The impact of Task-Based Language Teaching (T= BLT) on writing among EFL learners=E2=80=99
El impacto de la Ense=C3= =B1anza de Lenguas Basada en Tareas (ELBT) en la escritura entre los estudi= antes de EFL
1
Irlanda Jeaneth Castellano Uribe
https://orcid.org= //0000-0002-1143-8468
= ;
Universidad T=C3=A9cnica de Cotopaxi (UTC), Latacunga, Ecuador.
Maestr=C3=AD= a en Pedagog=C3=ADa del ingl=C3=A9s como lengua extranjera, menci=C3=B3= n ense=C3=B1anza comunicativa.
2
Amparo de Jes=C3=BAs Romero Palacios
<= img src=3D" bMAAAABHNCSVQICAgIfAhkiAAAAAlwSFlzAAAOxAAADsQBlSsOGwAAA5pJREFUOI11VM9rXkUUP= efOm/de8r2k0STQxt9QrSRtoCZSKtS6cFNwYRUFRalKtSAu+g90K4grQahdFaygGFDUhQURDCqK= TVK1NsVSMLXVttb2S/Pl+/F+zL0uEksS4xkGZhb33LnnzL3EOvhwZtcgEt0ixIN0vN9Ue5yTeTO= c1gpTacDZx0a/qa+N478HM3Bidtgz9O2Ja+5lUxsXYWaGyNQojgpFULUFg31X5OHwfFFOHhifrg= DYTTIz8OjJ7QO93V2veCcHqlANVYVKqBzXZo88zcei4vhbnutbvvDv7d3+1Q0AJgAwMTvsN3TXD= nTX/KFWM9zRZfe6VG6nWfiPBFVpbC0G12mGzVnNvZm7/LkjU2MRAIgZWJW9jwv56o1rRQIVjGx8= AXfd8igUCrVwc5spzBQkEIKhsVClSeoOZuJ3AwCPTY1tynq7jgF8pNWoHAn0Jnej1Cba5VV4l8E= xAUGoVShCA8FykA4wojuLAqCftHLuj+IoHgWwPW8vERkCNg/uRb19FhfqX2LXPa/DSYpKOxBGKE= MTc9eP4/z8FwCJsgjiY9lppW2JxMtuJ+zSFfJk8Sa0y6sQidGT3onZy+/iyuI0vGTor41gZOM+O= Elx7u+PUZWeSep649TGI5htUzW3UmS1EmYBBKBaYqEzh+vNWThJcWXxBDpVHfcNPomL85PohDoo= 3jnBVjFDnwbI/3y/pRsFZATSQRjjr8YMYsmQJUOAGTSYmFqfUNgQga7XCeuDcPQAlwwBAAqNZEM= InKbjajLaqhdWmqMMLZShCRLYPPgEGvkfWOich9ABsFApZqOq1MnIc78IUtWlxiCWSjJTiHhs6t= kB72rwkmEw24b+7hGc/PNtVNpBksSmFZpFE1NR1dEf2e1+8ak8lLdMAOJa6wwW84sIVuLKwhQGs= m0YqI0gWIV6+1d8O3cIjfx3OPHwsVMSPzgXnaEZ+MHJHS921eI32q0wYGaA2XKFXC6Wyy4r1Mqb= hjgh0pq70GiUrz3/wPefCgm71JH3YXp0Q39UkATIVY7a8iIJJzEES0S9t/o8FNXhJFk4jpVTY+K= nnUNxIgfNcZ+p9RcdE1XDWriIFiei4nipKuxI3mq/8+zY9DUQtmqefX5uT7xY3HimK41eUtWtFK= YazKmBQhiFwQwtcTZTtPSIcv6zp4ZnS3LFPFsJM/Cjn3fcZj4aFeHDZjashh4RzkfgqaD6dWXFq= adHTlxeG/sPcMTPKUI8s9QAAAAASUVORK5CYII=3D" width=3D"19" height=3D"19" alt= =3D"" style=3D"margin-top:-0.35pt; margin-left:-2.14pt; position:absolute" = />
https://orcid.org//0000-0003-2947-1626
= ;
| Art=C3=ADculo de Investigaci=C3=B3n Cient=C3= =ADfica y Tecnol=C3=B3gica Enviado: 13/07/2026 Revisado: 10/08/2026 Aceptado: 16/09/2026 Publicado: 07/10/2026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33262/exploradordigit= al.v10i4.3779 | |||||||
|
| |||||||
C=C3=ADtese: |
| = Castellano Uribe, I. J., & Ro= mero Palacios, A. de J. (2026). El impacto de la Ense=C3=B1anza de Lenguas = Basada en Tareas (ELBT) en la escritura entre los estudiantes de EFL. Explo= rador Digital, 10(4), 61-75. https://do= i.org/10.33262/exploradordigital.v10i4.3779
| ||||||
|
| EXPLORADOR DIGITAL=
, es un=
a Revista electr=C3=B3nica, Trimestral, que se publicar=C3=A1 en soport=
e electr=C3=B3nico tiene como misi=C3=B3n contribuir a la formaci=C3=B3n de prof=
esionales competentes con visi=C3=B3n human=C3=ADstica y cr=C3=ADtica que s=
ean capaces de exponer sus resultados investigativos y cient=C3=ADficos en =
la misma medida que se promueva mediante su intervenci=C3=B3n cambios posit=
ivos en la sociedad. https://exploradordig=
ital.org La revista es editada por la Editorial Ciencia Digital=
(Editorial de prestigio registrada en la C=C3=A1mara Ecuatoriana de Libro =
con No de Afiliaci=C3=B3n 663) =
| ||||||
|
| E= sta revista est=C3=A1 protegida bajo una licencia Creative Commons en la 4.= 0 International. Copia de la licencia: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ | ||||||
Palabras claves: Escritura de ingl=C3=A9s, TBLT, escribiendo g=C3=A9neros.
| <= /td> | Resumen Introducci=C3=B3n. Para adolescentes y estudiantes de EFL, de=
sarrollar habilidades de escritura puede ser especialmente exigente, lo que=
convierte las decisiones metodol=C3=B3gicas del profesor en un aspecto imp=
ortante de la ense=C3=B1anza en el aula. Objetivo. Analizar el impacto de la ense=C3=B1anza de idioma=
s basada en tareas en el desarrollo de habilidades de escritura entre los e=
studiantes de EFL. Metodolog=C3=ADa. Esta investigaci=C3=B3n se llev=C3=B3 a cabo dentro de un paradi=
gma pospositivista utilizando un dise=C3=B1o cuasi-experimental para analiz=
ar el impacto de una intervenci=C3=B3n educativa en una instituci=C3=B3n ed=
ucativa privada de Quito, Ecuador. El estudio se llev=C3=B3 a cabo con dos =
clases de octavo curso intactas; una clase se asign=C3=B3 como | ||||||
Keywords: EFL writing,= TBLT, w= riting genres. <= /p> |
| Abstract Introduction. For teenagers and EFL learners, devel=
oping writing skills can be particularly demanding, making the teacher's me=
thodological decisions an important aspect of classroom instruction. Objective.=
To analyze the impact=
of task-based language teaching on the development of writing skills among=
EFL learners. Methodology. Experimental Group (EG) while the other served as the Control Group (CG). Results. The inferential statistical t-test was used to exam=
ine the data and compare the means of the experimental and control groups. =
As a result, the analysis revealed that the application of TBLT had an impa=
ct on improving students=E2=80=99 writing at a beginning EFL level in terms=
of vocabulary, organization, and coherence. Conclusion. The experimental group showed greater improv=
ement in writing after using TBLT. The results indicate that TBLT had a pos=
itive impact on students=E2=80=99 writing skills. TBLT can be an effective =
approach for teaching writing in EFL contexts. Task-based activities can pr=
omote meaningful communication, creativity, and collaboration.
| ||||||
=
&#= xa0;
1.<= /span> Introduction
Writing is universally r=
ecognized as one of the most challenging skills in English language learnin=
g because it requires learners to integrate vocabulary, grammar, organizati=
on, coherence, and the ability to communicate ideas effectively (Kormos, 20=
23). For teenagers and EFL learners, developing writing skills can be parti=
cularly demanding, making the teacher's methodological decisions an importa=
nt aspect of classroom instruction (Chen & Zheng, 2022; Ellis, 2003). T=
here are different approaches and methods to teach writing: product, proces=
s, genre-based, Presentation, Practice, and Production (PPP
Therefore,= the present study aims to analyze the impact of task-based language teachi= ng on the development of writing skills among EFL learners in a private edu= cational institution, with a focus on 8th-grade learners. The hypothesis to= be evaluated is (H=E2=82=81): TBLT has a statistically significant positiv= e impact on the development of writing skills in 8th-grade EFL learners in = a private educational institution.
1.1. Writing skills in English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
Writing is= one of the four macro skills in the English language. According to Mindiol= a & Vaca (2024) writing is seen as the most difficult and the least att= ractive for students. It is also considered a challenge for teachers and fo= r students. Therefore, Pico & V=C3=A9lez (2022) found that students are= prone to showing fear of engaging in writing activities since the idea the= y wish to express in a specific context could be misinterpreted. Manyike &a= mp; Lemmer (2010) state that writing is not only a means of communication b= ut also a tool to clarify and stimulate thinking. Likewise, Madera & L= =C3=B3pez (2019) emphasized that writing instruction requires students to d= evelop several sub-skills, such as grammar, vocabulary, coherence, cohesion= , and mechanics, which are essential for producing meaningful written texts= .
1.2. = Dimensions= of writing skills
Based on contemporary EFL writing assessment frameworks (Hyland, = 2019; East, 2021), writing proficiency can be evaluated through five interc= onnected dimensions: content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and task a= chievement. Content refers to the relevance, clarity, and development of id= eas presented in a text. Effective writers generate meaningful information = that addresses the task's communicative purpose. The organization involves = the logical sequencing of ideas and the use of cohesive devices that facili= tate textual coherence. The vocabulary encompasses lexical range, precision= , and appropriateness for the communicative context. The grammar includes a= ccuracy and complexity in the use of language structures necessary for effe= ctive communication. Task achievement refers to the extent to which learner= s fulfill the communicative objectives and requirements of the writing task= .
1.3. = Overview o= f Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)
Richards & Rodgers (2001) and Ahmed &= Bidin (2016) described TBLT as an approach in which tasks become the centr= al unit of planning and instruction in language teaching, designed to facil= itate the learners in real-life communicative situations (Nunan, 2004; Mura= d, 2024). A task is classwork that requires learners to comprehend, manipul= ate, produce, or interact in the target language. A task is understood like= activities that the TBLT approach can show to get learning goals needed. I= t has gained considerable attention as an innovative and effective methodol= ogy in language education. It focuses on meaningful tasks that require stud= ents to use the target language to achieve a communicative objective (East,= 2021). Among the communicative approaches, Ellis (2003) defined TBLT as an= approach that provides learners with opportunities to engage in authentic = language use through tasks that reflect real-world communication. Nguyen &a= mp; Luu (2018) emphasizes TBLT positively influenced EFL learners=E2=80=99 = writing performance with significant improvement of all five components, na= mely vocabulary, content, grammar, organization, and mechanics.
<= p style=3D"margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-ali= gn:justify; line-height:normal; font-size:12pt">1.4. Benefits of TBLT in writ= ing developmentAccording to Madera & L=C3=B3pez (2019) the implementation of T= BLT improved students=E2=80=99 vocabulary, grammar, syntax, coherence, and = confidence in the writing process. In addition, task-based activities incre= ased students=E2=80=99 motivation and participation because learners worked= with meaningful topics connected to their interests and communicative need= s. Collaborative tasks also allowed students to exchange ideas, provide pee= r feedback, and develop autonomy during the writing process. Kadel (2018) a= nd Gutierrez (2024) define a task as =E2=80=98an activity in which a person= engages to attain an objective, and which necessitates the use of language= . Therefore, TBLT represents an effective pedagogical approach that support= s writing development by creating engagement, communicative, and learner-ce= ntered environments in EFL classrooms. Farhatunnisa & Uman (2020) state= that it can be implemented into the curriculum easily. However, Ahmed (201= 8) explains that the TBL syllabus can cause some initial difficulties among= the teachers and students, but learners' L2 written performance improves s= ignificantly. Al-Mahrooqi et al. (2015) the main advantage of the task-base= d approach is that it gives students much freedom and natural context in wh= ich they can use the target language in class. Al-Mahrooqi et al. (2015) th= e methodology commonly includes stages such as pre-task, task cycle, planni= ng report, and language focus, which helps learners develop language skills= in an organized and interactive way. The relationship between TBLT and wri= ting development has been widely recognized in previous research due to the= positive effects of task-based activities on learners=E2=80=99 writing per= formance. TBLT encourages students to engage in authentic writing experienc= es where they plant, draft, revise, and edit their written work collaborati= vely and meaningfully. Hismanoglu & Hismanoglu (2011) describe benefits= like natural learning with emphasis on meaning, fertile input, intrinsical= ly motivating, learner-focused, and improvement of fluency without ignoring= accuracy.
Shintan= i (2011) was able to show that while the PPP lessons helped learners acquir= e certain nouns and adjectives, TBLT emphasized learner=E2=80=93centered in= struction, communication, and the practical use of language for real purpos= es. In this line, Campos (2022) explains that PPP is an effective way to te= ach by novice teachers, but TBLT is more effective for learning. In the sam= e way Pratista (2023) explains that PPP focuses mainly on accuracy while TB= LT encourages students to be communicative; the first method is effective i= n preparing students to take exams or tests while the second is more approp= riate for real-life communicative purposes. Long (1985) criticizes the trad= itional approach because language teaching programs tend to be organized ar= ound linguistic structures and the intuition of materials developers, rathe= r than being based on research into how students acquire a second language.= However, EFL teachers tend to prefer PPP practices and explicit instructio= n, despite the communicative potential of task-based approaches (Kafipour e= t al., 2018), and Anderson (2016) notes that PPP has been one of the most p= opular and durable lesson-planning paradigms in ELT. Nevertheless, the emer= gence of communicative approaches represented a significant transformation = in language teaching and learning, shifting attention from the exclusive te= aching of linguistic structures toward communicative competence and meaning= ful language use (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). To place greater emphasis = on predetermined grammatical structures and vocabulary may limit opportunit= ies for learners to use language spontaneously and meaningfully. These conc= erns highlight the need for approaches that provide learners with opportuni= ties to use language to achieve meaningful communicative purposes (Chen &am= p; Zheng, 2022; Ellis 2003).
This research was conducted within a postpositivist para= digm by using a quasi-experimental design to analyze the impact of an educa= tional intervention in a private educational institution in Quito, Ecuador.= The study was conducted with two intact eighth-grade classes; one class wa= s assigned as the Experimental Group (EG) while the other served as the Control Group= (CG). Both groups rec= eived five hours of English instruction weekly for 1 week, following the in= stitutional curriculum and covering the same writing topics but with differ= ent methods: TBL (Willis & Willis, 2007), for the EG and PPP (Batubara = et al., 2023) for the CG.
Data was collected through writing pre-tests and post-tes= ts. They were administered to experimental and control groups before and af= ter the intervention. Students' writing performance was assessed using an a= nalytic writing rubric adapted from Madera & L=C3=B3pez (2019) which ev= aluates content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and task achievement. T= he rubric was validated by three university teachers who work in English ma= jors. During the intervention, students wrote a paragraph, an e-mail, and a= story about daily routines, my favorite place, and a fairy tale. These top= ics were taken from the Cambridge book =E2=80=9CSHAPE IT=E2=80=9D for eight= h grade, which corresponds to the A1+ level. At the end of each lesson, stu= dents' written performance was assessed using the same analytic writing rub= ric. The rubric evaluated four components: organization, grammar, vocabular= y, and coherence, allowing the researcher to monitor students' progress.
The partic= ipants consisted of 31 eighth-grade students, approximately 12 years old, s= elected through non-probabilistic convenience sampling based on accessibili= ty, parents, and the institution=E2=80=99s authorization, for both control = and experimental groups who agreed to participate voluntarily. The sample w= as divided into two intact groups: an experimental group (14 students) and = a control group (17 students). Quantitative data were analyzed using descri= ptive and inferential statistics. The descriptive statistics were used to c= ompare the performance in the pre-test and post-test of both groups by usin= g the mean and the standard deviation. Inferential statistics, on the other= hand, were used to evaluate the research hypotheses through the independen= t-samples students=E2=80=99 t-test, comparing the means of the experimental= and control groups in both the pretest and posttest. A significance level = of =CE=B1 =3D 0.05 (95% confidence level) was established, with differences= considered statistically significant when p < 0.05 (Pallant, 2026).
3. = Results
This section shows the findings from pretests and pos= ttests that were administered as part of TBLT as a strategy to improve writ= ing skills. The inferential statistical t-test was used to examine the data= and compare the means of the experimental and control groups. As a result,= the analysis revealed that the application of TBLT had an impact on improv= ing students=E2=80=99 writing at a beginning EFL level in terms of vocabula= ry, organization, and coherence. These results are explained in the next se= ctions.
Pre test
Group
N
Mean
Dev. Deviation
Dev. Error Average=
PRE - TEST
CG
17
5,64
1,03
0,25
14
6,30
0,39=
Table 1 shows the difference of means betw= een the control and experimental groups in the pre-test. Before the experim= ent, there was a minimum difference between means. The control group had a = mean of 5,64 (out of 10) with an average error of 0,25 while the experiment= al group had a mean of 6,30 (out 10) with an average error of 0,39. The sta= ndard deviation of the first group (CG) is 1,03 while the second group (EG)= had 1,47. These results show that the data are scattered from the mean, bu= t the mean of the experimental group is a little higher.
T-test
| G= roup 1 | Group 2 |
CG | EG | |
N | 17 | 14 |
Media | 5,64<= /span> | 6,30 |
-0,67 | ||
LI (95) | -1,58 | |
LS = (95) | 0,26 | |
T | -1,48 | |
p-value | <= p style=3D"margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:115%; font-siz= e:10pt">0,15 | <= /tr>
<= /span>
Post-test
&#= xa0; | Group = | Mean | Dev. Deviation | POST - TEST | CG | 17 <= /td> | 6,38 | 0,85 | ||
EG | 14 <= /td> | 8,64 | 0,74 | 0,20 |
=
Table 3= shows the differe= nce of means between the study groups in the post-test. After applying task= -based learning in the experimental group and PPP Framework in the control = group, there was a significant difference in the means. The experimental gr= oup presented a mean of 8,64 with an average error of 0,21 and the control = group had a mean of 6,38 with an average error of 0,197. The standard devia= tions in both groups are < 1, which means that the scores in both groups= are close to the mean.
T-test
| Group 1 | Group 2 |
CG | = EG | |
N | 17 | 14 |
Media | 6,38 | 8,64 |
Media (CG) - Media (EG) | -2,26 | |
LI (95) | -2,85 | |
LS (95) | ||
T <= /td> | -7,81= | |
< 0,0001 |
Table 4 shows= the p-value of the post-test, which shows if the differences between means= of the groups of study were significant or not. If p-value is < 0,05, t= here is a significant difference between the control and experimental group= . If it is > or equal to 0.05 there is no significant difference. In Table 4, the p-value is 0,0001 which means that there is a signific= ant difference. That is, there is an impact on the application of TBLT in w= riting.
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion
The experimen= tal group showed greater improvement in writing after using TBLT.
The results indica= te that TBLT had a positive impact on students=E2=80=99 writing skills.
6. = ; Conflict of interest
The= authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in relation to the a= rticle presented.
Copyright
The authors are the owners of the copyright (patrimon= ial and/or exploitation) of the contents of the journal.
8. = ; Authors' Contribution Statement
The authors declare that they have participated= equally and substantially in the conduct of this research, under the respo= nsibilities under the CRediT Taxonomy to describe the individual contributi= ons of each author to the work.
Irlanda Jeaneth Castellano Uribe, carried out the c= onceptualization of the research, organization and execution of the essay, = collection and curation of the data, review of the statistical analysis, in= terpretation of the results, preparation of the original draft, preparation= of tables and figures, critical review of the content and approval of the = final version of the manuscript.
Amparo de Jes=C3=BAs Romero Palacios, carried out = the academic, conceptualization and methodological supervision of the resea= rch, provided guidance during the development of the essay, reviewed the an= alysis and interpretation of the results, carried out the critical review o= f the manuscript, made the scientific and academic correction and approved = the final version for publication.
Disclosure of Delegation to Ge= nerative AI
- Literature search and system= atization
The GAI tool used was: ChatGpt.
Responsibility for the final manuscript lies entire= ly with the authors.
GAI tools are not listed as authors and do not bear responsibil= ity for the final outcomes.
Declaration submitted by: Irlanda Castellano
<= p style=3D"margin-left:21.3pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; line-= height:115%; font-size:12pt">= 9. = 0; Financing costsThis research was funded entirely with its own funds.<= /span>
10. References
=
Ahmed, R. Z. (2018). <=
span style=3D"font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-style:italic">The effect =
of task-based language teaching on improving the writing and speaking skill=
s of Pakistani ESL learners [Doctoral thesis, University Utara Malaysia].
Ahme= d, R. Z., & Bidin, S. J. B. (2016). The effect of task-based language t= eaching on writing skills of EFL learners in Malaysia. Open Journal of Moder= n Linguistics, = 06<= span style=3D"font-family:'Times New Roman'">(03), 207-218. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2016.63022
Al-Mahrooq= i, R., Singh, T. V., & Roscoe, A. (2015). Methodologies for effective writ= ing instruction in EFL and ESL classrooms. Idea Group. https://eric.ed.go= v/?id=3DED563973
Anderson, J. (2016). Why practice makes = perfect sense: the past, present and future potential of the PPP paradigm i= n language teacher education. English Language Teaching Education and Developm= ent (ELTED), 19 (1), 1= 4-22. https://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint= /169557/
Aqila, A. P. (2025). TBLT strategies on students=
=E2=80=99 speaking achievement: an experimental study. JET (Journal of Engli=
sh Teaching), <=
span style=3D"font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-style:italic">11
Azmy, K., &am=
p; Nanda, D. W. (2024). Implementing Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) to=
enhance students=E2=80=99 speaking, writing and reading skills: is it poss=
ible? Jurnal Ilmiah Didaktika Media Ilmiah Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran
Batubara, M. H., Srikandi, C. N., &am= p; Anwar, M. S. (2023). Presentation-practice-production method on the lear= ning outcomes of writing procedure text. Jurnal As-Salam, 7(1), 72=E2=80=9384. https://jurnal-assalam.or= g/index.php/JAS/article/view/443?utm_source=3Dchatgpt.com
Campos, M. (2022). <=
/span>PPP =
framework in teaching: presentation, practice and production. E
Chen, M., & Zheng, Y. (2022). Book revie= w: the Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing. Journal = of Writing Research, 1= 4(2), 287-292. https://doi.org/10.17239/jow= r-2022.14.02.05
East, M. (2021). Foundational principles of= task-based language teaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/97810= 03039709. <= /p>
Ellis, R. (2003). . OUP Oxford. https://books.google.com.ec/books?id=3DoJdkAAAAMAAJ
Farh=
atunnisa, A., & Umam, A. (2020). TBLT in practice: bringing tasks to En=
glish classroom in the curriculum 2013. English Journal, 14(1), 16=E2=80=9323.
Gu= tierrez, X. (2024). Implementation of task-based language teaching in a Spa= nish language program: instructors=E2=80=99 and students=E2=80=99 perceptio= ns. Language Teaching Research. https://journals.sage= pub.com/doi/10.1177/13621688241263945
= Hismanoglu, M., & Hismano= glu, S. (2011). Task-based language teaching: what every EFL teacher should= do. , 15, 46=E2=80=9352. h= ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.049
Hyland, K. (2= 019). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.com.ec/books?id=3D6DCdDwAAQBAJ&pg= =3DPA1&hl=3Des&source=3Dgbs_toc_r&cad=3D2#v=3Donepage&q&= ;f=3Dfalse =
Kadel, P. B. (2018). Effectiveness of task-based language teaching in = developing writing skills at the secondary level in Nepal [Thesis doctoral, The English and Forei= gn Languages University]. https://ndr.ndl.gov.np/items/99086258-eed0-43e8-8c27-5100f8afbc59
Kafipou= r, R., Mahmoudi, E., & Khojasteh, L. (2018). The effect of task-based l= anguage teaching on analytic writing in EFL classrooms. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1496627. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2018.1496627
Kaharuddin, Mardiana, Ahmad, D., & Sari, A. A. I. (2022). =
Examining the skill in writing descriptive text among Indonesian learners o=
f English: the effects of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT).
Korm= os, J. (2023). The role of cognitive factors in second language writing and= writing to learn a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(3), 622=E2=80=93646.= https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263122000481
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for information proce= ssing in second language acquisition. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and a= ssessing second language acquisition (pp. 77=E2=80=9392). Multilingual Matt= ers. https://books.goog= le.com.ec/books?hl=3Des&lr=3D&id=3D8uXBeeVdsKsC&oi=3Dfnd&pg= =3DPA77&dq=3Dlong+1985+task+based+learning&ots=3DG8gvXkbnRJ&sig= =3DCeWWeUPJ0QUIM0UozcaAI4Z8k6w&redir_esc=3Dy#v=3Donepage&q=3Dlong%2= 01985%20task%20based%20learning&f=3Dfalse
Manyike, T. V., & Lem=
mer, E. M. (2010). English reading and writing performance of Xitsonga-spea=
king grade 7 learners in township schools: a case study. Per Linguam
Mindiola Rivas, L. V., &= Vaca C=C3=A1rdenas, M. E. (2024). Task-Based Learning to enhance the writi= ng skill of English as a foreign language in tenth-grade students. <= span style=3D"font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-style:italic">Revista Cie= nt=C3=ADfica Sinapsis,= 25(2). https://doi.org/10.37117/s.v25i2.1007
Mohammad et al. (2025). Effects of task-based language teach= ing on creative writing of EFL elementary students. Pakistan Language and Huma= nities Review (PLHR). https://ojs.plhr.org.pk/journal/article/view/1203
Mura= d, T. (2024). Task-based language teaching (TBLT) as an alternative method = for teaching writing: teachers' perspective. International Journal of Advanced= Education and Research, 9(1), 21-27. https://www.studocu.com/in/document/= university-of-calcutta/english-honours/tblt-as-an-alternative-method-for-te= aching-writing-skills-in-high-school/143708397?sid=3D717329031788875552
Nguyen, T. M. H., & Luu, T. T. (2018). The effect = of task-based language teaching on EFL learners=E2=80=99 writing performanc= e at Tien Giang University. CTU Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Developm= ent, 54(09), 91-97. http= s://doi.org/10.22144/ctu.jen.2018.031
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based Language Teach= ing. Cambridge Univers= ity Press. https://books.google.com.ec/books/about/T= ask_Based_Language_Teaching.html?id=3DwBKoWKodDk0C&redir_esc=3Dy=
Pall= ant, J. (2026). SPSS Survival Manual. A step-by-step guide to data analysis us= ing IBM SPSS. Routledg= e. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/978100365114= 7/spss-survival-manual-julie-pallant
Paredes Amoroso, M. F. & Lema Cund= uri, H. A. (2026). Implementing Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) to enha= nce academic writing skills in EFL university students [Tesis de pregrado, = Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo]. http= ://dspace.unach.edu.ec/handle/51000/16863
Pico Quijije, J. A= ., & V=C3=A9lez Villavicencio, C. E. (2022). Development of creative wr= iting with students of higher basic general education. Ecuadorian Journal of= Educational Research,= 2<= /span>(1). https://journal.es= pe.edu.ec/ojs/index.php/investigacion-educativa/en/article/view/2792=
Pra=
tista, G. Y. (2023). Presentation practice production vs task-based languag=
e teaching: a comparison of two teaching templates. Edupedia, 7(1), 1=E2=80=9313.
Richards, J= . C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching<= /span>. Cambridge University = Press. https://books.google.= com.ec/books/about/Approaches_and_Methods_in_Language_Teach.html?hl=3Des&am= p;id=3D9mQ9l3K73BoC&redir_esc=3Dy
Sailema Moyolema, L. V., Campoverde L= =C3=B3pez, J. S., & Bonilla Tenesaca, J. R. (2026). The use of Task-Based= Language Teaching (TBLT) to improve writing skills [Tesis de maestr=C3=ADa, Universidad Bolivari= ana del Ecuador]. https://dspace.ube.edu.ec/items/18901431-ea15-451c-97e5-e685da0e4b34/f= ull
Shintani (2011). Task-based language teaching versus t= raditional production-based instruction: Do they result in different classr= oom processes? Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236032346_Task-= based_language_teaching_versus_traditional_production-based_instruction_Do_= they_result_in_different_classroom_processes.
Wardana, I. K., Dharmayanti, P. A. P., &= amp; Arsana, A. A. P. (2022). ELT lecturers=E2=80=99 communicative language= teaching approach in directing students=E2=80=99 emotions in distance lear= ning. Studies in English Language and Education, 9(3), 1071=E2=80=931092. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v9i3.24830
Zhaochun, S. (201= 5). A Tentative study on the task-based teaching of writing to English majo= rs in Chinese settings. English Language Teachin, 8(3), 71-79. =
<=
/span>
<= /span>
<= p style=3D"margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:115%; font-si= ze:12pt">&#= xa0;
<= span>
<= p>
El art=C3=ADculo que se publica es de exclusi= va responsabilidad de los autores y no necesariamente reflejan el pensamien= to de la Revista Explorador Digital.
<= span style=3D"font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-weight:bold">
= ;
El art=C3=ADculo queda en propiedad de la revista = y, por tanto, su publicaci=C3=B3n parcial y/o total en otro medio tiene que= ser autorizado por el director de la Revista Explorador Digital.
&#x= a0;
&#= xa0;
&#= xa0;
=
0; &=
#xa0; Comunicaci=
=C3=B3n Cient=C3=ADfica P=C3=A1gina 1 | 75