis 1996; Skehan 1998; R. Ellis 2003). 这可能通过启发或增强在交流中对正式特征“注意到”来促进习得（Schmidt 1990, 2001）。‘传统’方法无效且不受欢迎，尤其是在它们涉及主动的正式教学和实践与交际工作脱钩的情况下（例如 Doughty and Williams 1998; Fotos 1998; Willis and Willis 2001; Robinson 2001）。

11 The term task was increasingly used as a replacement for communicative activity during the 1980s (Skehan, 2003), and in this respect, TBLT can be considered as “an offset of CLT” (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 66). It is important to note, however, that the definition of a task itself has been a matter of some debate. Tasks can be considered, for example, to be “things people will tell you they do” (Long, 1985, p. 89) in which the connection with the real world’s activity is emphasized. Another definition that has been offered focuses on the cognitive process, defining a task as “an activity which required learners to arrive at an outcome from given information through some process of thought and which allowed teachers to control and regulate that process” (Prabhu, 1987, p. 24). Researchers such as Ellis (2003) and Samuda and Bygate (2008) have tried to synthesize the essential characteristics of tasks, defining them as follows: “[a] task is a holistic activity which engages language use in order to achieve some non-linguistic outcome while meeting a linguistic challenge, with the overall aim of promoting language learning, through process or product or both” (Samuda & Bygate, 2008, p. 69). In addition, some authors view the precise features of tasks as varying depending on the pedagogical and research purposes, as well as depending on users and contexts (teachers, learners, and assessments) (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001).
11 在 20 世纪 80 年代，"任务"这一术语越来越多地被用作"交际活动"的替代词（Skehan，2003），从这个角度来看，TBLT 可以被视为"CLT 的一种补充"（Kumaravadivelu，2006，第 66 页）。然而，需要注意的是，任务本身的定义一直存在一些争议。例如，任务可以被认为是"人们会告诉你他们做的事情"（Long，1985，第 89 页），强调与现实世界活动的联系。另一个定义则关注认知过程，将任务定义为"一种要求学习者通过某种思维过程从给定信息中得出结果，并允许教师控制和调节该过程的活动"（Prabhu，1987，第 24 页）。Ellis（2003）和 Samuda 和 Bygate（2008）等研究者试图综合任务的本质特征，将其定义为如下："任务是一种整体活动，它通过语言使用来实现某种非语言结果，同时应对语言挑战，其总体目标是促进语言学习，通过过程或产品或两者来达到这一目标"（Samuda & Bygate，2008，第页）。 69). 此外，一些作者认为任务的精确特征会根据教学和研究目的、以及使用者和语境（教师、学生和评估）而变化（Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001）。

9 An important feature of [TBI] is that learners are free to choose whatever language forms they wish to convey what they mean in order to fulfil, as well as they can, the task goals. It would defeat the purpose to dictate or control the language forms that they must use. As the need arises, words and phrases acquired previously but as yet unused will often spring to mind. (J. Willis 1996: 24)
9 [TBI]的一个重要特征是学生可以自由选择他们想要表达意思的语言形式，以便尽可能好地完成任务目标。强制或控制他们必须使用的语言形式会适得其反。随着需要的出现，先前习得但尚未使用过的单词和短语往往会浮现在脑海中。（J. Willis 1996: 24）

10 The teacher is encouraged to keep a low profile in TBI: learners are not seen as progressing mainly because their teachers teach them what they need to know. Teachers can certainly act as sources of linguistic information, for example by supplying task-related vocabulary where necessary, offering recasts, or acting as ‘interlocutors’. But the thrust of TBI is to cast the teacher in the role of a manager and facilitator of communicative activity rather than an important source of new language.
10 鼓励教师在[TBI]中保持低调：学生不被视为仅仅因为教师教他们需要知道的内容而进步。教师当然可以充当语言信息来源，例如在必要时提供与任务相关的词汇、重述或充当“对话者”。但[TBI]的重点是将教师定位为交际活动的管理和促进者，而不是新的语言的重要来源。

10 TBI favours authentic but comprehensible material, while modern conventional courses tend to provide a cocktail of authentic, simplified and scripted reading and listening material.
10 TBI 倾向于使用真实且可理解的材料，而现代传统课程往往提供真实、简化及脚本化的阅读和听力材料混合。

14Prabhu’s cognitive rationale for TBLT is thus compatible with Krashen’s (1982) claim that comprehensible input is necessary for learning and that “the effort to work out meaning-content” promotes incidental learning of tacit or implicit knowledge.
14Prabhu 对 TBLT 的认知理论依据与 Krashen（1982）的观点相一致，即可理解输入是学习所必需的，并且“努力理解内容意义”能促进对隐含或内隐知识的偶然学习。

27Ellis and Shintani (2014, p. 135), in a recent volume called Exploring Language Pedagogy Through Second Language Acquisition Research, defined TBLT as an approach that “aims to develop learners’ communicative competence by engaging them in meaning-focused communication through the performance of tasks.”
27Ellis 和 Shintani（2014，第 135 页）在其最新著作《通过第二语言习得研究探索语言教学法》中，将 TBLT 定义为一种“通过任务活动让学习者参与以意义为中心的交流，从而发展其交际能力的方法。”

TBLT Framework威利斯（1996）提出一个三阶段模型：

任务型语言教学法在英语语言教学中的应用

特点

79针对这些误解及问题进行了详细的论述 与分析。 任务型教学法既强调了语言形式的准确性及结构性，又强调了实际生活场景的交际流利性；既 可以教师为主导设计教学任务，又可创设复杂的语言情境任务强调以学生自我建构为主导。任务型教学 法倡导在真实语境中培养学生的语言能力、思维能力和主动学习能力，强调学生的参与以及认知过程的 调控等。

实施模型：任务设计、原则、与阅读文本的结合，任务类型

80刘志成基于威莉斯任务型教学模式的不足对其进行了改进：改进后的威莉斯任务型教学模式​：

​前任务阶段​：加入教师指导下的任务准备时间。

​任务环阶段​：增加教师积极反馈和帮助。

​语言聚焦阶段​：教师帮助找出语言特点。

​新增任务后阶段​：教师引导学生反思、评论并进行语言练习

改进后的模式在前任务、任务环、语言聚焦阶段及新增任务后活动方面有积极作用，能提高学生英语听力水平和学习动机。

71 初步形成“以培养语用能力为宗旨，以学生为主体，以话题为主线，以任务为中心”，实行“课堂教学任务化、课外作业项目化、评价方式过程化”的初中英语任务型教学基本模式，课堂教学有六个基本步骤。

63国外任务型 语 言教 学 实施模 式 比较 多 ， 其 中 具 有代表 性 的 是 的 三 阶段 模 式 和 的三步骤模式 。 把 任 务 型 语 言 教 学 过 程 分 为 任务前 、 任 务 中和 任务 后 三 个 阶段 。 ‘呢 任 务前 阶段 一 、 ， 包括 介 绍话 题 和任 务 。 在这一 阶 段 ， 教 师 引人任 务 ， 与学 生一起 探讨话题 ， 着重 介绍 有用 的 词 汇 和 短 语 ， 并 帮助学 生理 解任务指 令和 准备任务 ， 学 生 可 以 在其 间听 一 听其他人 所 做 的类似任务 的 录音 。 任 务 中阶段 ， 包括 任务 、 计划 和 报 告 。 在 这 一 阶 段 ， 学生 首先 以 对 子 或 小 组 的形 式 来 执 行 任 务 ， 教 师并不 直接指 导 然后 各组 学生 以 口 头或 书 面 的形 式报告任务完成情 况 最 后 通 过 小组 向全班 报 告或 小组 之 间交换 书面报 告 的形式 比较 任务 的 结 果 。 任 务后 阶段 一 语 言焦 点 阶段 ， 包 括 分 析 和 操 练 。 学 生 分 析 其他各组 执行任务情况 和在课 文 录音 中出现 的一 些语 言特点 ， 分析 中或 分析后 在教 师指 导下 练 习 新 的词 汇 、 短语 和 句型 。willis她提 出 了任 务实施 须遵循 的五个 原则 要 接触 有意义 且实用 的语 言 要使用语 言 任 务促 使学生 运 用语 言 在任 务链 的某 一点上 要 注重语 言本 身 不 同时期要 不 同程度地 突 出语 言 。

通c过分析国外任务型语 言教学的实施步骤 可 看以 出 ， 国外任务型语言教学通常分为任务前 、 任务 中和任务后三个 阶段 。 这 些 步 骤 对 于 在 新 课 程 实 施过程 中 ， 把 国外 任务 型 语 言教 学理 论 应 用 于 我 国中学英语教学实践具有较 大启迪 和借鉴意义 。

63其 实施 包括 导入 、 任 务前 、 任 务 中 、 任 务 后 、 检 查评 价 和课 外 作 业 等几 个基 本 阶段 。

58 “任务型”教学模式分为强式和弱式两种（strong and weak forms of the task-based approach）。强式任务型教学模式将任 务看作语言教学的基本单位（the unit of language teaching）‚它 将整个教学过程包括语言知识的学习都转化成一系列的任务‚似乎二语习得如同母语习得一样是同一种交际过程的结 果（Wells‚1985）。Jane Willis（1996）指出‚任务型学习活动强 调的是学习语言中“意义至上‚使用至上”的原则‚这就要求 学习者为完成一个任务而在活动中以交流为目的（ “with some kinds of communication purpose”）‚真实地使用语言 （“process the text for meaning in order to achieve the goals of the task”）。

弱式任务型则强调任务是语言教学的重要组成部分‚主 张先讲授语言知识‚再设计一系列的任务让学生用语言练习 做事‚然后根据学生完成任务的情况再归纳和总结语言知 识。显而易见‚这种教学模式与一般的交际语言教学模式非 常接近‚也与传统的3P 教学模式有相似之处‚只是在最后产 出阶段是建立在任务基础上‚而非那种控制式和呆板式的语 言输出（It could also be compatible with a traditional presentation‚ practice‚production sequence‚only with production based on tasks‚ rather than more stilted and guided production activities．W．Littlewood1981．转引自 P．Skehan‚1996：39）。

环节

58 “任务型”教学模式要求所设计的任务应由简到繁‚由易 到难‚层层深入。它由如下几个环节构成：课堂导入

参与任务 学习新知 巩固新知 操练运用

教师作用26 In this article, the role of the teacher in TBLT is approached from three perspectives: (a) the teacher as mediator of the students’ language development, contributing to the effectiveness of TBLT as a pedagogical approach to second language education; (b) the teacher as a key figure in the implementation of TBLT, and thus as a change agent in the innovation of second language education; and (c) the teacher as researcher, and thus as an active contributor to the development and further refinement of TBLT as a researched pedagogy.
教师作用 26 在这篇文章中，教师在高阶任务型教学法（TBLT）中的作用从三个角度进行探讨：（a）教师作为学生语言发展的中介者，有助于将 TBLT 作为第二语言教育的教学法提高有效性；（b）教师作为 TBLT 实施的关键人物，因此成为第二语言教育创新的变革推动者；（c）教师作为研究者，因此成为 TBLT 作为研究教学法的发展和进一步完善过程中的积极贡献者。

35原则 The key tenet in task-based language teaching (TBLT) is that a second language (L2) can be best acquired through the performance of real-life communicative tasks (Ellis, 2003; Long, 2015, 1985; Skehan, 1998).
35 原则 高阶任务型教学法（TBLT）的核心原则是：第二语言（L2）的最佳习得方式是通过执行真实生活中的交际任务（Ellis，2003；Long，2015，1985；Skehan，1998）。

26一、教师作为语言学习的中介者​

​1. 课前设计：需求分析与任务规划2. 课中引导：互动与支持策略3. 课后反馈：评估与迭代改进

18 The emergence of TBLT as a leading research and pedagogical framework has yielded a large body of work on empirical investigations of the different factorsthat might impact learners’ task performance, including variations in task design and task implementation in terms of complexity, sequencing, repetition, and planning. Although the majority of this research has been conducted in traditional FTF contexts, explorations of these factors in computer-mediated environments are increasing.
18 TBLT 作为一项领先的研究与教学框架的出现，产生了大量关于可能影响学习者任务表现的不同因素的实证研究，包括任务设计与实施方面的变化，如复杂性、顺序、重复和计划。尽管这些研究大多数是在传统的面对面环境中进行的，但在计算机辅助环境中的探索正在增加。

26In the domain of second language acquisition (SLA), research on tasks and language learning has primarily focused on establishing relationships between certain features of language tasks (such as their complexity, the type of information exchange involved, or the time pressure under which they need to be performed) and second language learners’ performance and/or development.
26 在第二语言习得（SLA）领域，关于任务与语言学习的研究主要集中于建立语言任务某些特征（如其复杂性、所涉及的信息交换类型或需要完成的时间压力）与第二语言学习者的表现和/或发展之间的关系。

任务设计：20The first is that it cannot be assumed that a task designated as ‘complex’ actually entails a greater cognitive load. Current research (e.g. Re´ve´sz, Michel & Gilabert (2016)) is starting to address this by investigating how the specific design features of tasks affect the level of mental activity involved in performing the tasks.The second – and to my mind the more serious problem – is that tasks are holistic and thus involve conglomerates of factors.The question is, then, how do we take account of the clusters of variables involved in any task in predicting the complexity of a given task?The third problem is that the complexity of any single task will depend not just on the design of the task workplan but also on how the workplan is implemented.In effect, the complexity of a task can never be considered separately from how the task is implemented.
任务设计：20 首先，不能假设被指定为“复杂”的任务实际上会带来更大的认知负荷。当前研究（例如 Re´ve´sz, Michel & Gilabert (2016)）正通过研究任务的具体设计特征如何影响执行任务时所需的心理活动水平来解决这个问题。其次——在我看来这是更严重的问题——任务是整体的，因此涉及多种因素。那么，问题在于，我们如何考虑任务中涉及的变量集群，以预测给定任务的复杂性？第三个问题是，任何单个任务的复杂性不仅取决于任务工作计划的设计，还取决于工作计划的实施方式。实际上，任务的复杂性永远不能脱离其实施方式来单独考虑。

. Neither do I see TBLT and TSLT involving explicit instruction and focused tasks as incompatible but rather as mutually supporting。It is for this reason that I have argued for a hybrid syllabus consisting primarily of a task-based component but supported by a task-supported component to address recalcitrant linguistic problems when these become evident.
. 我也不认为任务型语言教学法和任务支持型教学法涉及明确指导和集中任务是不相容的，而是认为它们是相互支持的。正因如此，我主张采用混合型课程大纲，主要包含基于任务的组成部分，但由任务支持型组成部分来应对当这些语言问题变得明显时的顽固问题。

现存问题：

79 · 对任务的理解不清，传统的练习活动被误认为是任务型教学。

· 将任务切割成部分，过于强调语言形式的输入。

· 教师的角色和定位不清，或完全以学习者为中心，或完全以教师为中心。

· 缺乏实施任务型教学的支持体系和评价体系。

72一些教师对任务型教学法存在误区，如设计的任务活动是语言操练，任务缺乏整体性、系统性和连贯性等。

15 Drawing on classroom episodes, the article highlights three issues that proved problematic when the tasks were implemented: use of the mother tongue, classroom management or discipline problems, and the quantity of target language produced.
15 基于课堂实例，文章强调了在实施任务时证明存在三个问题：母语的使用、课堂管理或纪律问题，以及目标语言产出的数量。

For teachers dealing with large classes of children, handling noise or indiscipline is a central issue, particularly in those contexts where teacher-fronted activities are the norm and pair or group activities are less universally practised.
对于处理大量学生的教师来说，处理噪音或不守纪律是一个核心问题，特别是在那些以教师主导活动为常态、而双人或小组活动不太普遍的背景下。

51Shehadeh and Coombe (2012) group these factors into three types: institutional factors (comprising, amongst others, issues like class size, official exam pressure, available materials, and mixed-proficiency classes), teacher factors (e.g., teachers’ beliefs and subjective theories on language teaching, their need to control what goes on in the classroom, their interactive skills), and student factors (e.g., their beliefs about effective language learning, their preferences for certain methodological formats, their level of assertiveness). To summarize, the challenges encountered in implementing TBLT in China mainly include classroom culture, language context, exam-oriented instruction and learning, and lack of theoretical integration of TBLT.
51 谢哈德和库姆（2012）将这些因素分为三类：机构因素（包括诸如班级规模、官方考试压力、可用材料以及混合水平班级等问题）、教师因素（例如教师对语言教学的信念和主观理论、他们控制课堂活动的需求、他们的互动技能）和学生因素（例如他们对有效语言学习的信念、他们对某些方法论格式的偏好、他们的自信程度）。总而言之，在中国实施任务型教学法（TBLT）所面临的挑战主要包括课堂文化、语言环境、应试教学和学习以及任务型教学法的理论整合不足。

影响因素28 影响任务型语言教学（TBLT）项目效果的四个关键调节变量：​项目地区与机构类型、需求分析、实施周期和利益相关者感知。

28 32 Norris (2016) notes that the identification of learners’ needs – and their realization and articulation within various program components, such as assessment and materials development – is what really holds task-based programs together and helps them reach their full potential.
28 32 诺里斯（2016）指出，学习者需求的识别——以及它们在各种项目组成部分（如评估和材料开发）中的实现和表达——才是真正将任务型项目结合在一起并帮助它们充分发挥潜力的关键。

设计14 Therefore, sequencing tasks from less cognitively demanding to more demanding optimizes opportunities for attentional allocation to language forms. In Skehan’s view, task design is a means to promote “balanced language development” in the areas of accuracy, fluency, and complexity of production.
设计 14 因此，将任务从认知要求较低到较高进行排序，可以优化对语言形式的注意力分配机会。在斯凯恩看来，任务设计是促进准确性、流利性和产出复杂性的“平衡语言发展”的一种手段。

Tasks should therefore be sequenced by choosing those tasks with characteristics that lead to each, at an appropriate level of difficulty, as determined by three factors: (a) Code complexity is described in “fairly traditional ways,” as in descriptions of structural syllabuses, or developmental sequences (Skehan, 1998, p. 99); (b) cognitive complexity is the result of the familiarity of the task, topic, or genre, and the processing requirements; information type, clarity, and organization; and amount of computation required; and (c) communicative stress involves six characteristics, including time pressure, number of participants, and opportunities to control interaction.
因此，任务排序应选择那些具有导致每种效果的特征的任务，并在适当的难度水平上，由三个因素决定：(a) 代码复杂性以“相对传统的方式”描述，如在结构课程或发展序列的描述中（斯凯恩，1998 年，第 99 页）；(b) 认知复杂性是任务、主题或体裁的熟悉程度以及处理要求的结果；信息类型、清晰度和组织；以及所需的计算量；(c) 交际压力包括六个特征，包括时间压力、参与者数量以及控制互动的机会。

19Carless (2004, 2007a) examined the experiences of teachers of English in secondary schools in implementing taskbased learning. Teachers highlighted several challenges: for example, TBLT was more time-consuming, was hard to manage in large classes and did not reflect the manner in which English was assessed in examinations.
19Carless (2004, 2007a) 研究了中学英语教师在实施任务型学习中的经验。教师们指出了几个挑战：例如，任务型学习更耗时，在大班中难以管理，且未能反映考试中英语的评估方式。

47Ellis (2009) has argued that “all tasks are designed to instigate the same kind of interactional processes [ . . . ] that arise in naturally occurring language use” (p. 227).
47Ellis (2009) 认为，“所有任务的设计都是为了引发与自然语言使用中出现的相同类型的互动过程”（第 227 页）。

原则14Robinson (2010) proposed two operational principles for sequencing tasks in a task-based syllabus: (a) Sequencing should be based only on increases in cognitive complexity, (b) increase resource-dispersing dimensions of task complexity first (to promote access to current interlanguage), then increase resource-directing dimensions of complexity (to promote development of new form-function mappings, and destabilize the current interlanguage system).
原则 14Robinson (2010) 提出了在任务型课程中排序任务的两个操作原则：(a) 排序应仅基于认知复杂性的增加，(b) 首先增加任务复杂性的资源分散维度（以促进对当前中介语的访问），然后增加资源导向维度的复杂性（以促进新形式-功能映射的发展，并使当前中介语系统不稳定）。

19 Another key element in the new curriculum, and that which we focus on here, is that it recommends that task-based teaching methods be used to develop students’ communicative competence. Teachers are also provided with guidelines to consider in developing appropriate tasks (Ministry of Education, 2003): • Activities must have clear and achievable aims and objectives. • Activities must be relevant to students’ life experiences and interests; the content and style should be as true to life as possible. • Activities must benefit the development of students’ language knowledge, language skills and ability to use language for real communication. • Activities should be of a cross-curricular nature, promoting the integrated development of students’ thinking and imagination, aesthetic and artistic sense, cooperative and creative spirit. • Activities should make students gather, process and use information, using English to communicate with others in order to develop their ability to use English to solve real problems. • Activities should not purely be limited to the classroom but also extend to out of school learning. 1
19 新课程中的另一个关键要素，也是我们在此关注的重点，是它建议使用任务型教学法来发展学生的交际能力。同时，也为教师提供了在开发适当任务时需要考虑的指导方针（教育部，2003）：• 活动必须有明确且可实现的宗旨和目标。• 活动必须与学生的生活经历和兴趣相关；内容和风格应尽可能贴近生活。• 活动必须有利于学生语言知识、语言技能和实际交流能力的发展。• 活动应具有跨学科性质，促进学生思维、想象、审美和艺术感、合作和创造精神的综合发展。• 活动应使学生收集、处理和使用信息，使用英语与他人交流，以发展他们使用英语解决实际问题的能力。• 活动不应仅限于课堂，还应延伸到课外学习。

78新课改背景下，英语教学任务的设计应遵 循以下原则： 1. 以学生为主体2. 任务要体现趣味性3. 以意义为前提，体现真实性4. 以合作为形式，体现自主性5. 以交际为目的，体现互动性

72任务设计的原则（一）真实性原则（二）“任务链”原则（三）可操作性原则（四）兴趣性原则

70研究者同样把任务型教学的原则作为重要的 研究范畴之一。基于此，有研究者提出形式与功 能相结合、任务设计遵循信息差、阶梯性、突出 学生主体性是任务型教学需要遵循的原则；［２７］有 研究者提出了任务型教学的五项原则，依次为交 互性原则、真实文本引进原则、过程性原则、重 视学习者个人经历对学习的促进作用原则、课堂 学习与课外运用相关原则；［２９］有研究者则提出了 任务型教 学 八 原 则，即 多 样 性、选 择 性、统 一 性、恰当性、自主性、合作性、真实性和可操作 性原则；［３０］还有研究者也提出了八原则，但其原 则与前述有所区别，依次为实用性、主体性、真 实性、原生态、可操作、完整连贯、趣味性、层 次性原则。［３１

71设计原则​：包括语言、情景真实性原则；形式—功能相结合原则；阶梯型任务链原则；在做中学原则。各原则相互联系、相互制约，需配合使用。

27“a key principle of TBLT is that even though learners are primarily concerned with constructing and comprehending messages, they also need to attend to form for learning to take place.”
27“任务型语言教学的一个关键原则是，尽管学习者主要关注构建和理解信息，但他们也需要关注形式，以便学习能够发生。”

571．我国实施任务型教学要贴近不同语言学习者的语言 能力‚既要有适当的难度系数又要有可操作性。笔者认为‚ 任务型教学活动既不能太难‚也不能太容易。太难了学习者 会产生焦虑；太易了‚会令人索然无味。

我国外语实施任务型教学‚由于缺少理想的语言环 境‚因此要兼顾意义与形式。既要注意任务的真实性、生活 性和趣味性‚又要有意识地为某些语言结构的使用提供机 会‚做到有些语言结构是可选择的‚有的选择是唯一的‚以此 促使学习者语言信息的吸收、消化‚帮助他们调整认知图式‚ 实现他们知识结构的重新建构。

“任务型” 教学应包括任务前（pre-task）的准备‚任务 （during-task）实施与引导和任务后（post-task）的反思（reflection）。

任务评估：

46 Ellis (1997, 2003) provides a framework for evaluating a task with the following three options: (1) student-based, which measures the degree to which students found the task useful and/or enjoyable; (2) response-based, which compares predicted task outcomes to the actual ones; and (3) learning-based evaluations, which attempt to measure the degree to which learning took place as a result of the task.
46 Ellis (1997, 2003) 提出了一个评估任务的框架，包括以下三个选项：(1) 基于学生的评估，衡量学生认为任务有用和/或有趣的程度；(2) 基于反应的评估，比较预测的任务结果与实际结果；(3) 基于学习的评估，试图衡量任务导致学习发生的程度。

实施难度

11 Studies investigating the early stages of TBLT implementation in Asia revealed similar challenges to those seen in the implementation of CLT as already discussed here. For example, Carless (2002, 2004) examined the implementation of TBLT in Hong Kong elementary schools through a series of interviews with teachers and classroom observations and identified three major problems: (a) difficulties in maintaining discipline, (b) students’ excessive use of their mother tongue, and (c) substantial variability among students with respect to their production of the target language. Carless (2003) also identified six preclass planning issues: (a) a lack of belief among teachers in the benefits of the tasks they were overseeing; (b) teachers’ understanding of the tasks at hand, (c) time constraints, (d) the relevancy of topics covered in textbooks versus the tasks being designed, (e) resource availability in the preparation of tasks, and (f) students’ proficiency levels. Tong, Adamson, and Che’s (2000) classroom observation at an elementary school in Hong Kong revealed that most activities were not fully communicative. Instead they could be characterized as somewhere between what Ellis (2003) called an exercise and a task, in both English classes and Chinese classes. Jeon’s (2006) survey found that one of the biggest obstacles for secondary school teachers in South Korea was their lack of confidence in conceptualizing TBLT and implementing it in their own classrooms.
11 研究亚洲 TBLT 早期实施阶段的研究揭示了与之前讨论的 CLT 实施过程中相似的挑战。例如，Carless（2002，2004）通过一系列教师访谈和课堂观察，考察了香港小学的 TBLT 实施情况，并确定了三个主要问题：（a）维持纪律的困难，（b）学生过度使用母语，（c）学生在目标语言产出方面的显著差异。Carless（2003）还确定了六个课前规划问题：（a）教师对所监督任务的益处缺乏信心；（b）教师对任务的了解，（c）时间限制，（d）教科书涵盖的主题与所设计任务的关联性，（e）任务准备中的资源可用性，（f）学生的熟练程度。Tong、Adamson 和 Che（2000）在香港一所小学的课堂观察发现，大多数活动并非完全交际性。 相反，它们可以被描述为介于 Ellis（2003）所说的练习和任务之间，无论是在英语课堂还是中文课堂。Jeon（2006）的调查发现，韩国中学教师面临的最大障碍之一是他们缺乏将 TBLT 概念化并在自己课堂中实施它的信心。

11 At the elementary and secondary school levels, where TBLT is often introduced as part of an officially mandated curriculum, studies frequently have found that TBLT is not implemented in classrooms as the policy intended and have suggested that major adaptations are necessary if TBLT is to be implemented effectively. In Hong Kong, several case studies have revealed a number of key components for the potential adaptation of TBLT based on teachers’ experiences and insights (e.g., Carless, 2007, 2008, 2009; Luk, 2009; Tinker Sachs, 2007, 2009). For example, Carless (2007), through his interview with secondary school teachers, identified three major areas for adaptation: (a) granting a greater role to grammar instruction in TBLT, (b) incorporating TBLT with due attention paid to the students’ examination requirements, and (c) employing a greater emphasis on reading and writing tasks. Carless (2007) also suggested a flexible approach toward the use of students’ first language (L1) during tasks, including the possibility of using L1 for language-analysis tasks. Given the fact that there is a strong and prevailing preference toward the traditional presentation-practiceproduction (P-P-P) approach over TBLT among teachers, Carless (2009) further suggested that it may be possible to productively combine P-P-P with TBLT in such a way that the teachers can minimize the limitations that P-P-P may have, instead of completely dismissing it. Similarly, Deng and Carless (2009) conducted a series of interviews and classroom observations at an elementary school in Guangdong, China, and found that most activities were low in communicativeness (i.e., less focused on meaning); they were classified as either noncommunicative learning or precommunicative language practice using Littlewood’s framework (2004, 2007). Similar to what we saw in Hong Kong, the TBLT mandated by the state in Guangdong was also not implemented in classrooms. Moreover, teachers showed a preference toward activities with lower communicativeness. While the interview data of Deng and Carless reveal that the implementation of TBLT was largely constrained by the teachers’ limited understanding of tasks and examination factors in China, the authors also suggested that Littlewood’s framework should not be considered as a barometer of the desirability of activities. That is, we should not consider activities with higher communicativeness as always being “desirable” (p. 131). According to Deng and Carless, depending on various contextual factors—such as the students’ proficiency levels and age—activities with different degrees of communicativeness should be chosen and combined.
11 在小学和中学阶段，任务型教学法（TBLT）通常作为官方课程的一部分被引入，研究表明，TBLT 在课堂中的实施往往与政策预期不符，并建议如果 TBLT 要有效实施，需要进行重大调整。在香港，一些案例研究基于教师经验和见解，揭示了一些 TBLT 潜在适应的关键要素（例如，Carless，2007，2008，2009；Luk，2009；Tinker Sachs，2007，2009）。例如，Carless（2007）通过访谈中学教师，确定了三个主要的调整领域：（a）在 TBLT 中赋予语法教学更大的作用；（b）将 TBLT 与学生的考试要求相结合；（c）更加重视阅读和写作任务。Carless（2007）还建议在任务中使用学生母语（L1）时采取灵活的方法，包括使用 L1 进行语言分析任务的可能性。 鉴于教师在传统展示-练习-产出（P-P-P）方法上存在强烈且普遍的偏好，而非任务型教学法（TBLT），Carless（2009）进一步建议，可以将 P-P-P 与 TBLT 有效地结合起来，使教师能够最大限度地减少 P-P-P 可能存在的局限性，而不是完全摒弃它。类似地，邓和 Carless（2009）在中国广东省一所小学进行了一系列访谈和课堂观察，发现大多数活动在交际性方面较低（即较少关注意义）；根据 Littlewood 的框架（2004，2007）分类，这些活动要么属于非交际性学习，要么属于前交际性语言练习。与我们在香港看到的类似，广东省强制推行的 TBLT 同样未在课堂中实施。此外，教师更倾向于交际性较低的活动。 尽管邓和卡莱斯的访谈数据显示，任务型语言教学在中国的实施在很大程度上受到教师对任务和考试因素理解有限的限制，但作者们也指出，利特伍德的框架不应被视为衡量活动可取性的标准。也就是说，我们不能认为具有更高交际性的活动总是“可取的”（第 131 页）。根据邓和卡莱斯的说法，根据各种情境因素——例如学生的熟练程度和年龄——应该选择和组合具有不同交际程度的活动。

实证研究

16 Linh Phung的研究揭示了任务偏好与认知参与度的正相关关系，强调任务设计需兼顾认知挑战、情感共鸣和个人意义，为任务型教学提供了实证依据和设计框架。

17 Kim McDonough and Wanpen Chaikitmongkol研究证实任务型课程能有效提升泰国大学生的英语独立学习能力与学术技能

21YouJin Kim通过实证研究探讨了任务复杂度对ESL学习者在任务型互动中LREs发生的影响。

22TERESA PICA研究发现，信息差任务能够有效地促进学生在形式、功能和意义上的注意力分配。

23Marcela Ruiz-Funes通过研究表明任务复杂性对L2/FL写作的语言产出有显著影响，表现为更复杂的任务导致更高的句法复杂性，但牺牲了一定的准确性和流利性

24 Olena Vasylets通过实验研究发现，任务类型和任务复杂度对L2产出的多个维度有显著影响，且这些影响因语言模式的不同而不同。具体来说，书面语在句法复杂性、词汇复杂性和命题复杂性上表现更好，而口语在命题单位数量上表现更好。

40Martin L. Hawkes研究表明，在任务型语言教学中，任务重复可以作为一种有效的后任务活动，引导学习者关注语言形式。通过在任务重复阶段突出和练习目标语言形式，学习者在重复任务中表现出更高的准确性和更多的语言形式使用。

25SASAYAMA本研究通过多维度独立测量，证实了任务元素数量差异对认知负荷的关键影响，同时揭示了任务设计与学习者熟练度的复杂交互作用。

36 通过实证研究探讨了教师教育在促进TBLT应用中的作用。研究发现，建构主义为基础的课程课程可以显著提高职前教师对TBLT的接受度，但在实际教学中应用TBLT仍然面临诸多挑战，如文化规范、支持不足和固有的认识论框架。

42González-Lloret, Marta, and Katharine B证明了TBLT在提高学生完成关键工作任务的能力和整体西班牙语水平方面的有效性，研究结果表明，TBLT是一种有潜力的教学方法，可以在各种教学环境中推广应用。

43Erlam, Rosemary.通过实证研究发现教师在专业发展计划结束后，多数能够设计出符合任务标准的活动，但仍需在某些方面加强理解和实践能力。

44Specifically, empirical studies have demonstrated the benefits of task interactions for language learning (see Mackey & Goo, 2007, for a review). Erlam and Ellis (2018) investigated the effect of input-based tasks on the learning of vocabulary and grammar, and found that within the short period of two lessons, students acquired receptive knowledge of French vocabulary and productive knowledge of French target structures when compared to instruction on the same content without using input-based tasks. Similarly, Doughty and Pica (1986) found that when a conversational task, such as an information gap (IG) activity, required students to exchange information, more language output was produced, making the task more conducive to language learning than a task that asked only for optional information exchange. Van de Guchte, Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam and Bimmel (2015) further investigated how task interaction led to better task-based language learning and found that receiving prompts when engaging in the tasks, such as clarification requests and metalinguistic feedback, promoted noticing and created opportunities for practicing the target grammar structures, thus enhancing the learning of grammar structures in German.
44 具体来说，实证研究表明任务互动对语言学习有益（参见 Mackey & Goo, 2007 的综述）。Erlam 和 Ellis（2018）研究了基于输入的任务对词汇和语法学习的影响，发现与不使用基于输入的任务而教授相同内容相比，在两节课的短时间内，学生获得了法语的接受性词汇知识和法语的产出性目标结构知识。类似地，Doughty 和 Pica（1986）发现，当对话任务（如信息差活动）要求学生交换信息时，产生了更多的语言输出，这使得该任务比只要求可选信息交换的任务更有利于语言学习。 Van de Guchte、Braaksma、Rijlaarsdam 和 Bimmel（2015）进一步研究了任务互动如何促进基于任务的语言学习，发现当参与任务时，如接受澄清请求和元语言反馈等提示，能够促进注意力的集中，并创造练习目标语法结构的机遇，从而增强了德语语法结构的学习。

45Rui Bao & Xiangyun Du通过实验探讨了在丹麦中文作为外语教学中实施任务型语言教学（TBLT）的效果。研究表明，TBLT在提高学生参与度、口语机会、减轻焦虑和增强学习乐趣方面具有显著优势，但也面临发音练习不足、学习策略偏好难以平衡和教学时间不足等挑战。

46Megan Calvert and Younghee Sheen通过行动研究表明，通过系统的任务评估和修改，可以显著提高任务的教学效果。研究还强调了行动研究在解决教学实践中的问题的重要性，并为其他教师提供了一个可借鉴的范例。

47 Gabriel Albino通过实证研究证明了TBLT方法在提高EFL学习者口语流利度方面的有效性。研究结果表明，TBLT方法不仅能够帮助学习者提高口语流利度和语法准确性，还能增强他们的学习动机和自信心。

48Youjin Ruan探讨了在丹麦奥尔堡大学汉语作为外语的初学者课程中，任务型教学与学习（TBTL）方法的实施及其对学生学习动机的影响。研究结果表明，TBTL方法在初学者的外语学习中具有激励作用，特别是在使用非聚焦任务和小组合作任务时。

50Yuying Liu通过对66名中国大学英语教师的问卷调查和访谈，探讨了他们对TBLT的认知和实施情况。研究发现，尽管教师对TBLT的熟悉程度较低，但他们普遍对其持积极态度，并在实际教学中尝试使用。然而，教材限制、班级规模、考试制度和学生动机等因素仍然是实施TBLT的主要障碍。

51Chunyan LIU通过对江西省14名中小学英语教师的访谈，探讨了TBLT在中国的本土化过程。研究发现，尽管面临诸多挑战，教师们仍然愿意接受并应用TBLT，并通过设计适当的任务、灵活调整教学程序、探索任务型语言评估等方法克服困难。

53通过对比任务型语言教学（TBLT）与任务支持型语言教学（TSLT）在初级汉语课堂中的应用效果，发现两种教学模式均能显著提升学习者的语言能力与语法知识，但TBLT在促进隐性语法习得、语言流利度及学习者自主性方面表现更优。

55 Chen, Q通过混合方法（访谈、课堂观察、材料分析）探究了中国EFL课堂中任务型教学（TBLT）的实践困境。研究发现，尽管教师普遍认可TBLT理念，但在实际教学中仍面临文化惯性（如教师主导）、考试压力（弱化交际目标）和任务设计信心不足等挑战。

65陈美华等人研究发现，该任务型语言课堂中，教师情绪相对独立，而学生更依赖于教师影响获得积极情绪。鼓励教师设计任务前需求分析、提升教师对全体学生情绪的感知力、反思任务难度、采用鼓励式教育

66贺学勤通过实证研究验证任务型教学与翻转课堂的互补性，该教学模式的优势在于促进主动学习、合作互动与社会化意识培养。拓展了二语习得研究的视角。

67刘隽仪通过实验对比发现任务型语言教学（TBLT）通过“在做中学”激发学生英语学习积极性，实验表明该教学法能显著提高学生的英语成绩、语言应用能力和健康人格。

71通过教学实验发现有意义的任务活动能引起学生共鸣和兴趣，小组讨论、协商有助于培养学生能力，任务完成结果为学生提供自我评价标准并产生成就感。

76任伟通过实验发现了任务复杂度及任务序列对学生的互动听力具有显著影响，简单-复杂序列比复杂-简单序列更有利于学生使用互动听力资源。本文的研究为互动能力和任务型教学研究提供了重要启示，

新趋势

75韩超探讨了元宇宙与任务型语言教学的结合，提出了任务型语言教学的元宇宙应用模型（M2-TBLT），并开发了相应的在线资源平台。该模型通过人机协同、语境模拟和语境增强等特征，优化了任务型语言教学的教学过程，解决了任务前、任务中和任务后阶段的诸多问题，为数字化语言教学拓展了新思路。

82谢元花通过问卷调查发现高校教师对任务型教学原则理解与实施存在差异，包括普遍认同交际原则、对关键概念及操作方式知识欠缺、对实施感兴趣、理念与实践脱节。

英语语言教学中任务型语言教学法的优势和局限性

优点

81在构建大学英语混合课堂的过程中，任务型教学法有利于提升学生英语学习的主动性、培养学生解 决英语问题的能力，能够帮助学生对自身英语能力全面认知，提升学生的英语综合运用能力。

77任务能够引导学生将注意力集中于意义协商，有利于触发学生对

语言形式的习得 (Ellis 2018)。

72能够培养学生语言运用能力，体现自主学习与合作探究结合。

68（一）任务驱动促进元认知发展（二）任务驱动激发自主探究（三）任务驱动完善科学思维 任务驱动教学能够紧密联系学生的生活实际，选择有利于学生掌握科学知识的学习资源，并突出自主探索和互动协作的学习方式。

62任务型语言教学还 可 以最 大 限度地 激 发 学生 的学 习动机 。采用 任务型语言教学最大 的益处是 改变学习方式和学 习环境 ， 因为它可 以调 动学 生 的学习主动性 ， 营造语言的运用 氛 围和文化 环境 ， 建立和谐的师生平等的关系 。

50 It is easy to understand the benefits of TBLT in the context of the escalation of English language teaching in China. Following globalisation trends, the importance of raising language learners’ multicultural awareness and preparing students for effective, interactive communication are essential factors that are emphasised in language teaching and learning. Various research studies have been carried out within the Chinese context to investigate the implementation of TBLT in improving students’ communicative competence (Jiang and Sun 2010; Park 2012). According to Park (2012: 238), the findings indicate that the task-based approach is effective and motivating in ‘improving the students’ communicative competence while not hindering form-focused L2 learning’. Jiang and Sun (2010) also state that a task-based approach encourages learners to do experiments with new language forms and structures.
50 在中国英语教学的背景下，很容易理解任务型教学法（TBLT）的优势。随着全球化的趋势，提高语言学习者的多元文化意识，并培养学生进行有效互动交流的能力，是语言教学和学习中强调的关键因素。在中国背景下，已经开展了多项研究，以探讨任务型教学法在提高学生交际能力方面的实施情况（Jiang and Sun 2010；Park 2012）。根据 Park（2012：238）的研究，结果表明任务型方法在“提高学生的交际能力的同时，不会阻碍形式化的二语学习”方面是有效且具有激励性的。Jiang 和 Sun（2010）也指出，任务型方法鼓励学习者尝试使用新的语言形式和结构。

9 J. Willis (1996: 18) explains: ‘Tasks remove the teacher domination, and learners get chances to open and close conversations, to interact naturally, to interrupt and challenge, to ask people to do things and to check that they have been done.’
9 J. Willis（1996：18）解释道：“任务可以消除教师的支配地位，学习者有机会开启和结束对话，自然地进行互动，打断和挑战，要求他人做事情并检查是否完成。”

10 TBI is of obvious value to learners who do not need much new input from their language classes (either because they receive substantial out-ofclass exposure, or because they have already been taught more language than they can use), and whose main concern is to improve the accuracy, fluency and complexity of their output.
10 对于那些不需要太多新输入的语言学习者来说，TBI 具有明显的价值（无论是由于他们在课外获得了大量语言接触，还是因为他们已经学过超出他们实际运用能力的语言），而他们的主要关注点是提高他们输出的准确性、流利度和复杂性。

14• Tasks provide a context for negotiating and comprehending the meaning of language provided in task input, or used by a partner performing the same task. • Tasks provide opportunities for uptake of (implicit or explicit) corrective feedback on a participant’s production, by a partner, or by a teacher. • Tasks provide opportunitiesforincorporation of premodified input, containing “positive evidence” of forms likely to be important to communicative success and that may previously have been unknown or poorly controlled. • Tasks provide opportunities for noticing the gap between a participant’s production and input provided and for metalinguistic reflection on the form of output.
14• 任务为协商和理解任务输入中提供的语言意义，或由执行相同任务的伙伴使用的语言提供了语境。• 任务为伙伴或教师对参与者产出提供（显性或隐性）纠正性反馈提供了机会。• 任务为融入预先修改的输入提供了机会，这些输入包含“积极证据”，这些形式可能对交际成功至关重要，并且之前可能未知或控制不佳。• 任务为参与者产出与提供的输入之间的差距提供注意到机会，并为输出形式进行元语言反思提供了机会。

45 The benefits of TBLT in foreign language contexts Research has reported positive learning outcomes by implementing TBLT in foreign language classrooms. For instance, Leaver and Kaplan (2004) examined the TBLT courses for the teaching of Czech, Ukrainian, and Russian at a foreign language programme in the USA. They found that the TBLT courses had a lower attrition rate and higher proficiency results than those that did not use TBLT in their language programmes. Iwashita and Li (2012) pointed out that TBLT encouraged learners to participate in classroom interaction by giving each other feedback. This can lead them to recast non-target utterances, and also, to more successfully incorporate that feedback in the production of modified output. Moreover, TBLT contributes to shaping and improving learners’ oral skills such as fluency, listening comprehension, and vocabulary building skills (Chacón, 2012); increasing learners’ use of the target language (Tinker Sachs, 2007); and enhancing learners’ ability to transfer what they learned in the classroom to the outside world (Macías, 2004). Furthermore, researchers have discovered that TBLT creates a positive learning environment by promoting learners’ enjoyment (McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007), boosting learners’ confidence (Lopes, 2004), and increasing learners’ motivation (Park, 2012). For example, Hadi’s (2013) exploration of perceptions of TBLT in Iranian female learners found that most learners felt positively about TBLT. Learners were ready to adapt themselves to this new methodology because it enhanced their motivation, made class more fun and interesting, and produced a lively classroom atmosphere. In the field of teaching CFL, several teachers have conducted action research on the implementation of TBLT in a Danish context as their previous teacher-lectured approach was challenged by learners’ low participation and a high-rate of dropout (Du & Kirkebæk, 2012). For instance, Bao (2012) found that the use of TBTL was helpful in increasing afterschool lower secondary learners’ participation and spurred their interests in learning process. Similar findings are also reported by Kirkebæk (2012) with high-school learners of learning Chinese character. Nevertheless, Du and Kirkebæk (2012) argue that to effectively implement TBLT, both teachers and students have agreed-upon learning goals, a good understanding of the method to be used, and a mutual engagement in the task performance. Institutional support in terms of teachers’ development, sufficient instructional time, and curriculum development were also essential concerns. In addition, learners’ perception of the implementation of TBLTshould be also taken into consideration in order to maximise its value for CFL learning (Bao & Kirkebæk, 2013). Collectively, the literature has indicated that learners benefit from TBLT in various respects. Nevertheless, challenges are identified when TBLT is applied in some foreign language contexts.
45 任务型教学法在外语环境中的优势 研究表明，在外国语言课堂中实施任务型教学法能够取得积极的学习成果。例如，Leaver 和 Kaplan（2004）研究了美国一所外语项目中的捷克语、乌克兰语和俄语教学任务型教学法课程。他们发现，与未使用任务型教学法的语言项目相比，任务型教学法课程具有更低的辍学率和更高的语言能力水平。Iwashita 和 Li（2012）指出，任务型教学法通过相互提供反馈，鼓励学习者参与课堂互动。这可以促使他们改述非目标语言表达，并且更成功地将在反馈中获得的建议融入到改进后的输出中。此外，任务型教学法有助于塑造和提升学习者的口语技能，如流利度、听力理解能力和词汇构建能力（Chacón，2012）；增加学习者使用目标语言（Tinker Sachs，2007）；以及增强学习者将课堂所学知识迁移到现实世界的能力（Macías，2004）。 此外，研究人员发现任务型教学法通过促进学习者的愉悦感（McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007）、增强学习者的自信心（Lopes, 2004）和提高学习者的动机（Park, 2012）来创造积极的学习环境。例如，Hadis（2013）对伊朗女学习者对任务型教学法的认知研究显示，大多数学习者对任务型教学法持积极态度。学习者愿意适应这种新方法，因为它增强了他们的动机，使课堂更有趣，并营造了活跃的课堂氛围。在对外汉语教学领域，一些教师针对在丹麦环境中的任务型教学法实施进行了行动研究，因为他们的传统教师讲授方法受到了学习者参与度低和辍学率高（Du & Kirkebæk, 2012）的挑战。例如，Bao（2012）发现使用任务型教学法有助于提高课后初中学员的参与度，并激发他们学习过程中的兴趣。Kirkebæk（2012）在对学习汉字的高中学员的研究中也报告了类似的发现。 然而，杜和基尔凯贝克（2012）认为，要有效实施任务型教学法，教师和学生必须就学习目标达成共识，对所使用的方法有良好的理解，并在任务执行中相互参与。在教师发展、充足的授课时间和课程开发方面的机构支持也是至关重要的考虑因素。此外，为了最大化任务型教学法对中文作为外语学习的价值，还应考虑学习者对任务型教学实施过程的看法（包和基尔凯贝克，2013）。总体而言，文献表明，学习者在多个方面受益于任务型教学法。然而，在将任务型教学法应用于某些外语环境时，也识别出了一些挑战。

局限

72教师要根据教学对象和内容，结合其他教学方法灵活运用。

71发现了任务型教学存在的一些局限性和需要改进的地方，如占用课堂时间多、可能削弱学生独立思考能力等。

50Another challenge to the implementation of TBLT is the fact that although many research studies stress the importance of TBLT, there are few genuinely task-based textbooks available (Willis and Willis 2007: 201). ‘This popular and strongly SLA-based methodology has been eschewed by course books’ (Mishan 2013: 273). Hobbs (2011) also states that there is limited availability of ready-made task-based materials and textbooks designed to fit TBLT, leading teachers to believe that the only way to implement TBLT is to create their own complete set of teaching materials.
50 另一个挑战是任务型教学法（TBLT）的实施，因为尽管许多研究强调 TBLT 的重要性，但真正基于任务的教材却很少（Willis 和 Willis 2007: 201）。“这种流行且强烈基于二语习得（SLA）的方法已被教材所摒弃”（Mishan 2013: 273）。Hobbs（2011）也指出，现成的基于任务的材料和教材非常有限，适合 TBLT 的教材更是稀少，这导致教师认为实施 TBLT 的唯一方法就是自己创建一套完整的教材。

45Challenges in the implementation of TBLT Learner-generated challenges to the implementation of TBLT Research has shown that learners believe in the importance of grammar and prefer systematic and explicit grammar instruction in language learning (Carless, 2007; Lai, Zhao, & Wang, 2011). This preference is in conflict with the TBLT method, which encourages learning language by using it as a means of communication rather than treating the language as an object of study by sequentially presenting grammatical items (Long & Robinson, 1998). A lack of primary focus on explicit grammar instruction in TBLT results in learners’ dissatisfaction (Lai et al., 2011; Lopes, 2004). For instance, McDonough and Chaikitmongkol (2007) investigated learners’ reactions to a task-based course in a Thai university and found that learners initially reacted negatively to TBLT because it did not include the explicit grammar instructions they expected. Additionally, learners’ preferred ways of learning have been found to be at odds with TBLT. In TBLT, learners are expected to take initiative to solve language-related issues by interacting and collaborating with other learners, while teachers act as a co-operator or organiser to facilitate this process. However, research has found that learners are accustomed to their habitual learning styles and prefer to interact with the teacher, receiving confirmation, correction, and encouragement this way (Burrows, 2008; Zhang, 2007). Lower proficiency in the target language is also a challenge for TBLT (Carless, 2003; Li, 1998). For example, Bao (2012) identified learners’ low proficiency as one of the significant challenges when implementing TBLT in a lower secondary beginner CFL class. Context-generated challenges to the implementation of TBLT The effect of context on the implementation of certain methodological approach is pervasive. Indeed, substantial research has revealed the conflict between TBLT and the local contexts. For instance, when traditional examination requirements such as grammar-based tests are still popular (Li, 1998), and educational traditions value the role of teachers in knowledge transmission and classroom management (Bruton, 2005; Deng & Carless, 2009), TBLT faces additional difficulties. In TBLT, learners are encouraged to learn by interacting with other learners, and to deduce grammatical items through the interactional meaningmaking process instead of the teacher’s lecture. These conflicts require TBLT to adjust itself to fit the local context. For example, Carless (2007) suggests that TBLT should be implemented in a weak form, with ‘tasks’ used as ‘an adjunct to structure-based teaching’ (Skehan, 2003, p. 1), in order to be compatible with the Hong Kong learning context. Challenges have also been identified in relation to the educational institutions, including a lack of task-based teaching materials (Leaver & Kaplan, 2004), lack of syllabus time available (Bao & Kirkebæk, 2013; McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007), and the low prioritisation of the course by students and administration (Bao, 2012). For instance, the lack of appropriate materials has demotivated teachers to implement TBLT because it required them to invest more time to develop and prepare their own tasks (Li, 1998). The lack of syllabus time support has similarly discounted TBLT, as teachers’ focus on completing the requirements of the syllabus left little time for task completion or for sufficient explanation on questions generated from tasks (Bao & Kirkebæk, 2013; Carless, 2003). Furthermore, TBLT’s success was challenged by a lack of official obligation for learners, due to the low prioritisation of the course by students in lower secondary schools (Bao, 2012).
45 任务型教学法实施中的挑战 学习者生成的挑战对任务型教学法的实施研究显示，学习者认为语法很重要，并在语言学习中偏好系统且明确的语法教学（Carless，2007；Lai，Zhao，& Wang，2011）。这种偏好与任务型教学法相冲突，后者鼓励通过使用语言作为交际手段来学习语言，而不是将语言作为研究对象，通过依次呈现语法项目来学习（Long & Robinson，1998）。任务型教学法对明确语法教学的缺乏导致学习者不满（Lai 等人，2011；Lopes，2004）。例如，McDonough 和 Chaikitmongkol（2007）调查了一所泰国大学中学习者对任务型课程的反应，发现学习者最初对任务型教学法反应消极，因为它不包括他们预期的明确语法教学。此外，研究发现学习者的偏好学习方式与任务型教学法存在矛盾。 在任务型教学法（TBLT）中，学习者被期望主动通过与其他学习者互动和合作来解决语言相关的问题，而教师则扮演合作者或组织者的角色来促进这一过程。然而，研究发现学习者习惯于他们的学习方式，更倾向于与教师互动，通过这种方式获得确认、纠正和鼓励（Burrows，2008；Zhang，2007）。目标语言能力较低也是任务型教学法的挑战之一（Carless，2003；Li，1998）。例如，Bao（2012）在将任务型教学法应用于初中初级汉语课堂时，将学习者能力较低视为一个重要挑战。情境对任务型教学法实施产生的挑战情境对某些方法论方法实施的影响是普遍的。事实上，大量研究表明任务型教学法与当地情境之间存在冲突。 例如，当基于语法的测试等传统考试要求仍然流行（Li，1998），且教育传统重视教师在知识传授和课堂管理中的作用（Bruton，2005；Deng & Carless，2009）时，任务型教学法（TBLT）面临额外的困难。在 TBLT 中，学习者被鼓励通过与其他学习者互动来学习，并通过互动意义建构过程推导语法项目，而不是依赖教师的讲授。这些冲突要求 TBLT 调整自身以适应地方环境。例如，Carless（2007）建议 TBLT 应以弱形式实施，将“任务”作为“基于结构的教学的辅助”（Skehan，2003，第 1 页），以适应香港的学习环境。在教育机构方面也识别出了挑战，包括缺乏基于任务的教材（Leaver & Kaplan，2004）、缺乏可用于课程的时间（Bao & Kirkebæk，2013；McDonough & Chaikitmongkol，2007），以及学生和管理层对课程的低优先级（Bao，2012）。 例如，由于缺乏合适的材料，教师们对实施任务型教学法（TBLT）失去了动力，因为这要求他们投入更多时间来开发和准备自己的任务（Li，1998）。同样，课程表中缺乏时间支持也削弱了 TBLT 的实施，因为教师们专注于完成课程要求，几乎没有时间来完成任务或对任务中产生的问题进行充分解释（Bao & Kirkebæk，2013；Carless，2003）。此外，由于学生在初中阶段对课程的重视程度较低，导致学习者缺乏官方的义务，这也挑战了 TBLT 的成功（Bao，2012）。

40 TBLT过于注重任务完成而忽视语言形式的教授。

28Some have argued that the incidental focus on form that is at the heart of TBLT neglects grammar and vocabulary and therefore impacts language development (Swan, 2005; Widdowson, 2003). Critiques have also been leveled at the implementation of TBLT in specific contexts, such as in secondary schools (Bruton, 2005). Furthermore, the compatibility of TBLT amidst the sociocultural realities and educational cultures of certain foreign-language contexts has been questioned by some scholars (e.g. Carless, 2003; Ellis, 2016a, 2016b).
28 有些人认为，TBLT 的核心——对形式的偶然关注——忽视了语法和词汇，因此影响了语言发展（Swan，2005；Widdowson，2003）。对 TBLT 在特定环境中的实施也提出了批评，例如在中学（Bruton，2005）。此外，一些学者质疑了 TBLT 在某些外语环境中的社会文化现实和教育文化中的兼容性（例如 Carless，2003；Ellis，2016a，2016b）。

10 Less constructively, it promotes a climate in which potentially useful pedagogic procedures are discouraged or outlawed on doctrinaire grounds: TBI learners are unlikely to spend much time, for instance, memorizing word lists, learning rules or examples by heart, or translating sentences.
10 从不那么积极的角度来看，它营造了一种氛围，在这种氛围中，潜在的有用教学程序因教条主义的原因而被禁止或取缔：例如，TBI 学习者不太可能花很多时间去记忆单词表、死记硬背规则或例子，或者翻译句子。

12 This can be offset by the increased student motivation teachers report that TBLT brings
12 这可以通过教师报告的 TBLT 带来的学生动机增加来抵消

10 TBI provides learners with substantially less new language than ‘traditional’ approaches. This seems a serious weakness.
10 TBI 为学习者提供的新语言比“传统”方法少得多。这似乎是一个严重的弱点。

19考试压力、班级规模和传统经验仍是制约TBLT有效实施的主要瓶颈

11 However, a number of issues still remain to be solved, including how the criteria are determined (e.g., linguistic performance vs. task-completion), how and by whom tasks are developed and/or selected to correspond to such criteria, and how and by whom can student performance be rated validly and reliably. Adding to the complexity of the last point, traditional psychometric notions of validity and reliability may not be applicable depending on how task-based assessment is employed. Inevitably, teachers need to play a critical role in many of these processes. And without empowering teachers, it would not be a surprise to see TBLT winding up being a mere policy slogan.
11 然而，仍然存在一些问题需要解决，包括如何确定标准（例如，语言表现与任务完成），如何以及由谁开发或选择任务以符合这些标准，以及如何以及由谁可以有效地和可靠地评价学生表现。最后一点增加了复杂性，因为传统的心理测量学概念的有效性和可靠性可能取决于任务型评估的运用方式而不适用。不可避免地，教师需要在许多这些过程中发挥关键作用。如果没有赋予教师权力，看到 TBLT 最终只是一个政策口号将不足为奇。

11 A second concern, which is partially related to the assessment issues already discussed, is when and how best to incorporate form-focused instruction in TBLT. Although most TBLT methodologists see the importance of form-focused instruction in TBLT (Skehan, 2003), they do not have a clear consensus about when and how best to incorporate this in task-based lessons. It has been generally suggested that focus on form is necessary during the posttask phase, but not the pretask or during-task phases, because the latter two options could make a given task an exercise of preidentified vocabulary and structures (Ellis, 2003).
11 第二个问题，部分与已讨论的评估问题相关，是关于在任务型语言教学（TBLT）中何时以及如何最佳地融入形式化教学。尽管大多数 TBLT 方法论者都认识到形式化教学在 TBLT 中的重要性（Skehan，2003），但他们对于何时以及如何最佳地将形式化教学融入基于任务的课程中并没有达成明确共识。通常建议在任务后阶段关注形式，但在任务前或任务进行阶段不应关注形式，因为后两个阶段可能会使特定任务变成预先确定词汇和结构的练习（Ellis，2003）。

11 A third issue relates to the use of students’ L1 in TBLT in foreign language contexts. In a teaching context where students share the same L1, an excessive use of L1 is a frequently articulated concern among teachers. The excessive use of L1 also often relates to teachers’ concerns with classroom management. While the potential benefit of L1 in second and foreign language learning has increasingly been acknowledged, it is not easy to for teachers to make judgments about when and how much L1 the students are allowed to use (or encouraged to use on certain occasions) in TBLT. Carless (2007) addressed one significant dilemma between L1 and TBLT, noting that “the more absorbing the task, the greater is the risk of student use of MT [mother tongue]” (p. 335).
11 第三个问题涉及在外语环境中任务型教学法（TBLT）中使用学生的母语。在学生使用相同母语的教学环境中，过度使用母语是教师们经常表达的一个担忧。过度使用母语也常常与教师对课堂管理的担忧相关。尽管母语在第二语言和外语学习中的潜在益处越来越受到认可，但教师们很难判断在 TBLT 中何时以及允许学生使用多少母语（或在某些情况下鼓励使用）。Carless（2007）指出了母语与 TBLT 之间一个重要的困境，他提到“任务越吸引人，学生使用母语的风险就越大”（第 335 页）。

13A number of critics (e.g., Swan, 2005; Widdowson, 2003) have alleged that TBLT pays insufficient attention to the teaching of grammar. The source of the confusion seems to be the belief that if the purpose of sequences of pedagogic tasks is gradually to develop learners’ ability to perform target tasks (which it is), not to practice particular grammatical structures, then grammar is ignored.
13 一些批评者（例如，Swan，2005；Widdowson，2003）声称 TBLT 对语法教学的关注不足。这种困惑的根源似乎在于这样一种信念：如果教学任务序列的目的是逐步发展学生执行目标任务的能力（这是它的目的），而不是练习特定的语法结构，那么语法就被忽视了。

12 Task Complexity Criteria，
12 任务复杂性标准，

Course designers and materials writers need reliable criteria by which to measure task complexity, the basis for sequencing pedagogic tasks in a task syllabus.
课程设计者和教材编写者需要可靠的指标来衡量任务难度，这是在任务式课程表中排序教学任务的基础。

Task-Based Assessment and the Transferability of Task-Based Abilities but the transferability of task-based abilities remains a real issue.
任务式评估和任务式能力的可迁移性，但任务式能力的可迁移性仍然是一个实际问题。

the importance of adequate in-service (re-)training and continued teacher support
充分的在职（再）培训和持续的教师支持的重要性

任务型语言教学法的改进策略

62 教材是推广 教学 理念 的重 要手段 之一 。 体现 任 务 型 语 言 教 学 的教材应具备 以下三个特点 以 任务 为核心 来设计教材 。使 用 真实 的语 言材料 ，3强调真实的交际

63第三，智能化任务设计。智能化任务的设计旨在最大化地利用技术工具的自 适应功能。 教师可应用人工智能技术设计动态和交 互性强的任务，这些任务可以针对每位学习者的进度 实时自我调整。

11 Ding (2007), for instance, found that text memorization and imitation were the most effective strategies identified by competent Chinese learners of English. It may be possible to pursue teacher-fronted but communicative activities in crowded classrooms. As Carless (2009) suggested, incorporating certain aspects of P-P-P in TBLT may be more adaptable or appropriate in some contexts.
11 例如，丁（2007）发现，文本记忆和模仿是英语能力强的中国学习者最有效的策略。在拥挤的教室里，可能可以开展以教师为主导但具有交际性的活动。正如卡尔 less（2009）所建议的，在某些情境下，将某些 P-P-P（Presentation-Practice-Production）元素融入任务式语言教学（TBLT）可能更具适应性或更合适。

11 In negotiating their local environments, teachers should be given great autonomy to decide how best to synthesize and digest the tasks of TBLT in order to maximize the effectiveness of their teaching.
11 在协商其本地环境时，教师应被赋予高度自主权，以决定如何最佳地综合和消化任务型教学法（TBLT）的任务，从而最大限度地提高其教学效果。

11 Second, more decentralized and flexible language policies may be advisable. Traditionally, educational policies in Asian countries often have been carried out in a strong top-down manner, and thus, without having a top-down push, any substantial changes in practice are perhaps unlikely in many Asian contexts. However, as we have seen here, implementations of CLT/TBLT that have been mandated from the top down have been difficult to implement in many classrooms, particularly when teachers and students have less autonomy in its adaptation.
11 其次，更分散和灵活的语言政策可能更可取。传统上，亚洲国家的教育政策通常以强有力的自上而下的方式执行，因此，如果没有自上而下的推动，在许多亚洲背景下，实践中可能不会发生任何实质性的变化。然而，正如我们所看到的，自上而下强制实施的交际语言教学法（CLT）/任务型教学法（TBLT）在许多教室中难以实施，尤其是在教师和学生对其适应方面缺乏自主权时。

11It also appears that the top-down direction needs to be accompanied by drastic reforms in the exam system. Although the washback effects of testing are not as straightforward as one might expect (L. Cheng & Watanabe, 2004), there is little room for teachers to develop bottom-up influence or control under the current exam culture that prevails in Asia.
11 此外，自上而下的方向似乎需要考试制度的重大改革。尽管测试的反拨效应并不像人们预期的那么直接（L. Cheng & Watanabe, 2004），但在亚洲普遍存在的当前考试文化下，教师几乎没有发展自下而上影响或控制的空间。

11 Third, we need to develop communities of learning outside of the classroom, as well as inside it, in order to implement CLT/TBLT. This may be particularly important for contexts where learners see limited opportunities to use the target language in their real-life situations or where learners share the same L1 and see little relevancy in engaging in tasks with their peers in a foreign language.
11 第三，我们需要在课堂内外建立学习共同体，以实施交际语言教学法/任务型语言教学法。这对于学习者认为在现实生活中使用目标语言机会有限，或学习者共享同一种母语且认为用外语与同伴完成任务缺乏相关性的环境尤为重要。

New technology has tremendous potential to provide learners with new and greater opportunities to use English across geographies. Recently, there has been emerging interest in computer-mediated communication (CMC) in TBLT (Levy & Stockwell, 2006; Thomas & Reinders, 2010), and Asia is no exception to
新技术有巨大潜力为学习者提供跨越地域使用英语的新机会。近年来，在任务型语言教学法中出现了对计算机辅助交流（CMC）的兴趣（Levy & Stockwell, 2006；Thomas & Reinders, 2010），亚洲也不例外。

16 It is important for teachers and task designers to think about how to create cognitively engaging and affectively engaging tasks for their learners. Setting criteria is an important step in a productive and principled materials development process (Tomlinson, 2011).
16 教师和任务设计者需要思考如何为学习者创造认知上和情感上都具有吸引力的任务。设定标准是高效且原则性强的材料开发过程中的重要一步（Tomlinson, 2011）。

They should remain sensitive to their learners’ developing dispositions, needs, and experiences in making decisions on task design and implementation.
在任务设计和实施决策时，他们应保持对学习者正在发展的态度、需求和经验的敏感性。

44However, some practical problems have been observed in the implementation of language tasks. One is that learners with lower proficiency levels produce limited meaning negotiations and provide less accurate grammatical input (Doughty & Pica, 1986). Another frequent problem is that the L1 is used to complete task requirements rather than the target language (Fotos, 1994). These challenges raise doubts about whether learners would fully participate in the language task. These challenges also echo one of the TBLT design principles (Norris, 2009) where interactive activities need to be structured and scaffolded in ways that maximize how learners notice the form–function–meaning relationships. Furthermore, task interaction should be more process focused such that input and output are better addressed.
44 然而，在语言任务的实施过程中观察到一些实际问题。一是低水平能力的学习者进行有限的意义协商，提供的语法输入也不够准确（Doughty & Pica, 1986）。另一个常见问题是使用母语来完成任务要求，而不是目标语言（Fotos, 1994）。这些挑战引发了学习者是否会充分参与语言任务的疑问。这些挑战也呼应了 TBLT 设计原则之一（Norris, 2009），即互动活动需要以结构化和支架的方式组织，以最大化学习者注意形式—功能—意义关系的方式。此外，任务互动应更加注重过程，以便更好地处理输入和输出。

44Fang W-C, Yeh H-C, Luo B-R通过实证研究证明了移动支持的TBLT在大班英语教学中的有效性。移动应用程序提供的语言和任务支架显著提高了学生的词汇学习和会话理解能力，同时促进了学生对流畅性和准确性导向的说话策略的使用。

79· 精心选编优质任务案例，提供现代教育技术资源，加强教师培训。

· 以学习者为中心，发挥教师在任务型教学中的重要作用，关注学习者的多种变量，根据学生实际情况决定是否使用母语。

· 设立配套的任务型教学支持和评价体系，形成自上而下的多方联动系统，开发适合任务型教学的课程大纲和教学大纲，加强语言测评体系建设，教师应积极参与任务型教学生态建设。

总结