Lancaster University

Department of Linguistics and Modern Languages

MA in Applied Linguistics for ELT
Communicative and Pedagogical Grammar –
November 1998

Luiz Otavio de Barros Souza

luizotaviobarros@gmail.com

Queries from a Task-Based Teacher Trainer1

Oh no! Not the Present Perfect again! We do it four times already!

Most language teachers at some point in their careers will have had the
distressingly familiar experience of having exposed students to a new
language structure and witnessed near-perfect performance in formal
practice (in its broadest sense), just to discover that students were
subsequently unable to proceduralise the same language in other real
situations. This lack of transfer from the language lesson to natural
language use contexts has always been a major source of professional
concern for me, particularly so in the late 80s, when I was relatively
inexperienced in ELT. Still blissfully unaware of the role played by other
key elements such as attitude, aptitude and cognitive style, I was soon
drawn to the conclusion that the methodology was obviously flawed in
some way.

Needless to say, the flawed methodology was the so-called PPP

paradigm2, a framework for grammar instruction organised around
three linear phases: presentation of a new structure, followed by
manipulative practice and then freer production. My initial assumption
that there was something wrong with the 3Ps approach received ample
corroborative evidence from an impressive body of research (to be

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 1

described later) that not only discredited the theoretical rationale
underlying PPP, but also seemed to advocate an alternative model of
instruction: Task-Based Learning.

Almost fifteen years have gone by since the first experiments with Task-
Based Instruction (Willis J. 1996a: 52) and it has gained increased
respect amongst several scholars (Breen 1989; Crookes 1986; Duff
1986; Long 1985; Nunan 1989 cited by Kumaravadivelu 1993: 69).
Similarly, the theory underlying a PPP model seems to enjoy as little
credibility in academic circles as it did then. And yet, the PPP approach
is still arguably the most widely used framework for the teaching of
grammar. In a recent interview, Ellis made this point quite forcefully:

It seems to me that there’s plenty of evidence that we can do

PPP until we’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t necessarily
result in what PPP was designed to do. And yet there’s still,
within language teaching, a commitment to trying to control
not only the input but actually what is learned. (Ellis 1993,
cited by Willis D. 1996: 46)

This “resistance to change” has often been attributed to a number of

factors. While some would claim that PPP perpetuates the teacher’s
comfort zone by sustaining classroom power relations and providing
accountability (Skehan 1996: 18), others tend to lay the blame on
teacher trainers and textbook writers (Lewis 1993: 188-192). However,
it is my belief that valid as these arguments are, they do not provide us
with the whole picture. Luiz Otavio Barros.

From 1995 to 1998 I accompanied the evolution of a small-scale

“paradigm shift” project in a large EFL institute in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
The goal of the project was to implement Task-Based Learning
(hereafter referred to as TBL) at intermediate level. At least 200 teachers
(quite heterogeneous in terms of experience and professional profile)

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 2

were directly involved. Having spent at least 50 hours observing lessons
and doing one-to-one tutorials, I was provided with convincing evidence
that grappling with the tenets and technicalities of TBL was an
extremely difficult and often frustrating experience for most of those
teachers. Though at first glance one might put it down to a clash of
beliefs about how languages should be learned, things are not nearly as
simple. Arguably, the “clash of beliefs” hypothesis might have been the
case in the earlier days of TBL, when formal instruction was usually
dismissed out hand (as we will soon see). However, in the
aforementioned project the exact opposite was true. All training efforts
were directed at combining the tenets of TBL with a focus on grammar.
Nonetheless, what eventually became apparent was that most of the
ensuing principles and classroom techniques were generally perceived
to be of limited pragmatic utility, ambivalent and difficult to
comprehend. Perhaps this perception was justified:

Little theoretical work has been done in tying grammar pedagogy

and task-based methodology together. (Loschky and Bley-
Vroman 1993:123)

In this paper I will survey the work that has been done in that area and
tentatively imply that the problems I described above are to some extent
related to the current state of affairs in TBL pedagogy. I will begin by
examining the grounds on which a PPP methodology was discredited in
the mid 1980s (and TBL advocated). Then I move on to describe TBL in
the 90s and the research findings that lent support to a comeback of
grammar instruction. What follows is an overview of recent attempts to
integrate grammar and TBL. Luiz Otavio Barros.

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 3

PART 1

A Under attack

When one examines the literature, one is overwhelmed by the amount

of criticism the PPP model has come in for in recent years (Long1990;
Prabhu1987; Skehan1998; Willis J. 1996b). It is commonly argued, for
example, that PPP necessarily restricts exposure to language and
therefore reduces the scope for comprehensible input. As far as output
is concerned, Long (1990: 32) argues that PPP sets a premium on the
“immediate production of native-like target constructions”. This
connects interestingly with Willis D’.s (1996: 44) claim that it is
“conformity” rather than accuracy that PPP fosters. Even otherwise
redeeming features such as clear sequencing of activities or clarity of
lesson goals (Skehan 1998:94) are attacked on the grounds that
structure cannot be acquired separately, in linear, additive fashion. In
other words, learning is perhaps best seen as “an organic process”
(Nunan 1989: 149) which is hidden and not amenable to teacher
control (Skehan 1996: 18).

The logical and empirical grounds for the above claims are based on a
number of studies, going back to Corder (1967, cited by Willis J. 1996a:
46) and continuing to this day3. But for present purposes I will very
briefly describe Krashen’s Monitor Model and the Morpheme Studies
carried out in the early 70s (Krashen 1982; Dulay and Burt 1973,
described in Larson-Freeman and Long 1991 and elsewhere).

Krashen’s model differentiated between learning and acquisition and

argued that spontaneous speech was a result of the latter rather than
the former. In articulating a position which claimed that
comprehensible input coupled with i+1 and a low affective filter would

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 4

suffice for successful acquisition, he sent a clear message to language
teachers world-wide: formal instruction does not work. His theory was
largely based on the results of the so-called morpheme studies done in
the early seventies, in which Dulay and Burt found that there was a
common acquisition order for a subset of English morphemes that L2
learners pass through largely irrespective of L1 or formal instruction.
The stage was set for the first TBL revolution, as it were.

B Task Based Learning – early and mid 1980s.

Early attempts to introduce TBL were motivated not only by the

theories associated with the aforementioned scholars, but also by
Prabhu’s Communicational Language Learning Project (Willis J. 1996a:
52), regarded by many as “an exceptionally important project” (Beretta
1990: 321). Prabhu’s Bangalore Project, which ran from 1979 to 1984
in India, claimed that it was possible to acquire grammatical
competence without any sort of form-focused instruction (Ellis 1997:
47), but rather through “the creation of conditions in which learners
engage in an effort to cope with communication” (Prabhu 1987: 1).
Although Prabhu acknowledged the insufficiency of comprehensible
input alone (Long and Crookes 1992: 35), his claims were similar to
Krashen’s in many respects: he recognised that the acquisition of a
linguistic structure was not an instant procedure and that
interlanguage would develop when attention was focused on meaning
and task-completion. Luiz Otavio Barros.

Recent studies seem to lend only partial support to Prabhu’s success

(Beretta and Davies 1985, cited by Ellis 1997: 53). The general
consensus is that students’ performance in grammatical tests was
largely unsatisfactory and that there were visible signs of fossilisation
amongst learners.

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 5

Because the project was so influential, the mixed results it yielded
clearly raised a note of caution to proponents of more orthodox modes
of task-based learning. That was, in turn, corroborated by an increasing
body of evidence which maintained that by and large form-focused
instruction does seem to work. This is what the next section is
concerned with.

C A Sigh of Relief

In recent years there have been a plethora of studies attempting to

investigate the effects of form-focused instruction on second language
acquisition4. These studies seem to differ in relation to the
wholeheartedness with which they advocate the need for grammar, but
the general conclusion is that formal instruction does seem to work,
particularly in terms of rate of learning and ultimate level of
achievement. Language teachers world-wide can sigh in relief: years
and years of grammar instruction have perhaps been more than mere
waste of time after all:

(F)ormal SL instruction does not seem to alter acquisition

sequences… On the other hand, instruction has what are
possibly positive effects on SLA processes, clearly positive
effects on the rate at which learners acquire the language, and
probably beneficial effects on their ultimate level of attainment.
(Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991: 321)

Clearly, any model of Task Based Learning viable for the 90s should
take those findings into account. In that respect, Willis J.’s (1996b: 11)
diagram is an excellent example of what instruction should consist of if
it is to be compatible with what has recently been discovered about how
people acquire second languages5:

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 6

 CONDITIONS FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING
ESSENTIAL DESIRABLE
EXPOSU MOTIVATIO USE INSTRUCTION
RE N
Adapted from
Willis J. (1996b:11)

The way in which modern language pedagogy has been trying to deal
with the “essential / desirable equation” is the prime concern of part 2.
By surveying the literature and drawing on my own professional
experience, I will tacitly imply that there might be a link between the
current state of affairs in TBL pedagogy and the negative teacher
perception I referred to earlier in this paper.

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 7

PART 2

D Fuzzy Edges

Since it is commonplace practice in the literature to regard task as the

basic point of organisation in TBL (Long and Crookes1992: 41; Estaire
and Zanon1994: 13), it is perhaps worth spending a few moments
examining current definitions of the word task as it is used in language
teaching.

Different writers tend to assign somewhat indiscriminate meanings to

the word task, many of which seem to share a lack of pedagogic
usefulness:

Any structured language learning endeavour which has a

particular objective, appropriate content, a specified working
procedure and a range of outcome for those who undertake the
task. (Breen 1987: 23, cited by Long and Crookes 1992: 110)

A piece of work or an activity, usually with a specified

objective, undertaken as a part of an educational course or at
work. (Crookes 1986: 44, cited by Long and Crookes1992: 111)

An activity which require[s] learners to arrive at an outcome

from given information through some process of thought and
which allow[s] teachers to control and regulate that process.
(Prabuh 1987: 24)

Experience has shown me that when faced with such vague definitions,
teachers often have considerable difficulty in deciding whether any
given activity merits the label task. Fortunately, however, there are
more useful descriptions such as the one proposed by Skehan:

A task is an activity in which: meaning is primary, there’s

some sort of communication problem to solve, there’s some
sort of comparable real world activities, task completion has
some priority and the assessment of the task is in terms of
© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 8
 outcome. (1998: 95)

This and other definitions geared more specifically towards the

instructional roles of tasks (such as Nunan 1989: 10) emphasise the
pivotal role of meaning, which is usefully illustrated in the diagram on
page 6. However, that diagram also shows that a focus on form should
run parallel to meaning and use. In other words, it seems important to
attempt to “focus on form while learners are concerned with message
conveyance” (Ellis 1997: 82). Skehan portrays this somewhat paradoxical
issue rather eloquently:

Avoidance of specific structures and engagement in worthwhile

meanings are matters of degree rather than being categorical.
(1998: 96)

(Interestingly, teachers often responded to such a statement with empty

gazes and puzzled faces.)

At any rate, in order to address the aforementioned “meaning-form

equation”, TBL pedagogy has, amongst other things, created a plethora
of labels to be attached to different categories of tasks. The next section
describes these labels.

E Fuzzy Edges – part 2

When examining the literature, one finds several sub categories of tasks,
classified according to the sorts of learning goals each one tries to
achieve. Nunan (1989: 40), for example, differentiates between pedagogic
and real-world tasks. He claims the former “are unlikely to be performed
outside the classroom but stimulate internal processes of acquisition”,
while the latter attempt to “approximate in class the sorts of behaviours
required in the real world.” Long (1990: 31-50) proposes a similar
division: pedagogic tasks and target (or real-world) tasks. He points out

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 9

that pedagogic tasks “provide a vehicle for the presentation of
appropriate target language samples to learners.” On a similar tack,
Estaire and Zanon (1994:15) coined the term enabling tasks to refer to
those activities which provide students “with the necessary linguistic
tools to carry out a communication task” which in turn often leads to a
final task. Luiz Otavio Barros.

It should come as no surprise that teachers are often misled into

drawing somewhat misconceived -though not always easily refutable-
parallels with PPP: “Oh I see. So the enabling tasks would be the practice
phase and the final task the production.” Or “So pedagogic tasks are a
sort of presentation.” To say nothing of RSA/UCLES Certificate lesson
plans in which purely form-focused activities (in the “fill in the gaps with
ing or infinitive” moulds) tend to be consistently mislabelled as “enabling
tasks.” I usually attempt to clarify concepts by arguing for example, that
for an activity to qualify as an enabling (or pedagogic) task, it must be a
task in the first place. That has seldom proved helpful, however, since as
I have argued, it is often difficult to draw a line between “task” and “non-
task”.

Labels and jargon notwithstanding, the key issue which advocates of TBL
and most importantly – classroom teachers – have to contend with is the
degree to which production tasks should be related to specific language
structures. There seem to be two opposing views. While some would
claim that tasks should be designed and carried out without any sort of
linguistic agenda, (Willis J. 1996b and elsewhere), others seem to be in
favour of task design that in one way or another attempts to “trap” target
language structures (Ellis 1997; Loschky and Bley-Vroman 1993). I will
now examine each model in turn.

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 10

 F The Willis’ Way

Willis J.’s (1996b) basic assumption seems to be that transacting

communicative tasks will drive forward language acquisition. She takes a
firm stand in that respect and claims that while doing tasks learners
should be free to use “whatever language forms they want” (1996b: 44),
which appears to be consistent with the basic tenets of TBL (see page 9)
and ultimately with Willis D.’s views on “conformity”. To substantiate her
claim, she draws on an experiment (Willis and Willis 1988, cited by
Skehan 1998: 123) in which a task designed to elicit sentences like “If I
were you, I’d…” was given to a group of native speakers. She found that
the target structure was seldom used.

It will be recalled from the chart on page 6 that Willis J. does not dismiss
the importance of form-focused instruction. She recognises the potential
dangers of gaining fluency at the expense of accuracy (1996a: 55) -
which seemed to be, incidentally, a major flaw of the Bangalore Project.
Based on this notion and on Labov’s idea that accuracy and complexity
of language depend on whether discourse is private or public / planned
or spontaneous (1972 cited by Willis J. 1996a: 55), she created the
following framework for task- based instruction:

Exposure  PRE-TASK
Introduction to topic
and task
TASK CYCLE
Use and exposure  Task
Focus on form  Planning Feedback
Use and exposure  Report  Feedback

Exposure and focus  LANGUAGE FOCUS  Feedback
on form Analysis and Practice

(Adapted from Willis J 1996b:38 )

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 11

Interestingly, Willis J. chooses not use the labels such as “target task” or
“enabling task” (discussed in section E), which arguably makes it
difficult for teachers to relate her framework to current terminology. At
any rate, for the purpose of this paper I am going to focus on how each
phase claims to promote accuracy and what sorts of practical problems
might arise.

The planning phase seems to suggest that accuracy will develop as

students plan what they are going to say during the report phase, with
the teacher “advising students on language, suggesting phrases and
helping students to polish and correct their language.” (1996a: 56)
Therefore the report phase should ideally be performed more accurately,
not only because of the planning that took place but also because of the
nature of public performance.

However, most of the teachers I have trained seemed to be somewhat

sceptical of Willis J.’s framework. There was a widespread perception
that it fails to take into account a number of context-specific variables
and wrongly assumes that: 1) Both adults and adolescents will be always
interested in the topic proposed and therefore will be willing to polish
and repolish countless times whatever it is that they said during the
task; 2) Students’ will profit linguistically from systematically listening
to their peers’ reports6 3) all classrooms across the globe have few
students, with whom the sort of close monitoring suggested by the model
can be managed. In other words, Willis J.’s (1996b: 34) claim that “the
only safe way is to listen to them planning and doing the tasks and find
out what meanings they want to convey” is certainly not applicable
across a wide range of teaching situations, especially as far as class size
is concerned.

As for the language focus phase, reassuring though it is generally

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 12
considered to be, quite a few teachers tend to find the “accuracy after
task” approach in many ways similar to familiar deep-end techniques
and therefore “something they’ve been doing for years”. Similarly, they
usually find it hard to draw a line between “PPP-like” and “TBL-
compatible” language-focused activities. For example, under which
category might one place activities such as the ones proposed by Ur
1988?

From a teacher’s perspective, I tend to agree that most of these claims do

actually hold up to a large extent. From a trainer’s standpoint, I believe
that there is also another reason for concern, namely the role of exposure
in Willis J.’s model. The framework shows that students will be exposed
to relevant language all the way through, by listening to the teacher,
peers and native speakers doing the task (on tape) (Willis J.1996b: 34) –
in other words, students are provided with plenty of input throughout.
Recent studies, however, have shown that learners generally process
input for meaning before they process it for form (Van Patten 1996,
discussed by Skehan 1998:46). It has been found that only input that is
“enhanced” (Sharwood Smith 1993 cited by Ellis 1997: 152) is likely to
be consciously “noticed” and become available for intake, effective
processing and interlanguage development. It seems to me that by
adopting a somewhat “Krashenian” view on input processing, Willis J.’s
model fails to provide students with the sort of “engineered” exposure
described above.

G Trapping Structures

Noticing, input enhancement, real-world, pedagogic, communicative,

enabling, form-focused, meaning-focused, pre, final…

TBL terminology is a delight for the Applied Linguist - and arguably a

nightmare for the average ELT practitioner. This section adds another
© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 13
five items to the jargon-laden Task-Based terminology: “focus on form”
vs. “focus on forms” (Long and Crookes 1993: 27-56); “feature-focused
tasks” vs. “focused-communication tasks” (Ellis 1997: 82) and “structure-
based communication tasks” (Loschky and Bley-Vroman 1993: 123-167).
All these task types, as we will see, revolve around one basic notion: the
extent to which tasks can “trap” grammar structures, thereby promoting
“noticing” and interlanguage development.

Focus on form refers to part-practice of isolated linguistic features and is

what Ellis refers to as “feature-focused” teaching. In the moulds of PPP,
as it were. Focus on Forms, on the other hand, is what focused-
communication tasks propose, i.e., “an attempt to direct learner’s
attention to specific grammatical properties during the course of
meaning-based activities” (Ellis 1997: 82).

Focused-communication tasks are in many ways remarkably similar to

structure-based communication tasks, as Ellis himself suggests (1997: 82).
They can fall into three distinct categories, depending on how prominent
the use of a linguistic form is made: task naturalness, task utility and
task essentialness. (Loschky and Bley-Vroman 1993: 132). The first
group describes tasks that make the use of a specific structure “natural”,
but that can be performed successfully without it. This is perhaps
closest to the type of task Willis and Willis would advocate. Halfway
through the natural-contrived continuum, we can find the second group.
Tasks in which the use of a specific language point is useful, but not
essential, especially if we consider that in task-based learning successful
completion of a given task is usually measured in non-linguistic terms.

Proponents of task-naturalness (and to some extent task-usefulness) are

faced with what I see as two major problems. First, it could be
convincingly argued that the extent to which the use of a particular form
is natural in any given task is subject to empirical verification (Loschky
© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 14
and Bley-Vroman 1993: 135). That is precisely what Willis and Willis’
experiment suggests. Moreover, Loschy and Bley-Vroman claim that
such tasks can not teach a new language structure (which most
language teachers would probably agree with), but automise a structure
that has already been acquired. But perhaps the most significant issue is
whether such atomisation will actually promote interlanguage stretch.
Recent studies have shown that when trying to cope with the pressure of
real time communication, learners tend to rely on lexicalised language
(Bygate 1988 cited by Skehan 1998: 68) amongst other achievement
strategies (see Skehan 1996: 17-30). This means that to get their
message across in real time, students may tend to resort, for example, to
the use of unanalysed formulaic language and paraphrasing, largely
bypassing syntax. In other words, learners often become “great task
achievers but poor language users”, as wittily described by some of the
teachers I have trained.

On those grounds, and according to Loschky and Bley-Vroman, the most

desirable criterion to attain is that of essentialness. In other words, tasks
in which the use of a certain structure is made essential for task
completion. Proponents of such tasks claim that they might be more
effective in promoting noticing and interlanguage change. However, this
model is not without its problems. For one thing, one could argue that it
simply is not possible to control what learners say:

The observations furthermore suggest that the possibility of

manipulating and controlling the students’ verbal behaviour in
the classroom is in fact quite limited. (Felix 1981: 109)

There is a further problem:

No doubt, such tasks are sometimes difficult to create; certainly

they will always be harder to create than tasks in which the
structure is merely natural or useful. (Loschky and Bley-
Vroman 1993: 147)

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 15

Experience has shown me that not every classroom teacher is necessarily
an expert in task design. And that is arguably what has been assumed
so far.

In an attempt to resolve the natural-essential dilemma, Ellis (1997: 150)

suggests that focused-communication tasks be geared to comprehension
rather than production. These tasks differ considerably from the ones
described so far in that learners are required to process the target
language, not to produce it.7 Ellis calls them “acquisition-compatible
grammar tasks” (Ellis 1997: 149).

A cursory look at the examples in the appendix reveals that even though
there is no risk of “conformity” in production (see page 4) or fossilisation
due to lack of “noticing”, there is still a relatively wide gap between the
sort of language processing that takes place during such tasks and the
real operating conditions under which unplanned language use is
thought to occur. Ellis’ model does not suggest ways in which this issue
can be addressed.

H Conclusion

As the reader will appreciate, this paper was an attempt to shed some
light on the following question:

“Since it is now generally agreed that the PPP approach is ill-founded,

what’s the best way to teach grammar for communication?”

I have attempted to show that there are at least three possible answers:

“ You shouldn’t have any sort of linguistic agenda. Expose learners to

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 16

the target language, and devise tasks focusing on meaning and use.
Then later on do some accuracy work based on the language students
used when trying to communicate.”

“ No, that way learners will fossilise. Try to devise communicative tasks
in such a way that students are likely to use a given structure. But be
careful! Keep students’ attention focused on meaning and use. They
shouldn’t feel they’re practising isolated bits of language.”

“ You can’t control what students say. It’s better to use tasks in which
learners are encouraged to think about the language, rather than
produce it.”

Drawing on my professional experience, I have tentatively argued that

none of these answers provides the average EFL practitioner with a
coherent and realistic set of principles and techniques for classroom
implementation. Unless that happens, it is my belief that the PPP
paradigm will continue to be the most widely used framework for
grammar teaching for many years to come.

(4287 words)

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 17

Notes

1 The idea for this title was based on Peter Medgye’s thought-provoking article “ Queries from
a Communicative Teacher”.
2 In this paper the terms framework, approach, model and paradigm will be used
interchangeably when referring to PPP.
3 See Larsen-Freeman &Long (1991:81-113) for a comprehensive survey.
4 See Ellis 1997 (56-75).
5 Though one might wish to claim that these findings are debatable. For example, see Larson-
Freeman and Long 1991: 322.
6 Refer to Ellis 1997 for a discussion on how the classroom might not be the ideal setting for
grammar acquisition.
7 Please refer to the appendix.

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 18

References

Bereta, A. 1990 “Implementation of the Bangalore Project”. In Applied Linguistics 11(4), pp. 321-
37.

Crookes,G. and Long, M.H. 1992 “Three Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design”, in Tesol
Quarterly 26(1), pp. 27-56.

Ellis, R. 1997 SLA Research and Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Estaire, S. and Zanon, J. 1994 Planning Classwork: A Task-Based Approach, London:

Heinemann.

Felix, S.W. 1981 “The Effect of Formal Instruction on Second Language Acquisition”. In
Language Learning 31(1) pp. 89-111.

Kumaravadivelu B. 1993 “The name of the Task and the Task of Naming: Methodological Aspects
of Task-based Pedagogy”. In Gass, S.M. and Crookes G.(eds). Tasks in a Pedagogical Context,
(pp 69-96), London: Multilingual Matters.

Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M.H. 1991 An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition

Research, London: Longman.

Lewis, M. 1993 The Lexical Approach, London: LTP.

Long, M. 1990 “Task, Group and Task-group Interactions”. In Anivan, S.(ed) Language Teaching
Methodology for the 90s.(pps 31-50). Singapore: Seameo.

Loschky, L. and Bley-Vroman, R. 1993 “Grammar and Task-Based Methodology”. In Crookes,

G. and Gass, S.M. (eds). Tasks and Language Learning (pp.123-67). London, MultiLingual
Matters.

Nunan, D. 1989 Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Medgyes, P. 1990 “Queries from a Communicative Teacher”. In Bolitho, R. and Ronner,R. (eds)
Currents of Change in English Language Teaching, (103-109), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Prabhu, N.S. 1987 Second Language Pedagogy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. 1996 “SLA Research and Task-Based Instruction” In Willis, J. and Willis, D.(eds)
Challenge and Change in English Language Teaching (pp. 17-30). London: Heinemann.

Skehan, P. 1997 A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Willis, D. 1996 “Accuracy, Fluency and Conformity”. In Willis, J. and Willis, D.(eds) Challenge
and Change in English Language Teaching (pp. 44-51). London: Heinemann.

Willis, J. 1996a “A Flexible Framework for Task-Based Learning”. In Willis, J. and Willis, D.(eds)
Challenge and Change in English Language Teaching (pp. 52-62). London: Heinemann.

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 19

Willis, J. 1996b A Framework for Task-Based Learning, London: Longman.

Ur, P. 1989 Grammar Practice Activities. A Practical Guide for Teachers, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 20

 Notes

1 The idea for this title was based on Peter Medgye’s thought-provoking article “ Queries from
a Communicative Teacher”.
2 In this paper the terms framework, approach, model and paradigm will be used
interchangeably when referring to PPP.
3 See Larsen-Freeman &Long (1991:81-113) for a comprehensive survey.
4 See Ellis 1997 (56-75).
5 Though one might wish to claim that these findings are debatable. For example, see Larson-
Freeman and Long 1991: 322.
6 Refer to Ellis 1997 for a discussion on how the classroom might not be the ideal setting for
grammar acquisition.
7 Please refer to the appendix.

© Luiz Otavio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 21