Cover not available
Article published In:
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 166:1 (2015) ► pp.37–93

The impact of PPP and TBLT on Vietnamese students’ writing performance and self-regulatory writing strategies

| Can Tho University, Vietnam
| KU Leuven

While the available research literature appears to support the implementation of task-based language teaching (TBLT) in Western countries, few studies have been conducted to investigate its impact on classroom practice in Asia, especially in comparison with the presentation-practice-production (PPP) approach which many Asian teachers still favour. The current study explores the differential effects of the PPP approach and a task-based approach on Vietnamese students’ writing performance and self-regulation while writing descriptive and argumentative paragraphs. The study involved 138 students of English Language Studies at a university in Vietnam. Results show that both approaches are effective in enhancing students’ text quality. The students in the PPP condition had significantly higher scores on linguistic accuracy in the immediate posttest than the students in the TBLT condition. Conversely, students in the TBLT groups had significantly higher scores on lexical diversity in the immediate posttest than the students in the PPP condition. With regard to self-regulation, the students in the TBLT condition had significantly higher scores on the immediate posttest than the students in the PPP condition .

Keywords: TBLT, writing, Asia, PPP, self-regulation
Published online: 8 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.166.1.02yen
References
Be, N., & Crabbe, D
(1999) The design and use of English language textbooks in Vietnamese secondary schools. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Language and Development. [URL]
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M
(1987) The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bernat, E
(2004) Investigating Vietnamese ESL learners’ beliefs about language learning. EA Journal, 21(2), 40–54.Google Scholar
Bock, G
(2000) Difficulties in implementing communicative theory in Vietnam. Teacher’s Edition, 21, 24–28.Google Scholar
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L
(2005) Self‐regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 199–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V
(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A
(1989) Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bruton, A
(2002) From tasking purposes to purposing tasks. ELT Journal, 56(3), 280–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Task-based language teaching: For the state secondary FL classroom? Language Learning Journal, 31(1), 55–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burnaby, B., & Sun, Y
(1989) Chinese teachers’ views of Western language teaching: Context informs paradigms. Tesol Quarterly, 23(2), 219–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Y.G
(2011) The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 36–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrne, D
(1976) Teaching oral english. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Canh, L
(1999) Language and Vietnamese pedagogical contexts. Paper presented at the Language and Development: Partnership and Interaction (73–79). Proceedings of the fourth international conference on language and development. Hanoi, Vietnam.
(2008) Teachers’ beliefs about curricular innovation in Vietnam: A preliminary study. In Y.H. Choi & B. Spolsky (Eds.), ELT curriculum innovation and implementation in Asia (pp. 191–216). Seoul, Korea: Asian TEFL.Google Scholar
(2011) Form - focused instruction: A case study of Vietnamese teachers’ beliefs and practices. Unpublished PhD dissertation. The University of Waikato.
Carless, D
(2009) Revisiting the TBLT versus PPP debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19(1), 49–66.Google Scholar
Carlisle, R
(1989) The writing of Anglo and Hispanic elementary school students in bilingual, submersion, and regular programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(3), 257–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P.L., & Monroe, L.B
(1993) Learning styles and composition. The Modern Language Journal, 77(2), 148–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chastain, K
(1990) Characteristics of graded and ungraded compositions. The Modern Language Journal, 74(1), 10–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chenoweth, N.A., & Hayes, J.R
(2001) Fluency in writing generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1), 80–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J
(1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K
(2011) Research methods in education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Creswell, J.W
(2009) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage.Google Scholar
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S
(1997) Strategy instruction in planning: Effects on the writing performance and behavior of students with learning difficulties. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 167–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R
(1998) Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J.D. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Denzin, N.K
(1989) Interpretive biography (Vol. 171). London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Ducker, N
(2012) Enriching the curriculum with task-based instruction. Polyglossia, 221, 3–11.Google Scholar
Ellis, R
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) The methodology of task-based teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 19–45.Google Scholar
(2009) Task‐based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A
(1994) Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language learning, 44(3), 449–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N
(2014) Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Estaire, S., & Zanón, J
(1994) Planning classwork: A task based approach. Oxford: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E
(1990) Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D
(2011) Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, R.A
(1984) Testing written communicative competence in French. The Modern Language Journal, 68(1), 13–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R
(1980) The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Frantzen, D
(1995) The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 329–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P.W
(2006) Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
Geiser, S., & Studley, W.R
(2002) UC and the SAT: Predictive validity and differential impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California. Educational Assessment, 8(1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
George, D
(2003) SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference, 17.0 Update, 10/e. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R
(1989) Components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graham, S., & MacArthur, C
(1988) Improving learning disabled students’ skills at revising essays produced on a word processor self-instructional strategy training. The Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 133–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R
(2000) The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grbich, C
(2012) Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Grela, B.G
(2002) Lexical verb diversity in children with Down syndrome. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 16(4), 251–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harmer, J
(1991) The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Harris, K.R., Graham, S., & Mason, L.H
(2006) Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J.R
(1996) A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27): Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Heaps, H.S
(1978) Information retrieval: Computational and theoretical aspects. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hiep, P.H
(2007) Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61(3), 193–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huy Thinh, D
(2006) The role of English in Vietnam’s foreign language policy: A brief history. Paper presented at the 19th Annual EA Education Conference. [URL]
Kellogg, R.T
(1987) Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes. Memory & Cognition, 15(3), 256–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, J., & Kim, J
(2005) Teaching Korean university writing class. Asian EFL, 7(2), 69– 90.Google Scholar
Kim, M.S
(2009) A PPP approach & IELTS writing. The English Connection, 341.Google Scholar
Kline, P
(2000) The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routlegde.Google Scholar
Lap, T.Q
(2005) Stimulating learner autonomy in English language education: A curriculum innovation study in a Vietnamese context. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P
(1995) Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M
(1995) Implications of a lexical view of language. Language Teacher 191, 37–39.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. & McCook, F
(2002) Cultures of teaching: Voices from Vietnam. ELT Journal, 56(2), 146–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Y
(1998) “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677–703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task-based e-mail activities. System, 28(2), 229–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liao, X
(2004) The need for communicative language teaching in China. ELT Journal, 58(3), 270–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Light, R.J
(2001) Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Loc, N
(2005) Tertiary education and strategies for teaching and learning foreign languages in Vietnam. Paper presented at the Conference on Teaching Tertiary English and International Relations in Vietnam Universities and Colleges, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, Dai hoc Su Pham.
Loi, N.V
(2011) Dynamic conceptions of input, output and interaction: Vietnamese EFL lecturers learning second language acquisition theory. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Long, M
(2014) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lu, X
(2012) The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of esl learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B
(2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, Volume II: The database. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Malvern, D., & Richards, B
(2002) Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 85–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malvern, D., Richards, B.J., Chipere, N., & Duran, P
(2004) Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Many, J.E., Fyfe, R., Lewis, G., & Mitchell, E
(1996) Traversing the topical landscape: Exploring students’ self‐directed reading‐writing‐research processes. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 12–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P.M., & Jarvis, S
(2010) MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D.S., Crossley, S.A., & McCarthy, P.M
(2010) Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M
(1984) Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
(1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Montalvo, F.T., & Torres, M.C.G
(2004) Self-regulated learning: Current and future directions. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2(1), 1–34.Google Scholar
Murphy, K., & Myors, B
(2004) Statistical power analysis (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Neuman, S.B., & Roskos, K
(1997) Literacy knowledge in practice: Contexts of participation for young writers and readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 10–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nishino, T., & Watanabe, M
(2008) Communication-oriented policies versus classroom realities in Japan. Tesol Quarterly, 42(1), 133–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunan, D
(1989) Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task’. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 12–18.Google Scholar
Ogilvie, G., & Dunn, W
(2010) Taking teacher education to task: Exploring the role of teacher education in promoting the utilization of task-based language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 14(2), 161–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S
(1999) Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paris, S.G., & Paris, A.H
(2001) Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational psychologist, 36(2), 89–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patrick, H., & Middleton, M.J
(2002) Turning the kaleidoscope: What we see when self-regulated learning is viewed with a qualitative lens. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 27–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perry, N.E
(1998) Young children’s self-regulated learning and contexts that support it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 715. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Introduction: Using qualitative methods to enrich understandings of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 1–3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perry, N.E., Hutchinson, L., & Thauberger, C
(2007) Mentoring student teachers to design and implement literacy tasks that support self-regulated reading and writing. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 27–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perry, N.E., Phillips, L., & Dowler, J
(2004) Examining features of tasks and their potential to promote self-regulated learning. The Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1854–1878. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pintrich, P.R
(2000) The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polio, C
(1997) Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language learning, 47(1), 101–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polio, C., & Fleck, C
(1998) “If I only had more time:” ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prabhu, N.S
(1987) Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ransdell, S., & Levy, C.M
(1996) Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The sciene of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 93–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ransdell, S., & Wengelin, Å
(2003) Socioeconomic and sociolinguistic predictors of children’s L2 and L1 writing quality. Arob@ se, 1(2), 22–29.Google Scholar
Richards, J.C
(2005) Communicative language teaching today. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.Google Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M
(2008) Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, R
(2010) Reconsidering the effectiveness and suitability of PPP and TBLT in the Japanese EFL classroom. JALT journal, 32(2), 189–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J
(1997) Developing self-efficacious readers and writers: The role of social and self-regulatory processes. In J.T. Guthrie & A. Wigfielld (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 34–50). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Sheen, R
(2003) Focus on form–a myth in the making? ELT Journal, 57(3), 225–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sholihah, U
(2013) Task-based language teaching (TBLT) can improve students’ writing ability. Magistra, 25(86), 70.Google Scholar
Skehan, P
(1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied linguistics, 17(1), 38–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sowden, S., & Keeves, J.P
(1988) Analysis of evidence in humanistic studies. In J.P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 513–526). Oxford: Pergarmon Press.Google Scholar
Swan, M
(2005) Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takimoto, M
(2009) The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tesch, R
(1990) Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York, NY: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Thornbury, S., & Harmer, J
(1999) How to teach grammar. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, B., & Dat, B
(2004) The contributions of Vietnamese learners of English to ELT methodology. Language Teaching Research, 8(2), 199–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tran, L
(2001) Using pair work and group work in teaching writing. Teacher’s Edition, 51, 22–28.Google Scholar
(2007) Learners’ motivation and identity in the Vietnamese EFL writing classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(1), 151–163.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J.M
(2009) Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verheyden, L., Van den Branden, K., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., & De Maeyer, S
(2010) Written narrations by 8‐to 10‐year‐old Turkish pupils in Flemish primary education: A follow‐up of seven text features. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(1), 20–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warden, C.A., & Lin, H.J
(2000) Existence of integrative motivation in an Asian EFL setting. Foreign Language Annals, 33(5), 535–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willis, D., & Willis, J
(2008) Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Task-based learning and learner motivation. On Task, 1(1), 7.Google Scholar
Willis, J
(1996) A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Willis, J., & Willis, D
(1996) Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.Google Scholar
Wilson, V
(1997) Focus groups: A useful qualitative method for educational research? British Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 209–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winne, P., & Perry, N.E
(2000) Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts (Ed.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, G
(2010) Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 236–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, B.J
(2008) Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, B.J., & Kitsantas, A
(1999) Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 911, 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, B.J., & Risemberg, R
(1997) Research for the Future. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 221, 73–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 12 other publications

Abbott, Marilyn L. & Kent K. Lee
2023. Relationships between students’ emotions, self-regulated learning, and literacy gains in beginning/basic level ESL literacy classes for adults. System 115 ► pp. 103061 ff. DOI logo
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian & Michael H. Long
2021. The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching, DOI logo
Boers, Frank, Lara Bryfonski, Farahnaz Faez & Todd McKay
2021. A CALL FOR CAUTIOUS INTERPRETATION OF META-ANALYTIC REVIEWS. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 43:1 ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Boers, Frank & Farahnaz Faez
2023. Meta-analysis to estimate the relative effectiveness of TBLT programs: Are we there yet?. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882311675 ff. DOI logo
Bryfonski, Lara & Todd H. McKay
2019. TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research 23:5 ► pp. 603 ff. DOI logo
Harris, Justin & Paul Leeming
2022. Speaking proficiency development in EFL classrooms: measuring the differential effect of TBLT and PPP teaching approaches. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 0:0 DOI logo
Kim, YouJin, Sanghee Kang, Meredith D’Arienzo & Naoko Taguchi
2023. Comparing traditional and task-based approaches to teaching pragmatics: Task design processes and learning outcomes. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Nguyen, Thi Anh & Koen Jaspaert†
2021. Implementing Task-basedlanguage teaching in an Asian context. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 172:1 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Pham, Vu Phi Ho, Chien Thi Hong & Ngoc Hoang Vy Nguyen
2021. The Effects of Task-Based Instruction on High School Students' Writing Outcomes. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning 11:4 ► pp. 54 ff. DOI logo
Samuda, Virginia, Martin Bygate & Kris Van den Branden
2018. Introduction. In TBLT as a Researched Pedagogy [Task-Based Language Teaching, 12], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Serafini, Ellen J.
2021. Adapting and Advancing Task-Based Needs Analysis Methodology across Diverse Language Learning Contexts. In The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching, ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Wei, Ran & Xiaoyan Zhao
2024. Effects of task-based language teaching on functional adequacy in L2 writing. Assessing Writing 60 ► pp. 100838 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.