With its first prominent publications appearing in the 1980s (Breen, 1989; Candlin, 1987; Long, 1985; Prabhu, 1987), a new framework of interpretation of how language learning occurs and thus how language teaching should be constructed was born, called task based language teaching (TBLT). Since TBLT originates from communicative language teaching (CLT), whose main objective is “to develop the learner’s ability to take part in spontaneous and meaningful communication in different contexts, with different people, on different topics, for different purposes” (Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, & Thurrell, 1997, p. 149), it is not surprising that TBLT retained meaning as its main, though not exclusive, focus. Findings from psycholinguistics and cognitive psychology seem to suggest that learners are naturally predisposed to attend to meaning in the course of communication, and they can successfully extract meaning with the help of comprehension strategies (Clark & Clark, 1977) and convey meaning using communication strategies (Kellerman, 1991) without necessarily attending to the form of discourse. As awareness of the discrepancy between the target language and the learner’s interlanguage, which is the driving force behind interlanguage development, is not possible without attending to form, the over-effective use of these strategies might carry the danger of fossilisation. For this reason, researchers and practitioners working within the framework of TBLT support a focus on form, that is, they believe that besides attending to meaning, students should also be made aware of the specific features of the linguistic code. They emphasise, however, that this must not mean a return to a focus on forms, the explicit teaching of grammar (Ellis, 2003; Long, 2014; Long & Crookes, 1993).