In:From Task-based Needs Analysis to Task and Syllabus Design: Insights from across educational contexts
Edited by Roger Gilabert and Aleksandra Malicka
[Task-Based Language Teaching 20] 2026
► pp. 1–22
Chapter 1Defining task-based needs analysis (TBNA) and its transfer to task and
syllabus design
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Many language programs worldwide have used task-based
needs analysis (TBNA) as a starting point (Serafini et al., 2015). TBNA can provide accurate
insights into decision-making during task and syllabus design (Gilabert & Malicka, 2021, 2022). TBNAs typically generate a
compilation of authentic situations found in professional, academic, public,
or societal domains (Long, 2005).
How exactly this information can be systematically integrated into this
decision-making process during task and syllabus design has been absent from
empirical work. The chapter articulates specific ways in which TBNA can be
applied to micro and macro decisions in task selection, design, sequencing,
methodological implementation, and program evaluation. The second objective
of the chapter is to deconstruct some of the myths surrounding TBNA.
Article outline
- Introduction
- From needs analysis to task and syllabus design
- Where do tasks come from? Task selection
- In what order should tasks be presented to learners? Task sequencing
- How can task-associated language be made salient for learners? Methodological implementation
- Cognitive and interactive architecture of tasks: Task design
- How should learners be assessed? Language assessment
- How can task-based programs be evaluated?
- Debunking myths surrounding TBNA
- Myth 1: TBNA is unfit for general language learning contexts
- Myth 2: TBNA cannot be conducted without domain experts, and it is not inclusive of teachers’ or learners’ perspectives
- Myth 3: TBNA has been conceptualized from a cognitive perspective rather than a social one
- Myth 4: TBNA is inaccessible to small institutions and individual teachers
- Structure of the book
- Author queries
References
References (48)
Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (2014). Task
sequencing and instructed second language
learning. Bloomsbury.
Brindley, G. (2009). Task-centered
language assessment in language learning: The promise and the
challenge. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based
language teaching: A
reader (pp. 435–454). John Benjamins.
Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. H. (2019). TBLT
implementation and evaluation: A
meta-analysis. Language Teaching
Research, 23(5), 603–632.
Chaudron, C., Doughty, C. J., Kim, Y., Kong, D. K., Lee, J., Lee, Y. G., Long, M. H., Rivers, R., & Urano, K. (2005). A
task-based needs analysis of a tertiary Korean as a foreign language
program. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second
language needs
analysis (pp. 225–262). Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal
psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language
learning. Language Learning &
Technology, 7(3), 50–80.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus
on form in classroom second language
acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019). Task-based
language teaching: Theory and
practice. Cambridge University Press.
Gilabert, R. (2005). Evaluating
the use of multiple sources and methods in needs analysis: A case
study of journalists in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia
(Spain). In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second
language needs
analysis (pp. 182–199). Cambridge University Press.
Gilabert, R., & Castellví, J. (2019). Task
and syllabus design for morphologically complex
languages. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of language
learning (pp. 527–549). Cambridge University Press.
Gilabert, R., & Malicka, A. (2021). From
needs analysis to task selection, design, and
sequencing. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of task‑based language
teaching (pp. 226–249). Cambridge University Press.
(2022). From
needs analysis to task-based design: Methodology, assessment, and
program
evaluation. In N. P. Sudharshana & L. Mukhopadhyay (Eds.), Task-based
language teaching and assessment: Contemporary reflections from
across the
world (pp. 93–118). Springer Nature.
González‑Lloret, M. (2019). Technology
and L2 pragmatics learning. Annual
Review of Applied
Linguistics, 39, 113–127.
González-Lloret, M. (2022). Technology-mediated
tasks for the development of L2
pragmatics. Language Teaching
Research, 26(2), 173–189.
González-Lloret, M., & Nielson, K. (2015). Evaluating
TBLT: The case of a task-based Spanish
program. Language Teaching
Research, 19(5), 525–549.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English
for specific purposes: A learning-centred
approach. Cambridge University Press.
Keller, S., & Gilabert, R. (2023). Bienvenidos
a bordo: From task-based needs analysis to design:
Spanish-destination flight
attendants. Canadian Journal of
Applied
Linguistics, 26(2), 81–108.
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting
task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The
role of task complexity. The Modern
Language
Journal, 99(4), 656–677.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2025). From
CAF to CAFFA: Measuring linguistic performance and functional
adequacy in task-based language
teaching. In M. East (Ed.), Task-based
language
teaching (pp. 147–161). John Benjamins.
Lambert, C. (2010). A
task-based needs analysis: Putting principles into
practice. Language Teaching
Research, 14(1), 99–112.
Long, M. H. (1985). A
role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based
language
teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling
and assessing second language
acquisition (pp. 77–99). Multilingual Matters.
Lopes, A. M. (2015). Critical
issues in the evaluation of an international project dedicated to
technology-mediated TBLT
(PETALL). Teaching English with
Technology, 15(2), 4–18.
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., Fell, E., & Sagdic, A. (2022). The
interaction approach and individual differences factors in
SLA. In S. Li (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual
differences (pp. 37–51). Routledge.
Malicka, A., Gilabert, R., & Norris, J. M. (2019). From
needs analysis to task design: Insights from an English for specific
purposes context. Language Teaching
Research, 23(4), 1–29.
Martínez-Flor, A., Sánchez-Hernández, A., & Barón, J. (Eds.). (2023). L2
pragmatics in action: Teachers, learners and the teaching-learning
interaction process. John Benjamins.
Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based
teaching and
testing. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The
handbook of language
teaching (pp. 578–594). Blackwell.
Norris, J. M., Sasayama, S., & Kim, M. (2023). Simulating
real‐world context in an email writing task: Implications for
task‐based language assessment. ETS
Research Report
Series, 2023(1), 1–23.
Pallotti, G. (2019a). An
approach to assessing the linguistic difficulty of
tasks. Journal of
EuroSLA, 3(1), 58–70.
(2019b). Assessing
tasks: The case of interactional
difficulty. Applied
Linguistics, 40(1), 176–197.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task
complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring
interactions in a componential
framework. Applied
Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57.
(2015). The
Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC
model of pedagogic task
sequencing. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains
and directions in the development of
TBLT (pp. 87–122). John Benjamins.
(2022). The
Cognition Hypothesis, the Triadic Componential Framework and the
SSARC
model. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of task-based language
teaching (pp. 205–225). Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task
complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning
and performance. IRAL — International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 45(3), 161–176.
Sasayama, S., & Norris, J. M. (2022). Designing
speaking tasks for different assessment goals: The complex
relationship between cognitive task complexity, language
performance, and task
accomplishment. TASK. Journal on
Task-Based Language Teaching and
Learning, 2(2), 184–217.
Serafini, E. J., Lake, J. B., & Long, M. H. (2015). Needs
analysis for specialized learner populations: Essential
methodological improvements. English
for Specific
Purposes, 40, 11–26.
Serafini, E. J., & Torres, J. (2015). The
utility of needs analysis for nondomain expert instructors in
designing task‐based Spanish for the professions
curricula. Foreign Language
Annals, 48(3), 447–472.
Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks
and language performance
assessment. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching
pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and
testing (pp. 167–185). Pearson Education.
(2009). Modelling
second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy,
fluency and lexis. Applied
Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.
Sudharshana, N. P., & Mukhopadhyay, L. (Eds.). (2021). Task-based
language teaching and assessment: Contemporary reflections from
across the world. Springer Nature.
Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (Eds.). (2018). Task-based
approaches to teaching and assessing
pragmatics. John Benjamins.
Winke, P. M. (2014). Formative,
task-based oral assessment in an advanced Chinese-language
class. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated
TBLT: Researching technology and
tasks (pp. 263–294). John Benjamins.
Winke, P. (2025). Aligning
classroom tasks with can do descriptors helps TBLT programs be chock
full of proficiency
indicators. In M. East (Ed.), Task-based
language
teaching (Vol. 17, pp. 124–146). John Benjamins.
