Teaching a foreign language using task-based language teaching (TBLT) has garnered a lot of attention and has been the object of worldwide scientific studies for the last thirty years. Few of these studies, however, include an evaluation of this method by the teachers themselves, or are conducted by them directly. My thesis, centered around the notion of task-based language learning, a teaching method recommended more and more though sometimes still snubbed, relies on my professional experience as a teacher of secondary level FLE classes in the United States and on the analysis of reference studies conducted in this field. I have adopted the methodology of research-action with the goal of offering a pedagogic intervention. First I identify certain hurdles encountered by high school foreign language teachers. After this introduction, I evaluate the methods and didactic principles that stood out to lead to a teaching philosophy centered around communication, such as task-based language teaching. The second part of the thesis presents some important studies that evaluate the pros and cons of this approach. The next section examines in turn each of three tasks offered as contrast against the traditional model consisting of presentation, practice and production, known as "PPP." Finally the last section presents my conclusions which will serve as a frame of reference for future research by other teachers.

Pour un processus d’évaluation linguistique plus précis et rapide, il est important d’identifier les mécanismes cognitifs qui soutiennent des tâches langagières couramment utilisées. Une façon de mieux comprendre ses mécanismes est d’explorer la variance partagée entre les tâches linguistiques en utilisant l’analyse factorielle exploratoire. Peu d’études ont employé cette méthode pour étudier ces mécanismes dans le fonctionnement normal du langage. Par conséquent, notre objectif principal est d’explorer comment un ensemble de tâches linguistiques se regroupent afin d’étudier les mécanismes cognitifs sous-jacents de ses tâches. Nous avons évalué 201 participants en bonne santé âgés entre 18 et 75 ans (moyenne=45,29, écart-type= 15,06) et avec une scolarité entre 5 et 23 ans (moyenne=11,10, écart-type=4,68), parmi ceux-ci, 62,87% étaient des femmes. Nous avons employé deux batteries linguistiques : le Protocole d’examen linguistique de l’aphasie Montréal-Toulouse et Protocole Montréal d’Évaluation de la Communication – version abrégé. Utilisant l’analyse en composantes principales avec une rotation Direct-oblimin, nous avons découvert quatre composantes du langage : la sémantique picturale (tâches de compréhension orale, dénomination orale et dénomination écrite), l'exécutif linguistique (tâches d’évocation lexicale - critères sémantique, orthographique et libre), le transcodage et la sémantique (tâches de lecture, dictée et de jugement sémantique) et la pragmatique (tâches d'interprétation d'actes de parole indirecte et d'interprétation de métaphores). Ces quatre composantes expliquent 59,64 % de la variance totale. Deuxièmement, nous avons vérifié l'association entre ces composantes et deux mesures des fonctions exécutives dans un sous-ensemble de 33 participants. La performance de la flexibilité cognitive a été évaluée en soustrayant le - temps A au temps B du Trail Making Test et celle de la mémoire de travail en prenant le total des réponses correctes au test du n-back. La composante exécutive linguistique était associée à une meilleure flexibilité cognitive (r=-0,355) et la composante transcodage et sémantique à une meilleure performance de mémoire de travail (r=.0,397). Nos résultats confirment l’hétérogénéité des processus sous-jacent aux tâches langagières et leur relation intrinsèque avec d'autres composantes cognitives, tels que les fonctions exécutives. / To a more accurate and time-efficient language assessment process, it is important to identify the cognitive mechanisms that sustain commonly used language tasks. One way to do so is to explore the shared variance across language tasks using the technique of principal components analysis. Few studies applied this technique to investigate these mechanisms in normal language functioning. Therefore, our main goal is to explore how a set of language tasks are going to group to investigate the underlying cognitive mechanisms of commonly used tasks. We assessed 201 healthy participants aged between 18 and 75 years old (mean = 45.29, SD = 15.06) and with a formal education between 5 and 23 years (mean = 11.10, SD =4.68), of these 62.87% were female. We used two language batteries: the Montreal-Toulouse language assessment battery and the Montreal Communication Evaluation Battery – brief version. Using a Principal Component Analysis with a Direct-oblimin rotation, we discovered four language components: pictorial semantics (auditory comprehension, naming and writing naming tasks), language-executive (unconstrained, semantic, and phonological verbal fluency tasks), transcoding and semantics (reading, dictation, and semantic judgment tasks), and pragmatics (indirect speech acts interpretation and metaphors interpretation tasks). These four components explained 59.64% of the total variance. Secondarily, we sought to verify the association between these components with two executive measures in a subset of 33 participants. Cognitive flexibility was assessed by the time B-time A score of the Trail Making Test and working memory by the total of correct answers on the n-back test. The language-executive component was associated with a better cognitive flexibility score (r=-.355) and the transcoding and semantics one with a better working memory performance (r=.397). Our findings confirm the heterogeneity process underlying language tasks and their intrinsic relationship to other cognitive components, such as executive functions.