TBLT has lots of research and little practice; Dogme the reverse. Task outcomes are unpredictable (Breen), so giving learners control of the agenda may be a more reliable lever than designing tasks.
Claim
Teaching Unplugged (p. 17): “where a Dogme approach parts company with a task-based approach is not in the philosophy but in the methodology.” TBLT is “superficially simple, [but] complex” (R. Ellis 2003, p. 322) because tasks need a dual focus: communicative and linguistic. Dogme sidesteps this by assuming purposeful use “uncovers” the syllabus.
Mechanism / theory
- R. Ellis (2003) Task-based Language Learning and Teaching.
- Breen (1987): task-as-workplan vs task-in-process. Intended outcomes ≠ actual outcomes.
- “You learn a language by using it.”
Classroom moves
- If running TBLT: give every task an explicit linguistic target as well as a communicative one.
- Base tasks on texts; negotiate tasks and outcomes with learners; keep syllabus aims in view.
- Novice teachers can reduce the difficulty with language awareness, noticing and reflection.
Limits & critique
- Purely emergent syllabuses can upset stakeholders (university context; same for parents and exam targets).
- Emergent language varies day to day (Seburn). Thornbury: even planned syllabuses get reinterpreted by learners.
- Learner voices are missing from Dogme accounts (Ding).
Apply in my context (Claude)
- DELTA M1/M3: know Ellis’s task criteria (primary focus on meaning; gap; reliance on learners’ own resources; clearly defined outcome) and Willis’s TBL framework (pre-task / task cycle / language focus). Thornbury’s post assumes them.
- In exam-driven Tashkent contexts, use task-supported LT (Ellis): tasks inside a structural syllabus. It answers the stakeholder problem honestly.