Having said that, I still find myself leaning on TLBT. Teaching education majors at a foreign language university, I find that my students’ need for extensive, authentic practice far outweighs a need for additional grammar instruction. I found that technology-mediated TBLT, allowing learners multiple modes of participation, provided greater flexibility in managing virtual classrooms when the pandemic required a move to emergency remote learning. I continue to find it useful when creating activities for a coordinated program taught by several teachers with different levels of expertise. I imagine most of our readers have also solved some of their problems by using TBLT, so the question for us is not whether TBLT is effective, but rather, “what can brain science tell us about the effectiveness of TBLT?”

The idea to put together a TBLT Think Tank was not without concern on how to do it right. In a months-long email chain, members of the editing team expressed the need for caution in linking TBLT to brain research, citing established evidence for the necessity of explicit instruction, highlighting conflicts with Cognitive Load Theory, and noting the lack of research comparing it to other approaches. While we all agreed that it could be the basis for an interesting issue, it was clear that a neuroscience-informed view of TBLT would require care; Curtis Kelly noted that “this is the problem with ‘brain’-anything. It is easy to make claims that go too far. On the other hand, making connections (emphasis mine) is less problematic and may lead to insights.”

I confess to once having told a colleague that “language teachers use TBLT as an excuse not to teach.” After reading through this issue’s four key articles, however, I can truthfully say I’m feeling more charitable toward TBLT and viewing everything I thought I knew through a new lens. Our contributors have done an excellent job making a case for TBLT as a brain-friendly approach. When reading Think Tank issues, I tend to jump around, first reading articles written with my teaching context in mind or written by people I know well. If I may offer a recommendation—I would suggest tackling this month’s articles in order. We start with an introduction to TBLT from the experts—an outstanding overview of the model from Paul Leeming and Justin Harris, founding members of the JALT TBL SIG and organizers of the TBLT in Asia conference series. Next, Heather Kretschmer draws on her experience teaching Business English to address the issue of cognitive load with an article describing student engagement in the task cycle. From there, Amanda Gillis-Furutaka brings us recent research examining how tasks engage the brain’s attention filter, reduce stress, and sustain interest through prediction and the dopamine reward cycle. Then, Curtis Kelly shares what he describes as “the article I’ve wanted to do for years,” managing to present hard neuroscience in a lighthearted and eminently readable piece examining “The Killer Theory” underpinning TBLT. Marc Helgesen closes with a touching story about one of his learners in the PLUS section.

We anticipate that this month’s issue will generate dialogue and debate. Over the years, I have gone back and forth on TBLT; this outstanding issue has brought me back around to it with a fresh perspective, revitalized a familiar topic with new connections and insights, and given me tools and strategies to energize my lessons in 2022. Whatever your take on TBLT may be, you will be challenged not to find something relevant in this month’s Think Tank.