A Task-based Approach to EAP

Kyriaki Koukouraki, Greece

Dr Kyriaki Koukouraki is a lecturer for EAP/ESP and Translation Studies at New York College, Thessaloniki, Greece. She is interested in intercultural communication, intercultural linguistics, foreign language teaching, and translation studies. She is an active researcher with many international conference presentations. E-mail: koukourakik@gmail.com

Menu

Introduction
Task-based language teaching (TBLT)
Applying TBLT in an English for Academic Purposes context
Conclusions
References

Introduction

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has increasingly gained popularity over the past 25 years amongst teachers, syllabus designers, and researchers all over the world recognising its advantages in comparison to more traditional methodologies like Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP). Many Asian countries, especially such as China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong have adopted TBLT in their national curricula acknowledging those benefits (Adams & Newton, 2009). The number of publications by leading scholars (e.g. Nunan, 2004; Willis & Willis, 2007; Skehan, 1998; Ellis, 2003; Samunda&Bygate, 2008) not only analysing theoretical aspects of TBLT but also with detailed case studies have equally risen, thus further developing and enriching this teaching approach. The majority of those case studies analyse the use of TBLT in various Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) and English for Specific Purposes (ESP) contexts, however there is limited literature focusing on TBLT within an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) context (e.g. Douglas & Kim, 2014).

EAP is progressively developing into a major branch of English Language Teaching (ELT) due to the internationalization of Higher Education. The demand for specialised English courses preparing international students to study in an English Medium Instruction (EMI) context has rocketed since the 1990s on a global scale(Dearden, 2015).

This paper aims at presenting TBLT with its benefits and challenges and showing that its application within an EAP context, governed by distinct features and demands, is most beneficial for EAP students.

Task-based language teaching (TBLT)

Characteristics of TBLT

According to White’s (1988) classification of syllabi TBLT represents a ‘Type B’ or analytic syllabus (Wilkins, 1974, 1976), emphasising on how language is being learned as opposed to what is being learned in a ‘Type A’ or synthetic syllabus. Yet in TBLT there can be no clear-cut distinction between ‘methodology’ and ‘syllabus’ as both are based on the same unit of analysis, i.e. the task (Van den Branden, 2006). In addition, TBLT is perceived more as an ‘approach’ to language teaching rather than an actual distinct ‘method’, since it is not uniform but comes in many versions (Ellis, 2009).

Hence, TBLT is characterised by holistic, functional, and communicative language teaching which uses tasks as the unit of syllabus analysis (Long & Crookes, 1992). Ellis (2003, p. viii) supports the choice of task as this core unit by arguing that,

if learners are to develop the competence they need to use a second language in the kinds of situations they meet outside the classroom they need to experience how language is used as a tool for communicating inside it. ‘Task’ serves as the most obvious means for organizing teaching along these lines.

But defining that core unit, i.e. the task “has proven problematic” (Ellis, 2009, p. 227) since a plethora of such definitions has emerged over the years depending on the “scope and formulation [...] up to the point where almost anything related to educational activity can now be called a ‘task’” (Van den Branden, 2006, p. 3). Two of the most prominent definitions have been chosen here:

1. “Activities where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome.” (Willis, 1996, p. 23)
2. “A piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form.” (Nunan, 1989, p. 10)

(For an extensive compilation of various definitions see Van den Branden, 2006, p. 7) Ellis (2013, p. 7) has summed up the major characteristics of ‘tasks’ which are featured in the numerous definitions as follows:

1. The primary focus is on message.
2. There is some kind of gap (i.e. a need to convey information, to express an opinion or to infer meaning. Prabhu (1987) identified the three main types as information gap, opinion gap, and reasoning gap).
3. Learners need to use their own linguistic and non-linguistic resources.
4. There is an outcome other than the display of language.

Task-based approaches are often contrasted with traditional methods like Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP) which introduce a small number of set language forms before allowing learners to practice them in controlled conditions whilst then encouraging them to use the forms spontaneously. In contrast, TBLTencourages learners to use the language resources they already have in order to engage in meaning and a communicative activity and subsequently focus on form (Willis & Willis, 2007).

Advocates of TBLT emphasise the fact that this form of teaching is primarily influenced by, and based on, theories of learning, such as second language learning research, second language classroom research, and principles of course design rather than theories of language (e.g. Skehan, 1998a, Ellis, 2003, Samuda and Bygate, 2008). Second language acquisition (SLA) research has revealed that language is not learned in a linear way by means of subsequently adding newly acquired forms and vocabulary as in a synthetic syllabus but is a much more complex procedure (Long &Crookes, 1992). Furthermore, research has also proven that TBLT resembles much more the way children acquire their L1 (Ellis, 2013).

Lesson structure

The core of each task-based lesson is -as the name suggests- the task around which the entire lesson is build. The task type to be implemented may vary according to the chosen methodological approach. Whereas Long (1985, 1991) and Ellis (2003) suggest that both “unfocused tasks (i.e., tasks that have been designed to elicit general samples of language use) and focused tasks (i.e., tasks that have been designed to create a communicative context for the use of specific target language features, such as a particular grammar structure)” (Ellis, 2013, p. 5) may be used successfully within a TBLT lesson, Skehan (1998) supports only the use of unfocused tasks.

Moreover, tasks can be distinguished into ‘input-based’/ ’input-providing’ and ‘output-based’ / ‘output-promoting’ tasks (Ellis, 2009, 2013). Former task types do not require language production (i.e. speaking and writing) and are “performed by learners listening or reading the information provided by the task” (Ellis, 2013, p. 5). Output-based or output-promoting tasks on the other hand require language production in form of either speaking or writing or even a combination of both.

Defining tasks as ‘closed’ or ‘open’ is another possible classification. In this case the emphasis is on whether the tasks “are highly structured and have a very specific goal” (closed tasks) or whether they “are more loosely structured, with a less specific goal” (open tasks) (Willis, 1996, p. 28). It should be mentioned though, that most of the tasks are usually a combination of the above-mentioned types and therefore considered ‘integrative’ (Ellis, 2009, p. 224).

An additional important distinction as to avoid misconceptions about TBLT is that between ‘task-based’ and ‘task-supported’ language teaching (Ellis, 2009). Whereas in the former the task forms the central unit of planning and teaching, in the latter tasks are but a supplemental activity, i.e. a technique in a more traditional structural syllabus typically involving PPP (Ellis, 2009).

Over the years various TBLT frameworks have been developed (e.g. Prabhu, 1987; Estaire&Zanon, 1994; Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996; Lee, 2000) to implement this approach although having a tripartite structure in common (Ellis, 2003):

1. pre-task phase: including framing the activity, e.g. establishing the outcome of the task; planning time; doing a similar task to the main task of the next phase.
2. during-task phase: including the task itself with the options of performing that task either under time pressure or not.
3. post-task phase: including learner report, consciousness raising activities, and repeat tasks.

Benefits of TBLT

Clearly the benefits of TBLT lie in its approach to viewing language as a holistic system that should not be dissected into artificial, unnatural units to be learned subsequently. Therefore, in TBLT “people not only learn language in order to make functional use of it, but also by making functional use of it” (Van den Branden, 2006, p. 6).

Directly linked to the aforementioned and viewed as one of the most decisive advantages of TBLT is the use of authentic material as opposed to unnatural, simplistic, sentence-level forms of the target language material of previous methods (Long & Crookes, 1992, p. 30). Even the use of pedagogical tasks (rehearsal and activation tasks (Nunan, 2004)) which are simulating to a high degree authentic real-world tasks that learners are expected to perform outside the classroom, exposure to authentic language is guaranteed. Agreeing with Nunan(2004) authenticity for the sake of authenticity does not necessarily fulfil the educational purpose. He suggests that if we want our learners to be able to comprehend oral and written language in the real world outside the classroom, we should “provide them with structured opportunities to engage with such materials inside the classroom” (Nunan, 2004, p. 50). Therefore, interactional authenticity (Bachman, 1990) including aspects such as negotiation of meaning, scaffolding, and inferencing as occurring in natural language is the desideratum in TBLT(Ellis, 2009).

A further benefit of using TBLT is its genuine learner-centred approach manifested in the fact that learners have equally the freedom and responsibility of negotiating course content, choosing from linguistic forms they possess in their repertoire to use, and finally (peer) evaluating their own task outcomes (Van den Branden, 2006).

Finally, it is argued that in an TBLT class it is the active use of language, the opportunity to experiment with language and the linguistic resources learners have in order to produce new meanings that promote the learning process (Skehan, 1996a; Nunan 2004; Hedge, 2000; Beglar& Hunt, 2002).

Challenges

Although TBLT is becoming over the past years increasingly prominent and has “progressed well beyond theory into actual practice” (Ellis, 2009, p. 222), there are still critic voices against this approach (e.g. Sheen, 1994, 2004; Swan, 2005; Widdowson, 2003) as well as acknowledged challenges from advocates of this teaching approach.

Firstly, creating and designing a TBLT syllabus which needs to be based on aprior conducted students’ needs analysis (Van den Branden, 2006) as “to identify the learners' current or future target tasks” (Long, 1997) is not something every teacher is able or willing to do. Therefore, possibly one of the biggest challenges is the fact, that usually teachers and lecturers have themselves to design and create the material for their lessons (or at least adapt the existing material), since there are almost no publications of genuine task-based course books (Rooney, 2000; Van den Branden, 2006). The resulting excessive preparation time for instructors is an additional challenge (Douglas & Kim, 2014). Furthermore, as some studies have revealed, teachers themselves need to be well trained in this approach as to successfully implement it (Ellis, 2013).

An additional criticism that has often been voiced is that TBLT may foster fluency, but at the expense of either actual language growth and/or accuracy. However, proponents of TBLT (e.g. Ellis, 2009, Long & Crookes, 1992, Willis, 1996) argue that focus on form, “that is, use of pedagogic tasks and other methodological options which draw students' attention to aspects of the target language code” (Long & Crookes, 1992, p. 42) is an integral part of task-based language teaching (depending on the approach this step might be included in either phases of the TBLT framework). Furthermore, Hawkes (2012) stresses the importance of task repetition for further focus on form, while Nunan(2004) is in favour of language recycling for learning opportunities maximisation, and finally Ellis (2009) supports focus on form through ‘implicit and explicit corrective strategies’ (Ellis, 2009, p. 236).

Though apart from these challenges, there is the factor of cultural and/or educational barrier. Learners of a specific cultural background might not be familiar with such teaching approaches. Especially in exam-oriented countries, like Greece, this approach might not be perceived as effective because familiar strategies like drilling or ‘past papers’ are absent. Equally, students or even teachers from Asian countries with a Confucian philosophy which emphasize “on benevolence and respect between teacher and students” might find this approach contradictory to their own “cultural contexts where learning is not seen as a collaborative and experiential activity” (Ellis, 2009, p. 243).

Applying TBLT in an English for Academic Purposes context

English for Academic Purposes

English for Academic Purposes (EAP) is becoming increasingly an integral part of internationalised tertiary education not only as an intensive pre-sessional course but also as a permanent in-sessional component of curricula. EAP emerged as a new branch from the more discipline-specific English for Specific Purposes (ESP) (e.g. Business English) (Hamp-Lyons, 2001) as the demand for specialized English language courses for international students grew steadily over the past years.

EAP courses primarily aim at supporting non-native students to cope with the demands at English-medium universities and to (further) develop academic literacy and study skills. Today, pre- or in-sessional EAP courses aim at “helping learners to study, conduct research or teach” (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001, p. 8) in English, as well as helping them to “learn some of the linguistic and cultural – mainly institutional and disciplinary - practices involved in studying or working” (Gillett, 2011) in such an environment. Therefore, EAP is beginning “with the learner and the situation” (Hamp-Lyons, 2001, p. 126) and not with the language itself as in English for General Purposes (EGP). However, apart from language, EAP courses also aim at fostering “among students the vital skills required for successful intercultural communication and integration into university life” (Dooey, 2010, p. 186). Therefore, in contrast to EGP the emphasis is not predominantly on grammar or form which is also mirrored in most EAP course books where the terminology has shifted from ‘grammar’ to e.g. ‘academic language check’ (Oxford EAP series) covering only one fifth of each unit. Agreeing with Gillett (2011) in regard to EAP it might be less important for students to get “their present tenses correct ... as [to understand] the overall structure of the report they have to write”.

As in any other EFL course, the applied methodology for an EAP course can be chosen by the instructor according to their teaching philosophy, the particular students’ needs, and the demands or guidelines of the respective institution. The most prevalent adopted EAP teaching methodology is the genre-based (Swales, 1990), which typically emphasizes on academic writing where the specific features of each genre are analysed. These features include “structure, style, content and intended audience” (Jordan, 1997, p. 231). Yet as evident from the study of Douglas & Kim (2014) analysing EAP classes in Canada, task-supported teaching is widespread and perceived as highly beneficial.

However, it is suggested that a more holistic and simultaneously more communicative approach not only to the language itself but also to the course content can be achieved through a genuine task-based approach, especially due to the distinct characteristics and multiple benefits of TBLT, such as:

• its communicative nature,
• its consistency with findings about SLA based on respective research (Ellis, 2003; Long & Crooks, 1992, Willis & Willis, 2007)
• its use of target-like tasks (Breen, 2001) with natural exposure to language while at the same time increasing students’ interaction in class,
• its genuine learner-centred approach fosters learner autonomy (especially important for undergraduate students making the transition from school to university),
• its holistic experience of language in use, and
• its augmented rate of incidental learning (Willis, 1996; Ellis, 2014).

Choosing the tasks for EAP

The choice of appropriate tasks (for the during-task phase) is of paramount significance when designing a TBLT lesson plan. In the case of doing so for EAP courses the specific needs of students have first to be identified as to be successfully addressed afterwards(Benesch, 1996). These needs depend on the discipline they are/will be studying, their language proficiency level and cognitive level, their cultural background. Other parameters to be considered are core academic skills or literary skills required in academia, like note-taking, giving oral presentations, conducting research, etc. As Gillett (2011) observes “it is the linguistic tasks – including language and practices - that the students will need to engage in that define the course”.

In brief, undergraduate or postgraduate students’ main academic activities include: listening to lectures, participating in seminar discussions, writing assignments, oral and written exams, giving oral presentations, and participating in group projects. Tasks students would need to carry out for these activities are amongst others: listening for general understanding, asking for clarifications, note-taking, expressing opinion, presenting facts, negotiating, agreeing and disagreeing, summarizing and paraphrasing, doing research, etc.

Studies (see Baik&Greig, 2009; Counsell, 2011) have shown that in many cases students were not able to transfer skills and knowledge gained during their EAP courses to their subsequent studies (Douglas & Kim, 2014). This issue can be successfully addressed through the TBLT approach, because as previously described it focuses on tasks that are identical or almost identical to real-life tasks and gives students the opportunity to engage with language they will use in their mainstream studies (Alexander, Argent, & Spencer, 2008).

Additionally, the choice of the appropriate task topic is equally important. The topics have to be chosen in the ultimate efficient way that they will “motivate learners, engage their attention, present a suitable degree of intellectual and linguistic challenge and promote their language development” (Willis, 1996, p. 22). Hence, topics can be chosen according to learners’ own situation (e.g. ‘internationalization of higher education’, ‘native vs non-native English language instructors’), their discipline (e.g. law, medicine, management, education, etc.), or even because they are thought to be controversial (e.g. ‘human cloning’ and ‘bioethics’) and thus in turn generating students’ interest and thereby actively involving them in the lesson (Grunert O’Brien, Millis, & Cohen, 2008).

Finally, TBLT has not been designed to serve the aims of exam-oriented classes (Willis & Willis, 2007) and to prepare learners for specific standardized high-stakes types of English language proficiency tests. This fact suggests that TBLT is optimal in an EAP context, where the final assessment can be of a different type (see following chapter on Assessment).

Suggestions for tasks in an EAP context

The following examples / suggestions focus on input-providing (reading and listening) and output-promoting (speaking and writing) tasks of the during-task phase. These tasks though do not have to be strictly separated, since “many tasks are integrative [and] involve two or more skills” (Ellis, 2009, p. 224).

Input-providing tasks

1. Listening tasks

Listening tasks belong to the input-providing kind of tasks. The input can be ‘seeded’ through focused tasks “with the targeted feature” (Ellis, 2003, p. 37) which afterwards will, if correctly processed by the learner, result in successful production. Listening tasks can of course be further subdivided into listening tasks for comprehension or for noticing (e.g. grammatical structures, vocabulary). In EAP one possible listening-to-noticing task could be how signposting or hedging is used in an authentic academic presentation. On the other hand, a typical listening-to-comprehend task in EAP would be listening to an authentic lecture and understanding the main idea of the lecture. This task can be supported by note-taking and possibly used further in group- or pair-work where students will compare and complement their notes and then use them in order to produce a summary of the lecture. Subsequently, these summaries could be compared in order to identify which pair/group incorporated all the vital information into their summary. Hereby, one listening task may generate further tasks, all of which could be done in this exact order in real life.
Studies (e.g. Chou, 2017) have moreover proven that TBLT increases metacognitive listening strategies, most useful for university students.

2. Reading

Defining reading from a literacy perspective it is a problem-solving, meaning making process, in which the reader considers the meaning the author is making while at the same time building her/his own (Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 1996). This “interaction” between author and reader is what is asked of university students to do. When reading, comprehension is the ultimate goal of doing so (Nation, 2005) but reading comprehension is achieved when meaning is constructed out of text (Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 1996). The meaning is based on information tied to the reader’s purpose for reading. In EAP reading can have a twofold dimension which includes also academic skills:

• Comprehending authentic subject-related scientific texts: Reading for gist – identifying salient points
• Reading strategies: Practising and improving skimming and scanning, Identifying writer’s position

For Ellis (2009) extensive reading, which is an inextricable part of university studies, can be viewed as a task. In EAP this task can further be combined with an output-promoting task like summarising, or a seminar discussion. Extensive reading additionally has the ‘side effect’ of incidental vocabulary acquisition (e.g. Dupuy&Krashen, 1993). Extensive reading acts furthermore as an optimal noticing opportunity of e.g. how the various academic genres are structured.

Output-promoting tasks

1. Speaking tasks
In EAP speaking activities include oral presentations, expressing opinion and participating in seminar discussions and debates. Therefore, special emphasis has to be given to these tasks with focus on aspects like asking questions or for clarification during lectures/seminars and expressing personal opinion with supporting information. Speaking tasks are ideal for group and/or pair work. Having as a main task to give an oral presentation on a topic of the student’s discipline does not only promote speaking per se but is additionally linked to the development of other academic skills, like doing research and preparing a power point (or similar programme). Focus on form might include in this case formal register.

2. Writing tasks
Writing in academia involves apart from specific genres like essays, reports, minutes, etc. also note-taking, summarizing, and paraphrasing, latter especially in the context of how to avoid plagiarism.
Writing tasks for novel and demanding genres (like specific academic essay types) can be planned as long-term projects in order to give more security to students and allow them to complete the final task in manageable steps without overwhelming them. For this purpose an essay could be broken down into its essential parts and individual tasks designed based on the microstructure of it (e.g. introduction - main body – conclusion – reference list, or paragraphs). The end-product could for instance be an argumentative essay on a specific topic related to the students’ discipline, thus fostering and developing also academic skills e.g. doing research. Focus on vocabulary and register especially for EAP students, such as the academic word list from Coxhead (2000) may be drawn on for targeted vocabulary practice.

Assessment

Assessment is of paramount importance to EAP, due to the crucial and critical implications of their outcomes for students: failing a final (summative) EAP exam - especially in pre-sessional courses - could mean the discontinuation of studies. The choice of assessment tools depends both on the needs analysis (Fulcher, 1999) and course objectives (Grunert O’Brien, Millis, & Cohen, 2008). In TBLT the task is the basic unit not only for the syllabus, the methodology but also for the assessment (Van den Branden, 2006). Therefore, in TBLT students’ learning assessment should be “by way of task-based criterion-referenced tests, whose focus is whether or not students can perform some task to criterion, as established by experts in the field, not their ability to complete discrete-point grammar items” (Long & Crookes, 1992, p. 45). This means that students’ ability to perform and accomplish a task successfully in L2 should be the focus of assessment.

In the context of EAP this could be achieved in various ways. For instance, ‘direct assessment’, i.e. testing of communicative behaviours resembling those performed outside the classroom (Nunan, 2004). Furthermore, ‘formative assessment’, carried out either formally or informally and whereby the assessment is done by teachers “during the learning process with the aim of using the results to improve instruction” (Breen, 2001, p. 137) (a synonym for continuous assessment) has multiple advantages and in the case of TBLT can take the form of a task portfolio. Finally, ‘summative assessment’, which is a formal type of assessment at the end of a course aims at measuring students’ performance and to identify if they have achieved the predetermined objectives (Harris & McCann, 1994). This type of assessment is usually required as final documentation of students’ performance.

As Robinson and Ross (1996) pointed out assessment in task-based EAP programs should be direct performance-referenced which both simulates what students will have to do in real life while ensuring higher face and construct validity (pp. 458-460.). This could be done by asking students to complete output-promoting tasks, like writing an essay, report, etc. and for speaking doing an oral presentation. But rating this type of testing might involve the dilemma of whether to rate more highly the linguistic perspective or the real-world perspective (Van den Branden, 2006). Assessing EAP students via system-referenced tests, where discrete aspects of a language system, like specific grammar rules, are tested, would not be in accordance neither with EAP nor with TBLT philosophy, where focus on form is not the epicentre of such syllabus.

Conclusions

This paper intended to demonstrate that a task-based approach to teaching within the context of English for Academic Purposes is ideal. As EAP has very specific characteristics and demands, clearly distinguishing it from English for General Purposes, the chosen teaching methodology has to be able to cover these demands successfully, especially in regard to the often very tight available time frame in pre-sessional courses. It has been thus suggested, that the multiple benefits of TBLT such as its holistic approach to language and experience with language as well as its emphasis on real-life tasks can prepare international students to cope with the increased demands of an English-medium university not only on a linguistic but also academic level. TBLT frameworks give students the opportunity to primarily focus on creating meaning, and secondarily on form, yet not neglecting it. Maybe the greatest advantage of this approach is the fact that students can a priori experience through the authentic component of TBLT what will be expected of them during their undergraduate or postgraduate studies and transfer this knowledge and (newly) developed skills to their mainstream studies.

However, TBLT still has some challenges that have to be faced. Language instructors might not be familiar with this approach and might need further training. Moreover, it is usually those same people who have to design the tasks or adapt the existing teaching material to TBLT, which requires not only specialised knowledge but is also time consuming. Furthermore, instructors have to find the balance between focus on meaning and focus on form, which has also to be achieved when grading students performing a task.

Surely further research and case studies on applying TBLT in an EAP context would shed more light and give more insight on this issue.

References

Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2009). TBLT in Asia: Constraints and Opportunities. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching(19), pp. 1-17.

Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2008). EAP Essentials: A teacherʼs guide to principles and practice. Reading: Garnet Publishing Ltd.

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baik, C., & Greig, J. (2009). Improving the academic outcomes of undergraduate ESL students: the case for discipline-based academic skills programs. Higher Education, Research and Development, 28(4), pp. 401 - 416.

Beglar, D., & Hunt, A. (2002). Implementing task-based language teaching. In J. Richards, & W. Renandya , Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 96-106). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Benesch, S. (1996). Needs Analysis and Curriculum Development in EAP: An Example of a Critical Approach. TESOL Quarterly, Winter(4), pp. 723-738.

Breen, M. P. (2001). Syllabus Design. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan, The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 151-159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chou, M.-H. (2017). A Task-based Language Teaching Approach to Developing Metacognitive Strategies for Listening Comprehension. The International Journal of Listening, 31(1), pp. 51-70.

Counsell, J. (2011). How effectively and consistently do international postgraduate students apply the writing strategies they have been taught in a generic skills-based course to their subsequent discipline-based studies? Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 5(1), pp. 1-17.

Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), pp. 213-238.

Dearden, J. (2015). English as a medium of instruction - a growing global phenomenon. British Council.

Dooey, P. (2010). Students' perspectives of an EAP pathway program. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), pp. 184-197.

Douglas , S., & Kim, M. (2014). Task-Based Language Teaching and English for Academic Purposes: An Investigation into Instructor Perceptions and Practice in the Canadian Context. TESL CANADA JOURNAL, 31(8), pp. 1-22.

Dupuy, B., & Krashen, S. (1992). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in French as a foreign language. Applied Language Learning(4), pp. 55-63.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), pp. 221-246.

Ellis, R. (2013). Task-based language teaching: Responding to the critics. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 8, pp. 1-27.

Estaire, S., & Zanon, J. (1994). Planning classwork: a task based approach. London: Heinemann.

Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001). Issues in EAP: A preliminary perspective. In J. Flowerdew, & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 8-24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fulcher, G. (1999). Assessment in English for Academic Purposes: Putting Content Validity in its Place. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), pp. 221-236.

Gillett, A. (2011). Using English for Academic Purposes - UEfAP. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from What is EAP?: http://www.uefap.com/bgnd/eap.htm

Goodman, Y., Watson, D., & Burke, C. (1996). Reading strategies: Focus on comprehension (2 ed.). Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.

Grunert O’Brien, J., Millis, B. J., & Cohen, M. W. (2008). The Course Syllabus, A Learning-Centered Approach (2 ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (2001). English for Academic Purposes. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 126-130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harris, M., & McCann, P. (1994). Assessment. Macmillan .

Hawkes, M. L. (2012). Using Task Repetition to Direct Learner Attention and Focus on Form. ELT Journal, 66(3), pp. 327-336.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lee, J. (2000). Tasks and Communicating in Language Classrooms. Boston, USA: McGraw-Hill.

Long , M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam, & M. Pienemann, Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch, Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992, Spring). Three Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), pp. 27-56.

Nation, P. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary. In E. Hinkel, Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 581-595). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for a Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

Robinson, P., & Ross, S. (1996). The Development of Task-Based Assessment in English for Academic Purposes Programs. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), pp. 455-473.

Rooney, K. (2000, December). Redesigning Non-Task-Based Materials to Fit a Task-Based Framework. Retrieved January 7, 2017, from The Internet TESL Journal: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Rooney-Task-Based.html

Samunda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sheen, R. (1994). A critical analysis of the advocacy of the task-based syllabus. TESOL Quarterly(28), pp. 127-157.

Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional contexts. Language teaching research(8), pp. 263-300.

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

Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Swan, M. (2005). Legislating by hypothesis: the case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics(26), pp. 376-401.

Van den Branden, K. (2006). Introduction: Task-based language teaching in a nutshell. In K. Van den Branden, Task-Based Language Teaching: from Theory to Practice (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

White, R. (1988). The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation, and Management. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxfors University Press.

Willis, D., & Willis, J. (1996). Consciousness-raising activities. Retrieved November 15, 2017, from http://www.willis-elt.co.uk/documents/7c-r.doc

Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-based Learning. London: Longman.

Willis, J., & Willis, D. (2007). Doing Task-Based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Please check the Teaching Advanced Students course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Assessment for the 21st Century English Classroom course at Pilgrims website.