Editing Rod Ellis (section)

== Criticism ==
As a leading theorist in task-based learning (TBL), Ellis has defended TBL from an assertion by Henry Widdowson that the definition of a task is too loose and tends to blur with the concept of an activity.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Widdowson|first=Henry G.|title=Object Language and the Language Subject: On the Mediating Role of Applied Linguistics|date=January 2000|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0267190500200020/type/journal_article|journal=Annual Review of Applied Linguistics|language=en|volume=20|pages=21–33|doi=10.1017/S0267190500200020|s2cid=143402873 |issn=0267-1905|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Ellis refutes this claim by explaining that he clearly distinguishes a task from an activity in his works. One of the main ways in which Ellis distinguishes a task from an activity is by arguing the usefulness of each in regard to communication fluency for a task and correct form usage for an activity.<ref name=":5">{{Citation|last=Ellis|first=Rod|title=2. Taking the critics to task: The case for task-based teaching|date=2018-08-21|url=http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9781501505034/9781501505034-002/9781501505034-002.xml|work=New Perspectives on the Development of Communicative and Related Competence in Foreign Language Education|pages=23–40|editor-last=Walker|editor-first=Izumi|place=Berlin, Boston|publisher=De Gruyter|doi=10.1515/9781501505034-002|isbn=978-1-5015-0503-4|s2cid=53678614 |access-date=2020-12-04|editor2-last=Chan|editor2-first=Daniel Kwang Guan|editor3-last=Nagami|editor3-first=Masanori|editor4-last=Bourguignon|editor4-first=Claire|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Ellis has also contested Paul Seedhouse who argued that such a method could result in pidginized language,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Seedhouse|first=Paul|date=July 1999|title=Task-based interaction|url=https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/elt/53.3.149|journal=ELT Journal|language=en|volume=53|issue=3|pages=149–156|doi=10.1093/elt/53.3.149|issn=1477-4526|url-access=subscription}}</ref> to which Ellis claims that it depends on the nature of the task.<ref name="Walker">{{Cite book|last1=Walker|first1=Izumi|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jIxuDwAAQBAJ&q=rod+ellis+criticism+tblt&pg=PA23|title=New Perspectives on the Development of Communicative and Related Competence in Foreign Language Education|last2=Chan|first2=Daniel Kwang Guan|last3=Nagami|first3=Masanori|last4=Bourguignon|first4=Claire|date=2018-08-21|publisher=Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG|isbn=978-1-5015-0503-4|language=en}}</ref> This method of teaching (TBLT) has been considered by William Littlewood as too difficult for beginner students.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Littlewood|first=William|date=July 2007|title=Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0261444807004363/type/journal_article|journal=Language Teaching|language=en|volume=40|issue=3|pages=243–249|doi=10.1017/S0261444807004363|s2cid=145185255 |issn=0261-4448|url-access=subscription}}</ref> The view that Littlewood has against Ellis's TBLT method is that the required knowledge of the target language must already be at a fairly proficient level in order to complete the tasks being carried out.<ref name=":5" /> Ellis explains that this is true on the basis that it is a production task; other gap-fill activities can be used by beginners.<ref name="Walker"/>

Ellis further explains that TBLT can be as effective as other methods of teaching a second language whereby the learner may reflect upon their first language as a guide when completing tasks to strengthen comprehension levels in their second language.<ref name=":5" /> [[Michael Swan (writer)|Michael Swan]], protests Ellis in this regard by claiming that TBL is not any more effective than other language teaching methods, since TBL is lacking the structure needed to explicitly teach grammar to learners. Swan claims, that due to this lack of a systemic or clear breakdown for structure, that Ellis' TBL is more theoretical in nature due to lack of evidence in effect toward language acquisition in students.<ref name=":5" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Swan|first=Michael|date=2005-09-01|title=Legislation by Hypothesis: The Case of Task-Based Instruction|url=http://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/376/181397/Legislation-by-Hypothesis-The-Case-of-TaskBased|journal=Applied Linguistics|language=en|volume=26|issue=3|pages=376–401|doi=10.1093/applin/ami013|issn=1477-450X|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Another scholar, David Block, praises Ellis' task-based method as being inventive, however, similarly to Swan, Block defines Ellis' approach to language teaching heavily theoretical, with Ellis not mentioning how long a TBLT course should be or the maximum number of students it can support in a single class.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Block|first=David|date=June 2004|title=Review of Rod Ellis's Task-based Language Learning and Teaching|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09571730485200051|journal=The Language Learning Journal|language=en|volume=29|issue=1|pages=18–22|doi=10.1080/09571730485200051|s2cid=144243862|issn=0957-1736|url-access=subscription}}</ref>