過去數十年來，「任務式教學法」在國內外儼然已成為語言課程發展的重要一環。簡單說來，「任務」是一種「以目標為導向」、「以學習者為中心」的課堂活動，學生藉日常生活語言來達成特定的結果(Skehan, 1996)。Willis (1996)也提出，在任務式互動的過程當中，最重要且最有活力的要素便是學習者的創造力。藉著模擬真實情境的教材，「任務式教學法」的中心思想在於促使學生以目標語溝通，分工合作地完成「任務」(Nunan, 1989)。然而，雖然源自同一理論基礎，至今「任務」的定義仍舊相當分歧。更者，學者們並不確定是否「任務式教學法」只是空有理想。也就是說，教師和學生是否能如預期般地成為「引導者」、「主動積極的參與者」？或是實際上，有意義的互動根本就很難存在，更別說是任何顯著的語言發展。
目前已有相當多的研究討論「任務式教學法」的崛起，以及其對第二外語學習和課程發展的影響，但令人驚訝的是，對於這些「任務」在實際教室實施的情形之探討卻是寥寥無幾。為了進一步確認這項創新的英語教學法的成效，對於「任務」所引發的互動，我們有必要在真實的課堂情境，做一個全方面的解析和評估。在台灣，「任務式教學法」對於多數英語教師來說仍是一相當陌生的名詞，他們不清楚此教學法的概念以及效用。因此在本研究的第一部份，我們要討論「任務」和一般所認知的「練習」究竟有何差異？同時，對於「任務式教學法」之優點與限制，我們也會有完整的回顧。
此篇研究主要在探討：(1)「任務式教學法」互動之特色；(2)學生在過程中，溝通能力的養成；以及(3)學生對於課堂團體活動的看法。四十位私立中學的二年級學生參與這項研究。在四個月當中，他們從事了八次「任務式」的口說訓練活動，教材來自於原本所用教科書之內容的延伸。每次任務皆採分組討論進行，在四到五人的小組當中，安置一台錄音機以觀察所有溝通的過程。我們也使用前、後測問卷，來觀察實驗前後學生對於溝通式教學法所引發的團體討論，是否有態度上的改變。
在分析錄音的資料後，研究結果顯示，在實驗的後期，學生在一次話輪當中所使用的字數、和溝通時互動策略的使用皆有顯著的增加。比較前、後測問卷的結果發現，學生察覺到「任務式教學」互動和一般的課堂討論有很大的差別，這些外加的小組活動使得他們更有興趣和同儕用英語來進行討論，進一步幫助他們培養更良好的溝通技巧。從教學的觀點來看，這些補充教材的確使得外語學習者能夠更自主、有效率地理解和使用目標語。

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), which is in vogue both abroad and currently also in Taiwan, has emerged as a significant component in the development of the language curriculum for the past few decades. To put it simply, the task, which is goal-oriented and learner-centered, is a classroom activity in which students use real-life language to achieve a specific outcome. With the introduction of authentic materials, the focus of TBLT is on learners completing the task successfully by means of communicating through interaction and cooperation in the target language. However, to date the definitions of the concepts of “what is a task” existing in the literature, though based on the same theoretical background, are quite diverse. Researchers are not sure about whether TBLT is only a castle in the air. That is, does a task merely assume ideally that the teacher and students play each role fairly, the teacher-the discussion initiator, the students-the eager, active talkers? Or is the reality that there is no meaningful interaction involved, and therefore no significant language development?
Although there has been numerous research discussing the rise of the task as well as its influence on second language acquisition and curriculum design, the surprising thing about these studies is that discussions of how tasks are carried out in actual school settings are few and far between. To confirm that the task-based innovations and benefits are echoed in practice, there has even been a demand to administer a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the interaction produced by tasks in the classroom. In Taiwan, the term “Task-based Language Teaching” is fairly new to most teachers of English, and even when they have heard of it, they may not be aware of its concepts and usefulness. Therefore, in the first part of this study, the question of what tasks are and the difference between exercises and tasks will be explored, and the theory and research that portrays the advantages and limits for task-based approach will be reviewed.
Following this, the current paper attempts to investigate: (1) the characteristics of task-based interaction, (2) students’ communicative competence throughout the process, and (3) students’ opinions about classroom collaborative activities. Forty students who were enrolled in their second year at a private senior high school in Taipei participated in this study. During the school term (from November, 2005 to February, 2006), the subjects were required to engage in task-based (decision-making) activities, based on some aspect of the lessons, in addition to the original reading activities in the assigned textbooks. Student group discussion activities in these tasks were audio-taped for later transcription, each of the nine groups using one audiotape recorder. Questionnaires were administered before and after the implementation of the task to examine whether students’ attitudes towards this communicative method changed.
The analysis of this recorded data revealed that there were longer turns in spontaneous speech and increasing use of interactional adjustments toward the end of the treatment period. The findings from the pretest and posttest questionnaires indicated that subjects perceived that task-based interaction had features different from other classroom discussion activities, and these supplemental group speaking activities motivated them to take part in in-class discussions and helped them cultivate better communication skills in negotiating meaning. From a pedagogical viewpoint, this study showed that using supplementary cooperative materials involved learners in comprehending and producing the target language more willingly and more effectively.

Allwright, R. (1981). What do we want teaching materials for? English Language Teaching Journal, 36(1), 5-18.

Anderson, A. and T. Lynch. (1988). Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Breen, M. and C. Candlin. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Language Learning, 1(2), 89-112.

Brumfit, C. J. (1979). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bygate, M. (1999). Task as context for the framing, reframing and unframing of language. System, 27(1), 33-48.

Candlin, C. (2001). Afterword: Taking the curriculum to tasks. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Longman, Harlow.

Carless, D. R. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools. System, 31, 485-500.

Courtney, M. (1998). Tasks, talk and teaching: Task-based language learning and the negotiation of meaning in oral interaction. Retrieved June 28, 2005, from http://repository.ust.hk/dspace/bitstream/1783.1/1054/1/MikeVIVAFINAa.pdf

Crookes, G. and S. Gass. (1993). Tasks in a pedagogical context. Clevedon, North Somerset: Multilingual Matters.

DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C. & J. Williams. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Eldridge, J. (1996). Code-switching in a Turkish secondary school. ELT Journal, 50(4): 303-311.

Ellis, R. (1984). The role of instruction in second language acquisition. In D. N. Singleton & D. G. Little (Eds.), Language learning in formal and informal contexts. Dublin: IRAAL.

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193-220.

Estaire, S. and J. Zanon. (1994). Planning classwork: A task-base approach. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.

Foster, P. (1996). Doing the task better: how planning time influences students’ performance. In J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford :Macmillan Heinemann.

Gass, S. & E. Varonis. (1985). Task variation and NNS/NNS negotiation of meaning. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 146-161. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Hatch, E. (1987). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Eds.) Second language acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley Mass.: Newbury House.

He, T. H. & Lin, J. J. (2004). Implementing task-based approaches into elementary
school EFL classes in Taiwan. The proceedings of the 13th International Symposium
on English Teaching. (pp. 529-537). Taipei: Crane.

Krashen. S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language learning tasks: Teacher intervention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45(2), 98-107.

Lee, J. F. (1995). Using task-based activities to restructure class discussions. Foreign Language Annals, 28(3), 437-46.
Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429-48.

Littlejohn, A. P. (1982). Teacherless language learning groups: An experiment. Unpublished MS, Department of Linguistics, Lancaster University.

Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-82.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.

Long, M. H. & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-28.

Loschky, L. & R. Bley-Vroman. (1990). Creating structure-based communication tasks for second language development. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 9: 161-209.

Machado de Almeida Mattos, A. (2000). A Vygotskian approach to evaluation in foreign language learning contexts. ELT Journal, 54(4), 335-45.

Martyn, E. (2001). The effect of task type on negotiation of meaning in small group work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hong Kong.

Moor, P. (1996). A task-based approach to oral work. IH World Internet Journal, No. 2. Retrieved July 22, 2005, from http://www.ihworld.com/ihjournal/a_task_based_approach_to_oral_work_by_pete_moor.doc

Moor, P. (2000). Implementing a task-based approach without task-based materials. IH World Internet Journal. Retrieved July 30, 2005, from http://www.ihworld.com/ihjournal/implementing_a_task_based_%20approach_pete%20_moor.doc

Murphy, J. (2003). Task-based learning: the interaction between tasks and learners. ELT Journal, 57(4), 352-60.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 279-295.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pica, T. & C. Doughty. (1985). The role of groupwork in classroom SLA. Studies in
SLA, 7(1), 233-48.

Pica, T. & C. Doughty. (1986). Information gap tasks, an aid to second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305-25.

Pica, T., R. Kanagy, and J. Falodun. (1993). Choosing and using communicative tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crooks and S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Pica, T., L. Holliday, N. Lewis, D. Berducci and J. Newman. (1991). Second language learning through interaction: What role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 152-87.

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

Richards, J. & T. Rodgers. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rulon, K. A. & J. McCreary.(1986). Negotiation of content: Teacher-fronted and small-group interaction. In Day, pp. 182-99.

Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: the role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks. London: Longman.

Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. ELT Journal, 53(3), 149-156.

Shehadeh, A. (2005). Modified output during task-based pair interaction and group interaction. Retrieved January 18, 2006, from http://www.tblt.org/download/shehadeh.ppt

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistic, 17(1), 38-62.

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

Skehan, P. & P. Foster. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-324.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3): 371-91.

Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the Language Curriculum. London: Longman.

Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Context, community, and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 705-16.

Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for task-based learning. Longman, Harlow.

Yule, G., M. Powers & D. Macdonald. (1992). The variables effects of some task-based learning procedures on L2 communicative effectiveness. Language Learning, 42, 249-277.