Task-based teaching

The post-task phase

The post-task phase affords a number of options. These have three major pedagogic goals;（1）to provide an opportunity for a repeat performance of the task,（2）to encourage reflection on how the task was performed, and（3）to encourage attention to form, in particular to those forms that proved problematic to the learners when they performed the task.

2.2Reflecting on the task
Research has shown there is a case for asking students to repeat a task（e. g. Bygate 2001; Lynch and Maclean 2000）. When learners repeat a task their production improves in a number of ways
（e. g. complexity increases, propositions are expressed more clearly, and they become more fluent）. A repeat performance can be carried out under the same conditions as the first performance（i. e. in small groups or individually）or the conditions can be changed. One interesting possibility examined by Skehan and Foster（1997）is that of requiring students to
carry out the second performance publicly. As their study examined the ^‘threat^’ of such a requirement on learners^’ initial performance of the task, it technically constituted a during-task option. However, if students are not told to repeat the task publicly until after they have completed the first performance, it becomes a post-task option. There has been no research comparing the learner production that results from a second performance carried out under ^‘private^’ conditions, as in the initial performance, and publicly. Clearly, performing a task in front of the class increases the communicative stress（Candlin 1987）placed on the learner and thus can be predicted to lead to a reduction in fluency and complexity. However, it is not without value if students need experience in using English in front of an audience, as, for example, might be the case with foreign academics training to give oral presentations in the L2. Public performance is likely to encourage the use of a more formal style and thus may push learners to use the grammaticalised resources associated with this style（Givon 1979）.
Willis（1996）recommends asking students to present a report on how they did the task and on
what they decided or discovered. She considers this ^‘the natural conclusion of the task cycle（^’ p.
58）. The teacher^’s role is to act as a chairperson and to encourage the students. The reports can be oral or written. Willis^’ examples make it clear that the reports should primarily focus on summarising the outcome of the task. However, it would also be possible to ask students to reflect on and evaluate their own performance of the task. For example, they could be invited to comment on which aspect of language use（fluency, complexity or accuracy）they gave primacy to and why, how they dealt with communication problems, both their own and others, and even what language they learned from the task（i. e. to report what Allwright（1984）has called ^‘uptake^’
［1］）. Students could also be invited to consider how they might improve their performance of
the task. Encouraging students to reflect on their performance in these ways may contribute to the development of the metacognitive strategies of planning, monitoring and evaluating, which are seen as important for language learning（O^’Malley and Chamot 1990）.
There is also a case for asking students to evaluate the task itself. Such information will help
the teacher to decide whether to use similar tasks in the future or look for a different type. I have suggested that student-based evaluations of tasks can be carried out quickly and effectively using simple questionnaires（see Ellis 1997b for an example）.