In:Broadening the Horizon of TBLT: Plenary addresses from the second decade of the International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching
Edited by Martin East
[Task-Based Language Teaching 17] 2025
► pp. 124–146
Chapter 7Aligning classroom tasks with can‑do descriptors helps TBLT programs be chock‑full of proficiency
indicators
Published online: 24 April 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.17.07win
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.17.07win
Abstract
In this chapter, I discuss how teachers can create sets or series of Can-do based statements to
define their task-based curriculum. Teachers can also use the Can-do statements to have students self-assess their
language proficiency and their task-based gains before and after learning, especially if the Can-do statements are
associated, through teacher expert judgement, to proficiency levels on a national or international standardized scale
of language proficiency. I suggest that the string or network of Can-do statements that outline a task-based
curriculum and that are used for student self-evaluation may help researchers and teachers better understand language
development pathways. That is, Can-do statements can be used as descriptors of task-based curricular goals,
articulating the essence of the key communicative tasks that are learning targets for the classroom; they can also act
as reflections of published language frameworks. The chapter showcases sets of Can-do statements created by teachers
across several languages (Russian, Chinese, and Hindi) that were based on the local curriculum in those language
teachers’ programs.
Article outline
- Introduction
- What are Can-do statements?
- How teachers can use can-do statements: An example
- Can-do statements as descriptors of curricular goals
- Can-do statements as reflections of language frameworks
- Can-do statements to explain language frameworks
- Notes on customizing Can-do statements to a particular language program
- Using Can-do statements to measure classroom-based proficiency gains
- Conclusion
Notes References
References (28)
ACTFL (2024). ACTFL
proficiency guidelines. [URL]
American Museum of Natural
History (n.d.). Vera Rubin and dark
matter. [Excerpt from the volume Cosmic horizons:
Astronomy at the cutting edge, by S. Soter & N. deGrasse Tyson (Eds.), 2000, New Press.] Cosmic Horizons Curriculum Collection. [URL]
Brown, N. A., Dewey, D. P., & Cox, T. L. (2014). Assessing
the validity of Can-do statements in retrospective (then-now)
self-assessment. Foreign Language
Annals, 47(2), 261–285.
Butler, Y. G. (2016). Self-assessment
of and for young learners’ foreign language
learning. In M. Nikolov (Ed.), Assessing
young learners of English: Global and local
perspectives (pp. 291–315). Springer.
(2022). Expanding
the role of self-assessment: From assessing to learning
English. In D. Valente & D. Xerri (Eds.), Innovative
practices in early English language
education (pp 191–210). Palgrave Macmillan.
Bygate, M., Samuda, V., & Van den Branden, K. (2022). A
pedagogical rationale for task-based language teaching for the acquisition of real-world language
use. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of task-based language
teaching (pp. 27–52). Cambridge University Press.
Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. (2012). Canadian Language Benchmarks: English as a second language for adults. [URL]
Council of
Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for
languages: learning, teaching, assessment: Companion volume. [URL]
. (2001). Common European framework of reference for
languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press. [URL]
. (n.d.a). Common European framework of references for
languages: Learning, teaching, assessment: Structured overview of all CEFR scales. [URL]
. (n.d.b). Ideas for
implementation. [URL]
DeBenedette, L., Comer, W. J., Smyslova, A., & Perkins, J. (2015). Между нами / Between you and
me [Online textbook]. [URL]
Faez, F., Majhanovich, S., Taylor, S. K., Smith, M., & Crowley, K. (2011). The
power of “Can Do” statements: Teachers’ perceptions of CEFR- informed instruction in French as a second
language classrooms in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 14(2), 1–19. [URL]
İlhan, M., Taşdelen Teker, G., Güler, N., & Ergenekon, Ö. (2022). Effects
of category labeling with emojis on Likert-type scales on the psychometric properties of
measurements. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 40(2), 221–237.
ILR (n.d.). Interagency Language Round-table language skills descriptors — Speaking. [URL]
Isbell, D. R., Winke, P., & Gass, S. M. (2019). Using
the ACTFL OPIc to assess proficiency and monitor progress in a tertiary foreign languages
program. Language
Testing, 36(3), 439–465.
Ma, W., & Winke, P. (2019). Self-assessment:
How reliable is it in assessing oral proficiency over time? Foreign Language
Annals, 52(1), 66–86.
National Education Examinations Authority, Ministry of Education, People’s Republic of China. (2018). China’s Standards of English language ability. [URL]
Norris, J. M., & East, M. (2022). Task-based
language assessment. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of task-based language
teaching (pp. 507–528). Cambridge University Press.
Overbye, D. (2016, December 27). Vera
Rubin, 88, dies; Opened doors in astronomy, and for women. New York
Times. [URL]
Ranjan, R. (2021). Basic
Hindi. Michigan State University Libraries. [URL]
Shehadeh, A. (2018). Task-based
language assessment. In J. L. Liontas (Ed.), The
TESOL encyclopedia of English language
teaching (pp. 1–6). John Wiley & Sons.
Tigchelaar, M., Bowles, R. P., Winke, P., & Gass, S. (2017). Assessing
the validity of ACTFL Can-do statements for spoken proficiency: A Rasch
analysis. Foreign Language
Annals, 50(3), 584–600.
Tomlinson, B. (2023). Materials
evaluation. In B. Tominson (Ed.), Developing
materials for language
teaching (pp. 1–21). Bloomsbury Academic.
Weaver, C. (2012). Incorporating
a formative assessment cycle into task-based language teaching in a university setting in
Japan. In A. Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based
language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and
implementation (pp. 287–312). John Benjamins.
WIDA. (2020). WIDA English language development standards framework, 2020 edition: Kindergarten-grade 12. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. [URL]
Zhou, W. (2022). Elementary
Chinese 1. Michigan State University Libraries. [URL]