Reconciling task-based & genre-based approaches in language teaching

Students performing a task

Introduction

Much of the pedagogical discourse in English language teaching has positioned Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) & Genre-Based Instruction (GBI) as separate, distinct, & sometimes competing theoretical & instructional views. However, this dichotomy may be misleading. In practice, both approaches address different, yet complementary dimensions of language learning.

  • Tasks describe what language users do in real-world contexts;
  • Genres describe how they structure & realise language to accomplish those tasks effectively & appropriately.

Using practical classroom examples, I will illustrate how combining both approaches offers a more comprehensive model for meaningful language use in language learning contexts.

Background

The tension between TBLT & GBI has periodically emerged in methodological debates in second language education. Advocates of TBLT emphasise the role of authentic, goal-oriented interaction in language acquisition (Ellis, 2003; Willis & Willis, 2007), while proponents of GBI stress the importance of mastering the socially situated genres through which communication occurs (Martin & Rose, 2008; Derewianka & Jones, 2016).

Yet framing these approaches as mutually exclusive reflects a false dichotomy. Indeed, tasks & genres are not competing methodologies, but different facets of the same process; using language to perform meaningful, real-world activities. Rather than asking which is better, educators should ask how the two can complement each other to develop students’ communicative competence, intercultural competence, linguistic proficiency, & ultimately their confidence in using language purposefully & appropriately in the given contexts.

Conceptual framework

What is a task?

A task is any activity in which meaning is primary, a problem-solving goal is present, & students must use language to achieve an outcome (Long, 1985). For example, “plan a holiday,” “solve a classroom problem,” or “conduct an interview” are all tasks requiring negotiation of meaning & real-world relevance.

What is a genre?

A genre refers to a socially recognisable & purposeful form of communication, such as a narrative, report, procedure, or exposition. Each genre has a predictable structure (staging) & typical language features shaped by its communicative purpose & audience (Martin & Rose, 2008).

Stage

TBLT

GBI

1. Contextualisation / Orientation

Pre-task: Topic introduction, brainstorming, schema activation

Context-building: Exploring the social purpose & situation of the genre

2. Exposure to language

Students may observe a model task in action (e.g. a dialogue or video)

Deconstruction of model texts: Genre features, structure, & language patterns are analysed

3. Focus on meaning

Main task: Students carry out a communicative task using whatever language they can

Exploration of the communicative purpose of the genre & how the structure supports it

4. Language focus / scaffolding

Post-task: Focused instruction on language forms that emerged during the task

Joint construction: The teacher & students co-construct a new text of the same genre

5. Independent production

Repetition: Repeat the task or perform a related task with improved accuracy

Independent construction: Students write or present their own version of the genre

6. Feedback & reflection

Students receive feedback on fluency, accuracy, or success of task completion

Focused feedback on genre adherence, structure, & language choices

Note that the models are not necessarily linear & that students can repeat stages of the process as & when necessary, e.g. further language focus & independent production after feedback & reflection in order to develop & strengthen the desirable form-meaning connections in long-term memory.

The complementary relationship

While tasks tell us what to do, genres tell us how to do it in ways that are socially effective & contextually appropriate. Genres provide the linguistic & rhetorical resources needed to accomplish tasks successfully, i.e. that are convincing to proficient members of the given discourse community in which the genre is typically used. In this sense, TBLT & GBI are complementary: tasks promote authentic, purposeful language use, while genres develop accuracy, structure, & discourse competence.

Three illustrative examples: TBLT & GBI in practice

Below are three examples of meaningful language use that can be described & taught from both TBLT & GBI perspectives, demonstrating the complementary features of the two.

Example #1: Giving instructions for a science experiment

TBLT view: Students are asked to work in pairs to prepare & explain a simple science experiment (e.g. making a vinegar-&-baking-soda volcano). The task involves planning, sequencing actions, & clearly communicating steps.

Genre view: The relevant genre here is the procedure. Instruction in this genre includes:

  • Structure: Goal → Materials → Steps
  • Language features: Imperatives (“Add the vinegar”), sequencing words (“first,” “next,” “finally”), & action verbs.

In combination: The task provides the communicative purpose; genre instruction supports students in producing a structured & effective explanation.

Example #2: Writing a formal complaint email

TBLT view: Students are placed in a scenario where they must write an email complaining about a faulty product or poor service. They must decide what happened, what the complaint is, & what action they want taken.

Genre view: The genre is a formal complaint letter/email. Explicit teaching includes:

  • Structure: Salutation → Background → Complaint → Request → Closing
  • Language features: Formal register, passive voice (“I was given the wrong order”), modalisation (“I would appreciate”), polite hedging.

In combination: The task motivates authentic writing; genre instruction ensures it is appropriately structured & socially acceptable.

Example #3: Presenting a solution to a local problem

TBLT view: In groups, students research a local issue (e.g. traffic congestion, pollution) & prepare a short presentation proposing a solution. They must collaborate, negotiate ideas, & present findings.

Genre view: The genre is an oral exposition or persuasive speech. Instruction includes:

  • Structure: Introduction → Arguments with evidence → Conclusion/Call to action
  • Language features: Persuasive lexis, rhetorical questions, modality (“We must…”), & cohesive devices.

In combination: Task develops group interaction & fluency; genre instruction equips students with the language to make their arguments effective & persuasive.

Pedagogical implications

Adopting a complementary task + genre approach allows teachers to:

  • Maintain communicative authenticity (through meaningful tasks)
  • Develop discourse-level competence (through explicit genre instruction)
  • Differentiate for students’ needs, balancing fluency with accuracy
  • Develop real-world language use & academic literacy for both everyday & high-stakes communication

A combined lesson model: Genre-task cycle

Below, I suggest an example six-stage combined model, combining TBLT & GBI procedures:

1. Context building / engagement (TBLT + GBI)

  • Introduce the topic & task.
  • Build background knowledge.
  • Introduce the real-world purpose (task) & typical genre used in that context.
  • Example: You are going to write a formal email to complain about a damaged product that you ordered online.

2. Genre exploration (GBI)

  • Examine model texts that fulfil the task.
  • Identify genre structure & language features.
  • Discuss social context, purpose, & register.
  • Analyse sample complaint emails: opening, explanation, complaint, request, polite closing.

3. Language focus (GBI)

  • Teach key lexicogrammatical features.
  • Address functional language (e.g. hedging, formality, modality).
  • Provide controlled practice activities (gap fills, sentence ordering), while maintaining form-meaning connections.
  • Practise polite modal language: “I would appreciate it if…”

4. Task preparation (TBLT)

  • Plan the task using scaffolds (e.g. outline, sentence starters).
  • Brainstorm & draft in pairs or small groups.
  • Prepare notes or a rough draft of complaint email.

5. Task performance / Independent genre production (TBLT + GBI)

  • Students carry out the task (write, speak, or present).
  • Apply the genre model & language studied.
  • Write & send their own formal email.

6. Feedback & reflection (TBLT + GBI)

  • Provide feedback on both:
    • Task success (clarity, outcome, tone)
    • Genre control (structure, language, appropriacy)
  • Reflect on audience, purpose, & improvements for next time.

Again, note that the models are not necessarily linear & on or more stages may be repeated as necessary, e.g. feedback & reflection can be incorporated into any of the productive stages of the sequence, & recursive language focus & task performance/independent genre production can help develop mastery of the genre.

Benefits of the complementary model

  • Students understand why a type of language is used (genre) & practise using it in meaningful ways (task).
  • Particularly useful in ELT contexts where students need both communicative confidence & academic/occupational literacy.

Conclusion

The debate between TBLT & GBI approaches misses the point: these are not competing methods, but interdependent views on language use. Tasks describe the purposeful activities we do with language; genres describe the structured ways we realise those purposes. For language students to become effective communicators, they must learn not only what to do with language, but how to do it in ways that are socially & contextually appropriate. By reframing TBLT & GBI as complementary, educators can draw on the strengths of both to deliver instruction that is both communicative & linguistically rich, functional & formal, fluent & accurate.

Reflective questions

Understanding the core argument

  • The article argues that TBLT & GBI are not opposites but complementary. Do you agree with this position? Why or why not?
  • Can you think of a learning activity you’ve done or taught that supports this claim?

Conceptual distinctions

  • TBLT focuses on what to do (task), while GBI focuses on how to do it in a socially recognisable way (genre). How does this distinction help clarify the purpose of each approach?
  • In your experience, have you ever completed a task successfully but with inappropriate language? What role could genre knowledge have played?

Practical implications

  • The article presents the idea that genres shape the types of language needed to complete tasks effectively. Can you think of a real-life task (e.g. job interview, email, report) where genre knowledge made a difference in communication?
  • How might students benefit from being explicitly taught both the task & the genre?

Pedagogical combination

  • A combined TBLT-GBI model was proposed with six stages. Which stages do you already use in your teaching? Which ones might you add or adjust?

Critical reflection

  • What are some potential challenges of combining TBLT & GBI in the same course or unit?
  • How might you overcome these challenges?
  • Think about your own teaching or learning context.
    • Which of the two approaches tends to be favoured? Why?
    • What opportunities are there to bring in the other dimension more explicitly?

Broader impacts

  • How might genre awareness improve students’ ability to transfer their English skills to academic, professional, or intercultural contexts?
  • How can language teachers be supported (e.g. through training or materials) to implement a genre-task combined approach effectively?

References & further reading

  • Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching Language in Context. Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning & Teaching. Oxford University Press.
  • Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In Modelling & Assessing Second Language Acquisition.
  • Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. Equinox.
  • Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing Task-Based Teaching. Oxford University Press.