TBLT. A survey of 48 university English instructors combined quantitative descriptive analysis with qualitative

thematic coding of closed-ended responses. Findings reveal that while 89.6% of instructors reported using

impede full uptake. Instructors highlighted TBLT’s ability to create collaborative, motivating learning

environments, yet pointed to heavy exam preparation pressures, practical classroom management issues, and

resource and preparation demands as key barriers. Thematic analysis yielded three overarching tensions: (1)

communicative promise vs. exam pressures, (2) collaborative ideals vs. practical classroom constraints, and

(3) preparation demands and resource gaps. The study contributes empirically to understanding how

contextual factors, especially an exam-driven curriculum, limit TBLT in practice, despite teachers’ enthusiasm.

It offers actionable implications: teacher development should focus on designing assessment-aligned

TBLT emerged from the communicative approach to language teaching and is rooted in constructivist learning

theory. It is often described as an extension of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), aiming to address

CLT’s shortcomings (such as teacher-centeredness and students’ low proficiency) by focusing on meaning-

and learning. Unlike traditional methods that prioritize form, TBLT centres instruction around meaningful

tasks that simulate real-life language use. For example, learners apply grammatical knowledge while

completing communicative tasks, rather than through isolated drills. This approach has been shown to

significantly improve learners’ English proficiency. According to Willis’s (1996) influential framework, TBLT

lessons consist of a pre-task stage (introducing topic and useful language), a while-task stage (students

planning, performing, and reporting on the task), and a post-task stage (language analysis and practice). During

implementation of TBLT in Malaysian university classrooms, particularly in exam-oriented settings.

The research questions are as follows,

and the teaching context. Teacher cognition and beliefs influence whether and how a given approach is adopted

in the classroom. Even instructors who conceptually agree on communicative, student-centred principles may

due to issues like large class sizes, discipline management, limited time, and the pressure of preparing students

familiar, traditional teacher-centered methods or a mixture of TBLT and traditional approaches (Musazay,

2017). Indeed, it is not uncommon in exam-driven educational systems to see language skills taught in

isolation (e.g. grammar rules and reading comprehension for tests) rather than through communicative use,

which results in students rarely conversing in English outside the classroom.

There is a well-documented tension between TBLT’s theoretical advantages and the practical realities faced by

teachers. This gap is especially pronounced in contexts like Malaysia that have highly exam-oriented curricula.

While TBLT is glorified for developing communicative competence, instructors operate within systems that

prioritize examination performance, creating a conflict of priorities. Existing studies in various Asian settings

university instructors often employed a weaker, task-supported form of TBLT rather than fully task-based

teaching, citing curricular constraints, public exam pressures, and resource limitations as barriers, despite

shifting toward more student-centred classroom roles (Liu & Ren, 2021). In Vietnam, TBLT implementation at

the tertiary level has also been hindered by exam-focused learning programs and limited resources (Cao, 2018;

Nguyen, Newton, & Crabbe, 2015), with some instructors skipping communicative activities to drill grammar

for motivating students and aligning with national curriculum goals, yet found it time-consuming to prepare,

difficult to scaffold, and poorly aligned with exam requirements (Saputro, Hima, & Farah, 2021). In Malaysia,

too, English education remains largely test-driven (Ambigapathy, 2002), and instructors may feel pressure to

barriers, particularly exam-driven curricula, resulting in a persistent gap between theoretical endorsement and

purposive sampling strategy was used to select participants who were likely familiar with TBLT through their

academic background. A total of 48 ESL instructors (41 females, 7 males) from University Technology MARA

(UiTM) were surveyed. Participants ranged in age from 25 to 50 and came from TESL or related fields

(Applied Linguistics, English Language Studies, Literature), ensuring they had relevant pedagogical training.

The primary research instrument was a questionnaire adapted from Dao (2016). The questionnaire contained

four sections (Parts I–IV). The present study focuses on Part IV, which started with one close ended single-

choice question (YES or NO) to specifically elicit instructors’ choices in using TBLT for their teaching. Then,

a set of 14 closed ended questions with multiple selection items regarding their reasons for choosing and

avoiding implementing TBLT items was also asked. The items require respondents to choose various possible

reasons provided for implementing TBLT (e.g., “TBLT improves learners’ interaction skills”) and reasons for

used to identify recurring themes and patterns in the justifications instructors provided. Initial coding was done

by grouping similar ideas related to exams, class size, student engagement, materials and teacher knowledge,

which were then refined into broader themes. These themes allow for in- depth discussion on the instructor’s

choice of accepting and avoiding TBLT to identify the underlying issues.

Out of the 48 ESL instructors surveyed, 43 (89.6%) indicated that they do use TBLT in their teaching, whereas

5 instructors (10.4%) indicated that they avoid using TBLT (Table 3.0). This high adoption rate suggests

generally positive attitudes toward TBLT among the sample, but the subsequent analysis reveals important

subtleties in their reasoning.

Table 3.0: Instructors’ choice of using or avoiding of TBLT in classroom

Part IV of the questionnaire comprises 14 sets of questions pertaining to the reasons for choice or avoidance in

employing TBLT in the English language classroom. Referring to Table 3.0, it should be noted that 43

participants claimed to use TBLT in their classroom. Table 3.1 reveals that 42 (87.50%) participants agree that

23 (47.92%) participants thought that TBLT was suitable for small group work. Overall data imply that the

instructors agree that, due to the practicality of some of the reasons, they carry out TBLT in their classrooms.

Table 3.1: Frequency of reasons for teachers to implement TBLT

communicative tasks and time spent covering examinable content. TBLT tasks, being more open-ended and

dominate exams. Thus, even teachers who appreciate the communicative value of TBLT can have a sense of

Examinations are the “ultimate goal” that haunts both teachers and students, shaping what happens in the