Abstract
Despite task-based language teaching being a widely recognized and effective approach for developing learners’ language skills, many English-as-a-foreign-language teachers face challenges in implementing task-based language teaching in their classrooms. This article describes how a reflection activity was used to enhance a teacher's self-confidence and strategies for implementing language tasks in lessons. Over a three-week period, the teacher consistently applied a task-based language teaching lesson framework in a university English-as-a-foreign-language classroom. After each lesson, the teacher uploaded video recordings to a computer program and rated their teaching self-confidence on a per-second basis. The teacher then wrote reflections to explain broad changes in ratings during the pre-task, task performance and post-task stages, and set goals for improvement. Analyses of the ratings and written reflections indicate that the reflection activity facilitated improvements in task design, task implementation and assessment practices, as well as increased self-confidence across all stages of the task-based language teaching lesson cycle.
Keywords
Introduction
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is an instructional approach that utilizes communicative tasks as pedagogical tools to develop learners’ second language (L2) skills. The efficacy of TBLT is supported by a variety of theoretical positions, converging on the premise that an L2 can be acquired incidentally through task performance (Ellis et al., 2020). There is now a substantial body of research suggesting that TBLT is effective for developing learners’ language skills (for a meta-analysis, see Bryfonski and McKay, 2019).
However, despite compelling support for TBLT, its implementation continues to present challenges for educators. Adopting TBLT requires a fundamental shift in the teacher's role towards supporting learners as they perform pedagogic tasks. Typically, this involves a three-stage lesson structure: the pre-task stage, the task performance stage and the post-task stage (Ellis et al., 2020; Willis, 1996). Successful implementation of lessons demands that teachers navigate an array of issues, such as designing suitable tasks, deciding pre-task planning procedures and providing appropriate feedback. These multifaceted challenges can be daunting for novice TBLT practitioners, potentially leading to loss of confidence and reversion to traditional teaching methods. Ellis et al. (2020: 325–326) propose that such problems can be mitigated through ‘training that helps teachers to modify the role they adopt in accordance with the varying purpose of instructional activities in a TBLT lesson’. Although there are valuable studies outlining TBLT training protocols, most focus on the needs of pre-service teachers (e.g. East, 2021) or novice teachers (e.g. Bryfonski, 2024) within instructor-led education programmes. Furthermore, although TBLT training can enhance implementation generally (East, 2021), teachers persistently struggle with their reactive practices in the classroom (Ogilvie and Dunn, 2010). To address such implementation challenges and ensure long-term adoption of TBLT, East (2023) emphasizes the importance of reflective practices based on actual teaching experiences.
With this background in mind, the present paper evaluates the effectiveness of an innovative teacher-reflection activity aimed at enhancing the implementation of TBLT in an English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) classroom. This activity adapts the idiodynamic method (MacIntyre and Ducker, 2022) in which video-recorded lessons are uploaded to a computer program and the teacher rates their self-confidence on a moment-to-moment timescale. The resulting ratings act as a catalyst for the teacher to write reflections and set goals for improvement. Our evaluation is based on one teacher's self-confidence ratings and written reflections over a three-week period.
The Teaching Context
This practice was implemented at a university in Japan, involving an EFL teacher teaching a three-days-a-week intensive course aimed at developing students’ communicative English-language skills. The class comprised 18 students, with intermediate-level proficiency (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) B1). The teacher had 15 years of teaching experience and recently graduated with a PhD in applied linguistics. Given his work experience and education, the teacher had acquired solid conceptual knowledge of TBLT. However, his practical experience with pedagogic tasks was limited to using adapted textbook activities for communicative practice of pre-taught language items.
In preparation for adopting a more ‘pure’ TBLT approach, the teacher decided to follow a TBLT framework adapted from Willis (1996) for one lesson per week. The three lessons took place in weeks 2, 3 and 4 of the course. For each lesson, the teacher designed a spoken, two-way ‘decision-making’ task. This required learners to share information on a topic before making a decision. The task topics were aligned with the course syllabus. Although the teacher's actual pedagogic decisions varied across the three lessons in response to the reflection activity, the following elements remained constant. During the pre-task stage, the teacher introduced the task instructions, answered questions about the upcoming performance and facilitated the formation of student pairs. During the task performance stage, no time limits were imposed; the teacher concluded performances once all pairs had arrived at their final task decision. The teacher took a ‘hands-off’ approach during task performances, providing assistance only when learners appeared confused or unable to continue with the task performance. During the post-task stage, the teacher provided feedback on language errors to the class and selected pairs to report on their task outcomes. A summary of the lesson stages is provided in Figure 1.
Structure of the Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) Lessons.
Reasons for the Innovation
At the institutional level, Japanese universities face increasing pressure to improve students’ English communication skills. However, attempts to implement TBLT in Japan can lead to resistance to communicative approaches from students. At the individual level, despite the teacher participant's enthusiasm, he expressed low confidence in implementing many aspects of TBLT, including encouraging reluctant students and managing time effectively. We argue that reflecting on specific stages of a TBLT lesson will provide a valuable impetus for improving pedagogical practices.
Reflective learning practice is considered valuable for promoting self-regulation strategies through self-monitoring and self-evaluation. The basis of this practice is the reflective learning cycle (Kolb, 2014), which involves completing an activity, reflecting on it and developing strategies for improvement in future experiences. One recommended method for facilitating reflection is stimulated recall, which utilizes video recordings of teaching experiences to prompt reflection during interviews (Gass and Mackey, 2017). To further deepen introspection, our innovation adapts the idiodynamic method (MacIntyre and Ducker, 2022). In brief, this method requires an individual to continually rate their experience while watching a video recording of that experience. Although predominantly used in learner psychology to assess learners’ rapidly changing affective responses during short communication tasks (e.g. Ducker, 2024), there has been limited application to teacher education.
Relevant to our practice, Gregersen and MacIntyre (2017) documented how a student teacher of English as a second language (ESL) watched a video of a teaching practice segment and rated their personal efficacy on a per-second basis using computer software. A graph showing changes in ratings was then used in an interview with the student's mentor-professor to discuss critical moments, thereby raising self-awareness of specific pedagogic decisions made. The current innovation builds on this approach by utilizing new idiodynamic software with advanced features, applying the reflection process across multiple lessons and focusing reflections to improve teaching in distinct stages of TBLT lessons.
Description of the Innovation
Our reflection activity was implemented in the following way. First, the teacher video-records a lesson from a clear vantage point that captures both the teacher's and students’ actions (see Figure 2). In our practice, each lesson lasted approximately 60 minutes. Shortly after the lesson, the video recording is uploaded to the idiodynamic software. We utilized version 3 of the software PsychometricStudy, which is freely available upon request from the author/developer (see Ducker, 2024). Next, the teacher watches the video recording and rates their experience on a per-second basis from 0 to 10. The rating variable we chose was teacher ‘self-confidence’, defined as a teacher's impression of his/her competence in a teaching situation (Maclellan, 2014). We recognize that other individual difference variables could also have been appropriate, such as teacher ‘anxiety’. However, we considered self-confidence to be more suitable, as it encourages the teacher to directly assess their TBLT-related pedagogical competencies. Ratings are recorded by tapping the ‘up’ and ‘down’ arrows in the viewer interface. In our practice, we additionally instructed the teacher to press the yellow ‘face’ button twice to time-stamp the end of the pre-task planning stage and the task performance stage (see Figure 2). After saving the ratings, the software generates a line graph, showing changes in self-confidence and time markers that delineate TBLT stages (see Figures 3–5). Finally, while referring to the graphical output, the teacher writes a reflection that explains broad changes in self-confidence ratings and suggests strategies for improvement. This process is repeated for subsequent lessons.
The Idiodynamic Video Player and Self-Confidence Rating Viewer.
Per-Second Self-Confidence Ratings for Lesson 1.
Per-Second Self-Confidence Ratings for Lesson 2.
Per-Second Self-Confidence Ratings for Lesson 3.
It is important to highlight that the idiodynamic software used in this study offers several advantages over previous versions. These include compatibility with both Mac and Windows, the ability to upload longer videos exceeding 20 minutes and the option for users to time-stamp memorable moments while viewing the video. Unlike previous versions of the software, ratings do not automatically revert to zero, which eliminates the need for users to continually press the arrow keys to sustain their ratings. This feature reduces rating fatigue and facilitates easier identification of change patterns in the output during longer videos.
To illustrate the reflection activity, the following sections summarize the teacher's reflections on his three TBLT lessons.
TBLT Lesson 1 Reflection
Figure 3 presents a graphical representation of the teacher’s self-confidence ratings throughout Lesson 1.
At the pre-task stage (0:00:01–0:19:22), the teacher noted two occurrences that led to changes in self-confidence. After introducing the task, he described late-arriving students as ‘interrupting my explanation’, causing a drop in self-confidence (7→2). His confidence decreased again (7→5) when students asked questions about the task, interpreted as ‘I wasn’t effective in my in my explanation.’ To improve the pre-task stage, the teacher wrote that he would ‘model the task performance with a stronger student’ and use more ‘concept-checking questions’ to ensure understanding.
During the task performance stage (0:19:23–0:31:44), the teacher observed that ‘students were excited to share information’ but noted that they completed the task faster than expected, leading to a decline in his self-confidence (8→3). After watching the video, he determined that students ‘reached a decision quickly and did not share many opinions’. As a strategy to improve the task performance, he proposed ‘writing key words as they performed the task related to agreeing and disagreeing’, which he thought may give students the language to engage in the decision-making portion of the task. In addition, he decided he ‘should walk around and make notes on performances’ to understand what elements were lacking in their discussion.
At the post-task phase (0:31:45–1:01:19), the teacher's self-confidence increased (3→7) as he prepared to provide feedback on students’ performances, which was described as ‘regaining control’. After a short lecture on common mistakes, his self-confidence declined (7→5) as students ‘began to lose attention’. When he asked a pair to share their task outcome, he noted that ‘they were obviously unprepared to share’, leading to another drop in self-confidence (7→5). To improve, he recommended having students report task outcomes before providing feedback and giving pairs more time to prepare their reports.
TBLT Lesson 2 Reflection
Figure 4 shows the teacher's self-confidence ratings for Lesson 2.
In the teacher's reflection, the pre-task stage (0:00:01–0:23:03) was described as ‘probably a little too long’ due to efforts to ensure students’ understanding of the task. After a drop in self-confidence (7→5) following a ‘lengthy explanation’, he modelled key parts of the task with students. This approach proved to be ‘a more effective way to establish an understanding of the task procedures’, increasing self-confidence (5→8). For improvement, the teacher suggested that he should shorten the task explanation as students ‘will have become familiar with the task procedures’, ‘pre-assign mixed proficiency pairs’ to save time, and provide a planning worksheet so students could ‘make notes on language and content’ they could use in the task.
During the task performance (0:23:04–0:33:10), the teacher's decreasing confidence (9→4) resulted from ‘high initial engagement … and then quickly students seemed to become disinterested’. From taking notes during the performance, he concluded that ‘this was because students were not that interested in World Heritage sites’. The teacher deduced he should make next lesson's task topic more personally relevant as ‘students need to care about the topic to have strong opinions … and have personal knowledge so they can share it with others’. He also speculated that ‘the same task could be designed at different levels of difficulty to cater to different students’.
At the post-task phase (0:33:11–0:53:57), an initial increase in self-confidence (4→7) was due to ‘students [being] very focused on planning how they will report to the class’. Having pairs report to the class was described as a ‘little rocky’. During this period, self-confidence fell sharply (8→3) as ‘feedback on a language issue directed at one pair seemed to be misunderstood’. However, self-confidence rose (4→9) towards the end of the lesson as students enthusiastically ‘practiced new language in a role-play situation’. The teacher suggested in the next lesson he should incorporate a self-assessment sheet to start the post-task phase and have students repeat the task to consolidate understanding of feedback.
TBLT Lesson 3 Reflection
Figure 5 shows the teacher's self-confidence ratings for Lesson 3.
As the task procedures became routinized for students, the teacher recognized that the pre-task stage in Lesson 3 (0:00:01–0:11:41) was ‘shorter and more efficient’. According to the teacher, ‘there was less room for distractions’, resulting in more consistent and higher self-confidence in preparing students for the task (8→9→7→8). Pre-assigned pairs were ‘decided before class’, which also helped optimize efficiency. For future lessons, the teacher proposed that ‘partners could be rotated’ each week to promote novelty and engagement.
In the task performance stage (0:11:42–0:33:44), the teacher let students continue their performance longer as they ‘seemed engaged’. Although self-confidence ratings did decline during this period (10→6), similar to previous lessons, ratings remained stable for a much longer duration within the performance stage. The task's success was partly attributed to its personal relevancy, which required students to ‘speak about themselves and classmates’. A short burst in self-confidence (8→9) occurred when the teacher provided feedback to a pair during the task. For future lessons, the teacher planned to ‘selectively interject more in paired interactions to facilitate and motivate students’ performance’.
Finally, at the post-task stage (0:33:45–0:57:03), the teacher described his newly designed self-assessment checklist as ‘potentially effective for learners to prepare to report to the class’. However, declines in self-confidence were due to some students incorrectly completing the self-assessment (9→5). Overall, the teacher maintained more consistent self-confidence, finding ‘opportune times to provide feedback that was tailored to students’ problems’. He suggested that future post-task stages could finish by ‘selecting a pair to repeat the task in front of the class’.
Reflection
The TBLT reflection activity led to positive changes in the teacher's self-confidence ratings across all lesson stages. From Lesson 1 to Lesson 3, mean ratings improved in the pre-task stage (6.18 to 7.26), task performance stage (6.21 to 8.01) and post-task stage (5.13 to 6.65). These improvements resulted from gradual adjustments in task implementation, task design and assessment practices.
In terms of task implementation, the teacher attempted to enhance students’ preparation through enacting strategic pre-task planning with planning worksheets (Skehan, 2018). Additionally, the reflection led to changes in participatory structure, such as arranging mixed-proficiency pairs to save time and create learning opportunities (Tsoi and Aubrey, 2024). Regarding task design, the teacher addressed engagement issues by making the task topic/content more personally relevant (Lambert et al., 2023). Moreover, the teacher adopted a mixed approach to formative assessment. Adopted strategies included providing error corrections and useful language to students during task performances, as recommended by Long (2015). However, he also delivered feedback on language issues to students after task performances, as recommended by Willis (1996). Finally, the teacher made efforts to improve in two areas often overlooked in the TBLT literature: he introduced a self-assessment checklist to facilitate learner autonomy and streamlined the pre-task stage to address time management issues. The teacher's improved awareness of the timing of lesson stages was likely heightened as a result of indicating the time transitions between stages using the idiodynamic software.
Although our overall evaluation of this reflection activity is positive, there were instances where the teacher's goals for improvement had minimal or even counterproductive effects on his self-confidence. For example, in Lesson 1, the initial aim of increasing concept-checking questions appeared to be abandoned and replaced by other preparation strategies; for Lesson 2, it remained unclear whether the teacher actually implemented his plan to create differentiated task versions; and for Lesson 3, students seemed to misinterpret the self-assessment sheet, leading to teacher frustration.
The teacher also commented directly on the activity in his reflection journals. These comments suggested a positive experience that fostered self-awareness: I really appreciate the opportunity to ‘relive’ the experience of these lessons. Such close meditation on the lessons made me confront my mistakes in the classroom. The fact that I can do this on my own without attending a workshop is really valuable.
However, the teacher expressed challenges in using the idiodynamic software that related to the demanding nature of the rating activity: ‘Thinking and pressing the buttons can be exhausting. A lot of concentration is required. This forced me to pay close attention to my teaching in a way I have never done before, but I wish it didn’t take up so much time.’
Future Pedagogical Directions
The reflection activity described could be adapted in several ways. Firstly, the teacher used his own intuition for proposing improvement strategies. However, goal-setting theorists (e.g. Locke and Latham, 2002) propose that providing external performance criteria can be more effective in satisfying developmental goals. Less experienced educators might benefit from specific guidelines related to ideal TBLT teaching competencies. Secondly, our practice did not require the teacher to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies proposed. Therefore, it was sometimes questionable whether some planned strategies were applied in lessons. Future versions of this practice could develop instructions that ensure the teacher implements and evaluates all strategies. Thirdly, the software's rating measure was set to ‘self-confidence’, intended to capture the teacher's positive view of his pedagogic capabilities. However, this rating measure could be changed to other variables. For instance, if ‘learner engagement’, a crucial concern in TBLT classrooms (Aubrey et al., 2022; Soongpankhao et al., 2023), was used as the rating measure, it would likely lead to the teacher paying close attention to students’ participation. Finally, the teacher was required to assess his self-confidence for the entire 60-minute duration of lessons. Future implementations could focus on just one stage of the task-based lesson, which would lessen potential fatigue.
