Task-Based vs Task-Supported Language Teaching
This distinction, central to the The Bryfonski-McKay [[TBLT Meta-Analysis in [[SLA|Meta-Analysis in [[SLA|Meta-Analysis]]]] Controversy|Bryfonski-McKay controversy]], separates two fundamentally different ways of using tasks in language teaching.
Task-Based (Strong TBLT)
Tasks are the unit of syllabus design. The curriculum is organised around target tasks derived from a needs analysis, not around linguistic items. Explicit grammar instruction happens reactively (focus on form) — when communication breaks down or when learners are developmentally ready.
Key features:
- No pre-selected linguistic syllabus
- analytic syllabus — content determined by communicative needs
- Tasks drive the lesson; language work is incidental
- Associated with Michael Long, N. S. Prabhu
Task-Supported (Weak TBLT / TSLT)
Tasks are added to a traditional syllabus. The curriculum still lists grammar points, vocabulary, and functions to be taught explicitly. Tasks serve as practice activities — opportunities to use the pre-taught language. The syllabus remains synthetic.
Key features:
- Pre-selected linguistic syllabus retained (synthetic syllabus)
- Tasks supplement explicit instruction, not replace it
- Language work drives the lesson; tasks provide practice
- Compatible with PPP, coursebook-driven teaching, TATE
Why the Distinction Matters for Research
If a Meta-Analysis in [[SLA|Meta-Analysis in [[SLA|meta-analysis]]]] includes both types under the label "TBLT," it conflates two approaches with different theoretical commitments and different instructional realities:
- A study where students complete communicative tasks as the core of instruction (task-based) is measuring something fundamentally different from a study where students do grammar exercises and then practise with a "task" at the end (task-supported)
- Pooling their effect sizes produces a number that represents neither approach accurately
This was a core problem in Bryfonski & McKay (2019): most included studies were task-supported, but the meta-analysis was framed as evidence for "TBLT" — allowing proponents of either approach to claim the findings support their position.
Anderson's Position
Jason Anderson advocates for task-supported approaches. He uses the The Bryfonski-McKay [[TBLT Meta-Analysis in [[SLA|Meta-Analysis in [[SLA|Meta-Analysis]]]] Controversy|Bryfonski-McKay findings]] selectively: dismissing them as evidence for strong TBLT while claiming the same data supports task-supported teaching. The conflation of task-based and task-supported studies in the original meta-analysis is precisely what makes this double move possible.
Boers et al.'s Recommendation
The 2021 paper and the 2023 follow-up both argue that future meta-analyses must clearly distinguish task-based from task-supported implementations. Without this, the literature will continue to produce aggregate findings that both sides of the debate can cherry-pick.