English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies ISSN 2640-9836 (Print) ISSN 2640-9844 (Online) Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls 35 Original Paper The Manifestation of Task-Based Language Teaching in Chinese Business English Textbooks Xueting Li1 1 Ningbo Childhood Education College, Ningbo, China Received: October 13, 2025 Accepted: November 17, 2025 Online Published: November 21, 2025 doi:10.22158/eltls.v7n6p35 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/eltls.v7n6p35 Abstract This study aims to investigate the extent to which a Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) approach is integrated into Business English for Specific Purposes (ESP) materials used in China. Adopting a qualitative analytical framework, the research evaluates two prominent coursebooks, Business English: An Integrated Course 2 and Market Leader: Pre-Intermediate, against established TBLT criteria and Willis’s (1996) task-based learning framework. The analysis reveals a divergent application of TBLT principles between the two materials. Findings indicate that Market Leader incorporates TBLT to a significant extent, featuring communicative tasks aligned with real-world business activities and a coherent task cycle. In contrast, Business English: An Integrated Course 2 demonstrates a lower level of TBLT integration, with a stronger emphasis on discrete language points and grammatical exercises over holistic, meaning-focused tasks. The study concludes that the implementation of TBLT in Chinese Business English ESP materials remains insufficient and inconsistent. It is recommended that material developers and practitioners consciously adapt pedagogical activities to better align with TBLT principles, thereby enhancing the development of students' practical communicative skills in authentic business contexts. Keywords Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), Business English, English for Specific Purposes (ESP) 1. Introduction Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), an extension of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), is an instructional approach that organizes language teaching around tasks as the central unit of planning and practice. Since its emergence and subsequent development in the 1980s, TBLT has garnered significant attention from second language acquisition (SLA) scholars and linguists. In China, it has been advocated as a key component of language teaching reform. TBLT emphasizes a student-centered www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 36 learning process, where learners are motivated through task engagement to participate actively in the classroom. Through the iterative process of tackling meaningful tasks, students develop comprehensive language skills, thereby achieving language learning objectives by accomplishing authentic communicative activities. The ongoing development of the global economy has intensified international trade activities, consequently generating a growing demand in China for professionals with specialized Business English skills. In response to this trend, studies by Chinese scholars have investigated the status of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) in higher education, concluding that ESP instruction is not only necessary and feasible but also warrants more extensive implementation. Although research in this field started relatively late, ESP courses, particularly Business English, are receiving escalating scholarly and pedagogical attention in the Chinese context. It is noteworthy that, as Gimenez (2001, p. 169) observes, a considerable body of research has traditionally centered on interactions between native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS). In reality, however, the use of Business English is now increasingly prevalent in interactions solely among NNSs. The data for this study are drawn from two Business English ESP textbooks widely adopted in the Chinese context, particularly at the undergraduate level. This article is structured as follows. It begins with a literature review establishing the theoretical foundations, which encompasses key definitions, criteria, and frameworks of TBLT, alongside the core concept of ESP. Subsequently, it presents a detailed analysis of the two selected textbooks, evaluating their alignment with TBLT principles and Willis’s (1996) framework to determine the extent of TBLT implementation. The paper concludes by summarizing the key findings and offering practical recommendations for pedagogy and materials development. 2. Literature Review 2.1 The Conceptual Foundation of Task-Based Language Teaching TBLT was first systematically proposed by Prabhu (1987) from a pedagogical standpoint, with the foundational goal of facilitating language acquisition through the process of completing meaning-focused tasks. Richards and Rodgers (1986) characterize TBLT as an approach designed to supplant traditional, language-centric syllabi with those organized around communicative tasks as the core instructional unit. They further note that TBLT is often regarded as an evolution and refinement of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) principles, given its emphasis on structuring learning around authentic tasks. Within this process, aspects of communicative language use and grammatical knowledge are anticipated to arise naturally. This perspective firmly establishes TBLT as a distinct branch within the broader CLT paradigm. Complementing this view, Jack C. Richards describes TBLT more as a ‘procedure’ than a ‘method’. This distinction aligns with Kumaravadivelu’s (2006, p. 93) assertion that a ‘task is not a www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 37 methodological construct; it is curricular content,’ highlighting the role of tasks as central components of the curriculum rather than merely instructional techniques. The Concept of ‘Task’ in TBLT The concept of ‘task’ is central to the planning and implementation of Task-Based Language Teaching. A clear understanding of how ‘task’ is defined is therefore a prerequisite for any in-depth engagement with the TBLT framework. However, the field lacks a singular, universally accepted definition, as interpretations vary considerably among scholars. The evolution of the concept reflects a shift from broad, real-world activities to more focused pedagogical constructs. Early definitions emphasized real-world relevance. Long (1985), for instance, conceptualized tasks broadly as the myriad activities people undertake in daily life and work, ranging from mundane chores to professional duties. Crookes (1986) built upon this foundation but narrowed the scope, defining a task more specifically as a goal-oriented activity undertaken within an educational or occupational setting. With Prabhu (1987), the focus shifted explicitly to the classroom dynamic. He defined a task as a cognitive activity where learners derive an outcome from given information, a process facilitated and regulated by the teacher. Ellis (2003, p. 16) further refined the pedagogical perspective, characterizing a task primarily as a ‘workplan’ that requires learners to use language pragmatically to achieve a communicatively evaluable outcome. In critiquing the overly broad nature of earlier definitions, Nunan (2004, p. 4) argued for a definition centered on classroom application. He emphasizes that a pedagogical task must engage learners in meaningful communication using the target language, with a primary focus on conveying meaning rather than manipulating form. Furthermore, he stresses that a genuine task should possess a coherent structure, standing as a complete communicative act in itself. In summary, despite the nuanced differences in the definitions reviewed, a consensus emerges on several core attributes of a task. As Willis (1996) authoritatively asserts, tasks are fundamentally goal-oriented activities. They are versatile in format, encompassing a spectrum from written exercises and oral dialogues to simulations like games and interviews. The essential starting point for any task is a communicative need that prompts learners to strategically deploy their existing language resources and engage with the task’s core features to achieve authentic and meaningful linguistic outcomes. Defining Principles of a Task Given the plurality of definitions for a ‘task’, establishing a set of core criteria is essential for a clear and operational understanding of TBLT. While scholars have proposed various frameworks, this study synthesizes the seminal work of Ellis (2009) and Willis and Willis (2007) to form its analytical basis. Ellis (2009), building upon and defending earlier proposals by Skehan (1998) against critiques from scholars like Widdowson (2003), elaborated a robust set of four criteria that integrate semantic and pragmatic meaning. Willis and Willis (2007) proposed a highly compatible set of principles. The convergence of these perspectives allows for the consolidation of five core criteria, which are www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 38 summarized in Table 1 and will guide the subsequent textbook analysis in this study. Table 1. Synthesis of Task Criteria forAnalysis Core Criteria (This Study) Corresponding Emphasis in Foundational Frameworks 1) Meaning-focused Primary focus on “meaning” (semantic and pragmatic processing of utterances). (Ellis, 2009) 2) Involves communication Presence of a “gap” (e.g., need to convey information, express opinion, infer meaning). (Ellis, 2009) 3) Use of own language resources Learners rely on their own linguistic and non-linguistic resources. (Ellis, 2009) 4) Clear outcome A clearly defined, non-linguistic outcome is required. (Ellis, 2009; Willis & Willis, 2007) 5) Real-world activity Relation to real-world activities and processes. (Skehan, 1998; Willis & Willis, 2007) AFramework for Task-based Learning Willis’s (1996) task-based learning framework, graphically summarized in Figure 1, provides a robust three-stage model for structuring lessons: Pre-task, Task Cycle, and Language Focus. This framework presents a deliberate departure from the traditional Presentation-Practice-Production (PPP) sequence. Unlike PPP, which moves from linguistic form to communicative application, the TBL framework prioritizes meaningful communication from the outset, addressing language form only after a communicative task has been completed. This reversal of sequence is designed to provide learners with a broader and more authentic range of language learning opportunities. The three stages of the framework are detailed below: 1) Pre-Task The teacher introduces the topic and the task, allowing students time to process the requirements and activate their schemata. Typical introductory activities include brainstorming, using visual aids, games, discussions, and vocabulary preparation. This phase serves to familiarize students with the task and stimulate engagement (Willis & Willis, 1996, p. 56). 2) Task Cycle This core phase comprises three key segments: a. Task: Students perform the task in pairs or small groups, while the teacher monitors and ensures comprehension. b. Planning: Students prepare to report on the outcome of their task, focusing on organization and language accuracy. c. Report: Selected groups or individuals present their findings to the class, either orally or in writing. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 39 Throughout this cycle, the teacher’s role is to facilitate and encourage students to utilize their acquired language resources as much as possible (Willis & Willis, 1996, pp. 56-57). 3) Language Focus The final stage shifts attention to linguistic form through analysis and practice. Students examine language features from the task, such as vocabulary, collocations, and grammatical structures, and then consolidate this knowledge through targeted exercises (Willis & Willis, 1996, pp. 57-58). Figure 1. A Task-Based Framework by Willis Willis and Willis (1996, pp. 59-60) contend that this framework simultaneously fulfills four key conditions for language acquisition: exposure to the target language, opportunities for its genuine use, heightened motivation, and a deliberate focus on language form. This aligns with Nunan’s (2004, p. 19) assertion that TBLT begins with real-world tasks, which must then be pedagogically transformed for the classroom. The TBL framework offers a flexible and practical structure for achieving this essential conversion. 2.2 The Concept of English for Specific Purposes English for Specific Purposes (ESP) emerged in the 1960s from a recognition that general English courses were failing to address the specific linguistic needs of learners and the demands of employers. This gap prompted the development of tailored courses designed to meet the precise requirements of particular learner groups. As an umbrella term, ESP encompasses a wide range of courses which can be classified in various ways. A foundational classification by Jordan (1997) dichotomizes English into English for General Purposes (EGP) and ESP. ESP is further divided into English for Occupational Purposes (EOP), which focuses on workplace communication, and English for Academic Purposes (EAP), which addresses the language demands of academic study. EAP can be subdivided into English for Specific Academic www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 40 Purposes (ESAP) and English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP). The conceptualization of ESP has evolved significantly since its inception. Halliday, McIntosh, and Strevens (1964) initially defined ESP through a series of specialized varieties, such as ‘English for civil servants’ and ‘English for engineers.’ In contrast, Hutchinson and Waters (1987) fundamentally redefined ESP not as a set of specialized varieties, but as a principled approach to language teaching. They argued that all decisions regarding content and methodology should be derived from the learners’ specific reasons for learning, thereby emphasizing a needs-based, pedagogical philosophy over a purely linguistic one. Synthesizing these perspectives, ESP can be understood as an approach to teaching English that is intrinsically linked to a specific occupation, academic discipline, or purpose. Its two distinctive characteristics are: (1) a clearly defined, practical scope for its target learners, who require the language for use within their professional or academic fields, and (2) learning content that encompasses the specialized language and communicative practices relevant to that field. 3. Research Methodology and Materials This study employs a qualitative content analysis approach to evaluate the implementation of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) in two widely used Business English textbooks in China. The primary data for analysis are drawn from the following materials: Business English: An Integrated Course 2 (Wang, 2018), hereafter referred to as BEIC, and Market Leader: Pre-Intermediate (Cotton, Falvey, & Kent, 2002), abbreviated as ML. The analysis consults both the student’s and teacher’s books of each textbook to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the intended pedagogical design and classroom application. BEIC, the second volume in a four-level series, is predominantly adopted as a pre-service ESP coursebook for first and second-year undergraduates majoring in Business English, Finance, or Management in Chinese universities. It consists of eight thematic units, each built around three interrelated reading texts and supplemented by integrated language skill exercises. ML is part of a five-level series catering to learners from CEFR levels A1 to C2. This research focuses on its Pre-Intermediate level, suitable for learners at CEFR A2 to B1. Beyond its use in undergraduate programs, ML is also designed for corporate training contexts, rendering it suitable for both pre-service and in-service ESP instruction. The textbook comprises 12 core units and 4 revision units, regularly featuring authentic texts from the Financial Times, which enhances the authenticity and business relevance of its content. The syllabi and unit structures of the two textbooks differ considerably. Table 2 provides a comparative overview of their standard unit components, illustrating the distinct organizational logic of each. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 41 Table 2. A Comparison of Unit Components in BEIC and ML Textbook Unit Components BECI Activation, Reading, Language Focus, Study Skill, Grammar, Writing Skill, Intercultural Business Communication Skills ML Starting up, Vocabulary, Reading, Listening, Language Review, Skills, Case Study A comparative examination reveals a fundamental divergence in pedagogical emphasis. While BEIC features fewer units, it provides more depth and detail within each, characterized by substantial reading texts, explicit vocabulary and grammar instruction, and comprehensive exercises. Conversely, the sequential components in an ML unit often serve as scaffolding, systematically preparing learners for the final, integrative Case Study task. This structural distinction highlights BEIC’s primary focus on systematic language acquisition, in contrast to ML’s stronger emphasis on practical, task-based business skills. 4. Analysis and Discussion This section evaluates the extent to which a task-based approach is applied in the selected ESP materials. To facilitate a detailed comparison, one representative unit from each textbook—Unit 1 from BEIC and Unit 3 from ML—is subjected to a two-pronged analysis. Drawing on pedagogical suggestions from the teacher’s books, the investigation first assesses the unit activities against the five established criteria of a task (Ellis, 2009; Willis & Willis, 2007), followed by an examination of their alignment with Willis’s (1996) TBL framework. The results of this dual analysis are presented and discussed in the subsequent subsections. 4.1 Analysis Against TBLT Criteria 4.1.1 Case Analysis: BEIC Unit 1 This analysis examines Unit 1 of BEIC (Appendix A-1), with reference to the pedagogical guidance in the teacher’s book (Appendix A-2). Following the advice of the chief editor, the analysis of the Reading section is confined to Text I, as Texts II and III are designated for self-study. The evaluation of each unit component against the five TBLT criteria is detailed below. 1) Activity: This lead-in activity aims to prepare students for the lesson theme and relevant vocabulary, providing a clear outcome. The inclusion of an authentic video clip and the suggested role-play constitute a communicative task that activates learners’ existing language resources and creates an information gap. 2) Reading: The lengthy Text I is framed by two discussions. The pre-reading warm-up on language barriers and the post-reading comprehensive check both encourage students to utilize their own resources to share views, representing an opinion gap and a reasoning gap, respectively. 3) Language Focus: This section is predominantly composed of lexical drills, which do not fulfill the www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 42 core criteria of a task. 4) Study Skills: Primarily designed for self-study, this section is advised to be brief in classroom teaching and is not evaluated as a task. 5) Grammar: This component provides a clear outcome by targeting the consolidation of fundamental grammar rules but remains a traditional grammar exercise. 6) Writing Skills: This section lists useful collocations to improve academic writing, constituting a lexical exercise rather than a meaning-focused task. 7) Intercultural Business Communication Skills: While intended to build necessary knowledge for future business communication, this section lacks authentic material, hindering its connection to real-world activities. The results of the analysis are synthesized in Table 3. Table 3. TBLT Criteria Analysis of BEIC Unit 1 Activatio n Readin g Langua ge focus Study skill Grammar Writing skill Intercultural business communicatio ns skills Meaning-focused Use of own language resources x x Real-world activity x Involves communication x x Clear outcome x x x x Nature of Activity Activity Exercis e Lexical drill Activity Gramma r exercise Lexical exercis e Activity As clearly evidenced in Table 3, the application of TBLT principles in BEIC Unit 1 is limited. The textbook exhibits a strong focus on discrete language points through substantial practice exercises, while the development of integrated practical skills is less emphasized—a potential shortcoming for Business English instruction where practical competence is paramount. Although the unit as a whole does not form a coherent TBLT sequence, its components can be adapted. For instance, the ‘Intercultural Business Communication Skills’ section could be transformed into a task-based activity as follows: www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 43 1) The teacher provides authentic video material illustrating different questioning techniques (e.g., closed vs. open questions). 2) The class is divided into groups, each analyzing and summarizing one question type from the video, utilizing their own language resources. 3) Each group selects a representative to present their findings to the class, creating an information gap. 4) Non-presenting students take notes and provide peer comments, ensuring the activity remains meaning-focused. 5) The teacher concludes with structured feedback to consolidate learning. 4.1.2 Case Analysis: ML Unit 3 This analysis evaluates Unit 3 of ML (Appendix B-1)with reference to its teacher’s book (Appendix B-2). The evaluation of each component against the five TBLT criteria is detailed as follows. 1) Starting up: This section, divided into parts A and B, engages students in pair discussions, fulfilling the criteria for communication and real-world activity. While part B introduces relevant vocabulary in a meaning-focused context, it lacks a clearly defined non-linguistic outcome. 2) Vocabulary: Although the group exercises may stimulate a reasoning gap, the activity is fundamentally structured as a lexical exercise rather than a holistic task. 3) Listening: This component utilizes authentic listening materials followed by comprehension exercises, successfully meeting the criteria for real-world activity and a focus on meaning. 4) Reading: Pedagogical suggestions recommend information-gap exercises, note-taking, and subsequent explanation of key points in students' own words. This sequence fully satisfies all five task criteria. 5) Language review:While this is a grammar exercise, it is contextualized within a meaning-focused framework and involves peer communication, though it remains a form-focused activity rather than a task. 6) Skills: This section requires students to listen to a recording, take notes, and deliver a presentation, constituting a task that meets all five criteria. 7) Case study: This component embodies a complete pedagogical task, featuring a clear staged process and fulfilling all the established task criteria. The results of this analysis are synthesized in Table 4. Table 4. TBLT Criteria Analysis of MLUnit 3 Starting up Vocabulary Listening Reading Language review Skills Case study Meaning-focused x x x x x x x Use of own x x x x www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 44 language resources Real-world activity x x x x x Involves communication x x x x x x Clear outcome x x x Nature of Activity Activity Lexical exercise Listening exercise Task Grammar exercise Task task As evidenced in Table 4, the application of TBLT principles in ML Unit 3 is substantially more pronounced than in BEIC. Three core components—Reading, Skills, and the culminating Case Study—are fully realized as tasks. This structural emphasis aligns with the textbook’s overarching pedagogical focus on developing practical, real-world business skills, demonstrating a strong integration of task-based methodology. 4.2 Analysis Against the TBL Framework 4.2.1 Framework Alignment: BEIC Unit 1 This section evaluates the structure of BEIC Unit 1 against Willis’s (1996) TBL framework. The unit’s overall sequence is assessed to determine its inherent alignment with the pre-task, task cycle, and language focus stages. Figure 2. Framework of BECI As illustrated in Figure 2, the unit’s design can be partially mapped onto the TBL framework, yet significant deviations are evident. The Activation phase functions effectively as a pre-task, introducing the topic through discussion, vocabulary activities, and a video clip to engage learners. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 45 However, the core of the unit lacks a coherent task cycle. The Reading section and its accompanying comprehensive check exercises do not constitute a full task-plan-report sequence as defined by Willis. Rather than promoting collaborative problem-solving and planning for a communicative outcome, the activities remain largely comprehension-based. To align with the TBL framework, this section would require significant adaptation, such as organizing students into reading groups to collaboratively complete the exercises (task and plan), followed by a cross-group sharing session (report). Finally, the language focus phase is present but underdeveloped. While the Writing Skills section could serve as a form of practice, the unit lacks a dedicated analysis stage where learners systematically examine the language encountered during the task cycle. In conclusion, the structure of BEIC Unit 1 does not conform to the TBL framework. Its design reflects a more traditional methodology that prioritizes text comprehension and language practice over a coherent, task-driven learning cycle. 4.2.2 Framework Alignment: ML Unit 3 Case Study In contrast to BEIC, the Case Study in ML Unit 3 serves as an exemplar of the TBL framework in practice. This analysis focuses on this culminating activity, the structure of which is delineated in Figure 3. Figure 3. Framework of ML The Case Study meticulously follows the three-stage TBL model. In the pre-task phase (stages 1-3), students are introduced to a realistic business scenario, providing the necessary background and context to engage with the subsequent task meaningfully. This leads directly into a well-defined task cycle (stage 4). Learners are first placed into pairs or small groups to analyze the scenario and undertake the core task. They then proceed to a planning stage, formulating their solutions or strategies. The cycle culminates in a report phase, where groups present their investment recommendations or decisions to the class. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 46 The sequence concludes with an explicit language focus. The teacher provides feedback, offering praise and conducting error correction, which serves as a form of language analysis. This is followed by a consolidation activity, typically a written assignment, allowing students to practice and solidify the language forms that emerged as necessary during the task. Therefore, the Case Study in ML Unit 3 demonstrates a high degree of consistency with Willis’s TBL framework, effectively integrating communicative task performance with subsequent language analysis. 5. Conclusion This study set out to investigate the extent of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) application in two widely used Business English ESP materials in China: Business English: An Integrated Course 2 (BEIC) and Market Leader: Pre-Intermediate (ML). The analysis, conducted through the dual lenses of established task criteria and Willis’s (1996) TBL framework, reveals a divergent and overall insufficient integration of TBLT principles. The findings indicate a clear disparity between the two textbooks. ML demonstrates a substantial alignment with TBLT, particularly in its culminating Case Study activities, which effectively embody a complete task cycle and satisfy core task criteria. In stark contrast, BEIC exhibits a relatively low level of TBLT application. Its design, characterized by lengthy texts and a strong emphasis on discrete vocabulary and grammar exercises, only partially meets the task criteria and does not conform to the TBL framework. This suggests a pedagogical orientation that prioritizes language knowledge over the development of integrated practical skills, which are crucial for ESP learners. It is important to note that this evaluation is based on the design of the textbooks and their suggested teacher’s guidelines. This does not preclude the potential for pedagogical adaptation. As demonstrated through the proposed modifications to BEIC’s activities, educators can consciously redesign existing content around task criteria and the TBL framework to foster more communicative and authentic learning experiences. In summary, while the adoption of TBLT in Chinese Business English ESP materials remains inconsistent and limited, its potential for enhancing practical skill acquisition is significant. Therefore, it is recommended that material developers more deliberately incorporate TBLT principles into future editions. Simultaneously, practitioners are encouraged to employ adaptive teaching strategies, transforming traditional exercises into meaningful tasks to better address the real-world communicative needs of Business English learners. References Cotton, D., Falvey, D., & Kent, S. (2002).Market leader: Pre-intermediate. Pearson Education. Crookes, G. (1986). Task classification. Center for Second Language Classroom Research, Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii at Manoa. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 47 Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x Gimenez, J. (2001). Ethnographic observations in cross-cultural business negotiations between non-native speakers of English: An exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes, 20(2), 169-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00038-1 Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh, A., & Strevens, P. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. Longman. Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centred approach. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733031 Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge University Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates. Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-99). Multilingual Matters. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667336 Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268-286. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500003585 Wang, L. (2018). Business English: An integrated course 2. Tsinghua University Press. Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford University Press. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Longman. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 48 AppendixA-1. Unit 1 of BECI (student’s book) www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 49 AppendixA-2. Unit 1 of BECI (teacher’s book) www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 50 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 51 Appendix B-1. Unit 3 of the ML (student’s book) Appendix B-2. Unit 3 of the ML(teacher’s book) www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 52 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 6, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 53