Task-Based Language Teaching
Task-based
language teaching is defined as “teaching that is based entirely on tasks. Such
teaching makes use of a procedural syllabus” (Ellis, 2003, p.351).
Procedural syllabus refers to a syllabus consisting of a graded set of tasks to
be performed by the learners (Prabhu, 1987).
Nunan (2004, p.216)
defines task-based language teaching as “an approach to language teaching
organised around tasks rather than language structures.”
In
TBLT, “task is the basis of language curriculum and it constitutes a strong
version of CLT” (Ellis, 2003, p.30).
Tasks can be defined as meaning-focused activities to fulfil learners’ actual
communicative needs that resemble real world tasks (Klapper, 2003).
TBLT offers opportunities for learners to clarify uncertainties about language
forms and getting corrective feedback through meaningful interactions which
facilitate language acquisition (Batsone, 2012).
Willis (1996)
presents five principles for the implementation of task-based approach. First,
exposure to useful and authentic language should be given. Secondly, there
should be language usage. Third, learners should be motivated to engage in
language use in completing tasks. Fourth, there should be a focus on language
at some points in the task cycle. Fifth, the degree of prominence of focus on
form should vary at different stages of the task cycle as to retain the
naturalness of the tasks.
Principles
of TBLT
Ellis’
definition of task emphasizes real-world direct or indirect pragmatic use of
language with relation to an outcome and the delivery of appropriate content as
a basis of evaluation. The primary focus is on meaning with involvement of
productive or receptive language skills that entail different cognitive processes.
Ellis and Shintani (2014, p.
135) proposed four task features as the
following:
The
primary focus should be on 'meaning'
This means
that learners should be mainly concerned with encoding and decoding messages,
and not focusing mainly on linguistic form. The focus is primarily on the
pragmatic meaning of the language and not just the semantic meaning.
The
presence of a gap
There
should be some kind of a 'gap' that is a need to convey information, to express
an opinion or to infer meaning. The gap can be an information gap, opinion gap
or reasoning gap.
Learners
relying on their own resources
Learners
should largely rely on their own resources (linguistic and non-linguistic) in
order to complete the task. That is, learners are not 'taught' the language
they will need to perform the task. Non-linguistic resources here refer to
context and world knowledge.
The
presence of a non-linguistic outcome
There is a
clearly defined non-linguistic outcome other than the use of language (i.e. the
language serves as the means for achieving the outcome, not as an end in its
own right).
The
features of task by (Ellis and Shintani, 2014)
are used in the analyses of this study because the features are clear, can be
easily identified and applied in analyzing the textbook skill-based lessons.
Task
Task
can be regarded as an activity that involves processing and understanding of
language (Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 1989;
Van Den Branden, 2006) and it also entails
cognitive processes (Candlin, 1987; Ellis, 2003).
A task is related to real-world activities (Ellis, 2003; Krahnke, 1987;
Long, 1985; Skehan, 1998) with primary focus on meaning
(Bygate, Skehan & Swain,
2001; Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 1989b; Skehan, 1998).
There is an emphasis on achieving an outcome (Ellis, 2003; Prabhu, 1987;
Skehan, 1998; Willis, 1996) in a given context (Bachman & Palmer, 1996;
Candlin, 1987; Caroll, 1993)
Van Den
Branden (2006) defines
task as an activity in which a person engages in order to attain an objective,
and which necessitates the use of language. Van den Branden (2006) defines task
as an engaging goal-directed activity that requires language use.
Ellis Model of Task-Based Lesson
Ellis (2003, p.
244) divided the
lesson into three parts, namely, pre-task, during task and post-task as
follows:
|
Part
|
Examples
of Options
|
|
A
Pre-task
|
·
framing
an activity, e.g. establishing the outcome of the task
·
planning
time
·
doing
similar task
|
|
B
During task
|
·
time
pressure
·
number
of participants
|
|
C
Post-task
|
·
learner
report
·
consciousness
raising
·
repeat
task
|
Source: Ellis (2003, p. 244)
Pre-task stage involves framing or telling
learners what they are required to do and the outcome they will accomplish.
This way they can formulate a plan of action mentally and make decision on the
resources required to carry out the task. Planning time before performing the
task may or may not be given depending on the main aim of the task; to achieve
accuracy or fluency. Planning time may be given when the focus is on
accuracy. The learners may also be asked
to perform similar task or will be provided with a model to scaffold learners’
performance and reduce cognitive load.
During task stage, learners may or may not be given
time limit to perform the task depending on the focus of the lesson. If the
focus is on accuracy, learners will be allowed to complete the task in their
own time. On the contrary, time limit will be given if the focus is on fluency.
Post-task stage includes learners’ report on task
performance. Other options are by conducting form-focused activities or
consciousness raising activities. Finally, the learners can be asked to repeat
their performance for improvement.
One
of the beneficial activities in addressing the linguistic demands of a task is
by focusing on vocabulary during the pre-task stage. (Newton, 2001)
proposes three ways of focusing on vocabulary. First is predicting, that is
asking learners to brainstorm a list of unfamiliar words related to the task.
Second, by doing cooperative dictionary search: giving different words to the learners to look up in the
dictionary. The third way is word definitions. This is done by getting learners
to match a list of words to their definitions. Newton stresses that these
activities will “prevent the struggle with new words overtaking other important
goals such as fluency or content-learning”.
The Distinction between Task
and Exercise.
To shed more light on what
task is, (Skehan,
1998)
distinguishes language ‘exercise’ and ‘task’. In task, one develops his or her
linguistic skills by engaging in communicative activities whereas in exercise,
it is believed that learning communicative abilities requires linguistic skills
(Skehan, 1998). In doing task, the focus is on meaning (propositional content
and pragmatic communicative meaning) unlike the focus on form in completing an
exercise. The achievement of communicative goal is emphasized in doing task but
it is a mere displaying of linguistic knowledge in exercise. Consequently,
performance is evaluated based on how well the communicative goal is achieved
in carrying out the task and not how accurate the form is used in doing the
exercise. In doing exercise, the emphasis is solely on accuracy as in an
exam-oriented education system. Real-world language use is involved in
undertaking a task whilst in completing an exercise the forms learnt may or may
not be useful in the future.
Task
Classification
Prabhu (1987)
classifies task according to the type of gaps it contains. The first is
information gap task which requires information transfer from one person to
another. The second task type involves a reasoning gap that necessitates the
processes of inference, deduction, and practical reasoning based on some given
information in order to derive new information. The third is an opinion gap
task that requires learners to identify and articulate a personal preference or
feeling.
Nunan
(1989, p.40-41) divides
tasks into two categories, namely “real-world tasks or target tasks” and
“pedagogical tasks”. Real-world tasks or target tasks involve real life
language usage with the aim to enable learners to perform similar tasks in
their daily life. Pedagogical tasks are derived from real-world tasks and can
be sub-tasks in real life.
Ellis
(1991)
distinguishes between reciprocal and non-reciprocal tasks. Reciprocal task
requires an exchange of information while non-reciprocal task that is listening
activity like ‘listen and do’ does not require information exchange. The aim of
a non-reciprocal task is to achieve comprehension.
Willis
and Willis (2007)
classify tasks according to cognitive processes involve in completing the
tasks. The cognitive processes are listing which involves brainstorming and
fact finding; ordering and sorting include sequencing, ranking and classifying,
matching, comparing and contrasting; problem-solving, project and creative
tasks such as sharing personal experiences: storytelling, anecdotes and
reminiscences.
Willis
and Willis (2007) also
provide examples of communicative tasks based on sample topics collected from
around the world. Willis and Willis’ task classifications is used in this study
as it is deemed as more suitable for the type of tasks examined in this study i.e.
task for young learners.
The Benefits of TBLT
Teachers have found great
benefits that can be associated with TBLT (East,
2012; Edwards & Willis, 2005; McDonough, 2015; Müller-Hartmann &
Schocker-von Ditfurth, 2011; Shehadeh & Coombe, 2012; Van den Branden,
2006, 2009a as cited in (Van Den
Branden, 2016, p.173-174).
According to Van Den Branden (2016),
task-based work and grouping formats give students extensive opportunities to
practice and develop their communicative skills. TBLT is useful for the
development of speaking skills and for learners to increase the fluency,
complexity, and accuracy of their spoken output. In addition, task-based work
helps students to build more self-confidence to use the target language (both
inside and outside of the classroom). Tasks are fun for learners and may
enhance their language learning motivation in class. Tasks can also be
rewarding for learners because the students have to work toward a clear goal.
Task-based work reaches beyond language learning: It offers learners the
opportunity to develop self-regulation skills, problem-solving skills,
intercultural competence, and social skills.
Contextual Constraints in TBLT
Classrooms
Littlewood
(2007) writes
about main concerns in implementing TBLT.
The first concern is classroom management. It is difficult to implement
TBLT effectively in large classes of many unmotivated young learners. Carless
(2004, p.656) also
found that “concerns over noise and discipline inhibited task-based teaching”.
The second concern is avoidance of English. Other than relying too much on
mother tongue (Lee,
2005) and low
proficiency level of the students (Li,
2003),
teachers themselves lack confidence to conduct communication activities in
English as they feel that their proficiency is not sufficient to engage in
communication or deal with students’ unforeseen needs. The third concern is
minimal demands on language competence. As stated by Littlewood
(2007, p. 245), “
rather than engaging in the negotiation of meaning predicted by theories of
TBLT, students were more inclined to use simple strategies which made fewer
language demands (such as guessing)”.
In other words, students find
shortcuts to accomplish the tasks. The last concern is TBLT does not prepare
students sufficiently well for the more traditional, form-oriented examination
which is crucial for their future educational ‘successes’. The last concern
presented by Littlewood is task-based teaching is conflicting with the
educational values and traditions in certain contexts. For instance, in
traditional Chinese culture ‘education is conceived more as a process of
knowledge accumulation than a process of using knowledge for immediate
purposes’ (Hu,
2005: 653).
Teachers
have raised critical concerns about the task-based approach to language
teaching (Carless, 2004, 2012; East, 2012; Mc- Donough, 2015; Shehadeh &
Coombe, 2012; Van den Branden, 2006; Zhang, 2007 as cited in Kris Van Den Branden, 2016):
·
A
task-based approach with its primary focus on meaning-making may clash with (a)
official, standardized, and form-focused tests that students are supposed to
prepare for; (b) the crucial importance that teachers assign to the development
of explicit (grammatical) knowledge and a primary concern for accuracy of
output; and (c)teachers’ beliefs that the development of communicative language
skills is based on the preceding development of explicit knowledge.
·
Task-based
work, with its strong emphasis on learner initiative, may decrease the degree
of control the teacher wants to maintain over what happens in the classroom.
·
Peer
interaction during task-based work may lead to increased levels of noise in the
classroom and to an increased use of the students’ mother tongue.
·
It is very
difficult to implement a task-based approach in large classes.
·
The
emphasis on learner initiative, autonomy, and independence conflicts with more
hierarchical views of the student–teacher relationship and with the role of the
teacher as expert and superior.
Misconception of TBLT
Ellis
(2013)
addresses critics on eight misconceptions of TBLT. The first misconception is
there is no clear definition of task. Ellis
and Shintani (2014) have proposed
four task features that can be effectively applied to distinguish between tasks
and exercises. The definitions of the four features have been operationalized
in the previous chapter. The second misconception is ‘task’ has no construct
validity. This means that the intended task outcome as planned by the task
designers does not materialized or match with learners’ interactions that
transpire in the classroom. This can be addressed by manipulating the task
design and the implementation variables and by conducting input-based tasks.
The third misconception is that tasks result in
impoverished language use. This misconception emerges when minimal language is
used especially in the case of beginner learners with limited linguistic
resources. It is also argued that achieving task outcome is of no significant
value when the use of the target language is scant. Ellis
(2013)
stated that it is completely natural for beginner learners to use single words,
formulaic chunks and ungrammatical sentence
fragments at the early stage of language acquisition. Natural language learning
involves progression from ‘pre-basic variety’ to ‘basic variety’ and in due
course to ‘post-basic variety’. Tasks still occur when learners resort to
‘pre-basic variety’ when completing them. “Grammaticalization is a slow and
gradual process” (Ellis, 2013, p. 11).
The fourth misconception is that task-based learning
is not suitable for beginner-level learners especially when doing speaking
tasks. Beginner learners and those with low proficiency level have limited
linguistic resources to engage in speaking tasks. This misconception emerges
because of the wrong belief that TBLT only involves speaking skill. It involves
all four language skills that are listening, speaking writing and reading (Ellis, 2003). Input-based
task is the most suitable tasks for beginner learners since no language
production is required (Shintani, 2012). Producing
language is not prohibited. It is simply not required. The learners listen to
input and display their understanding by using their non-verbal resources. This
removes the anxiety of having to speak in L2.
The fifth misconception is TBLT neglects grammar
accuracy. This is not true since focus on form is an important aspect in TBLT.
It is just that the primary focus is on meaning. Other that focusing on form by
giving corrective feedback, linguistic features can also be embedded in the
performance of the tasks such as focused tasks. Teaching grammar explicitly at
pre-task phase will only transform task-based language teaching to
task-supported language teaching. In contrast, focusing on the linguistic form
during post-task stage will make the communication more natural and resemble
language use in real life.
The sixth misconception is that TBLT requires
extensive use of group work and teachers are relegated to the role of
facilitators. This surfaced due to many past studies on tasks focusing on pair
and group interactions. This is again misleading. Teachers can also provide
inputs and model accurate language use. Task can also be implemented in a
teacher-led whole class discussion for example in information-gap task when the
teacher has all the of the information to be shared with the learners for them
to complete the task.
The seventh misconception is that TBLT requires
avoidance of L1 use by both teachers and learners. This is again unrealistic
especially when there is a shared L1 in the classroom. There are ways to reduce
the use of L1 in the process of task completion. One is by giving adequate
planning time for the learners to formulate their L2 utterances. Another way is
by implementing input-based task which does not require L2 production. L1 can
bridge the linguistic gaps in L2 for beginner learners and this does not impede
L2 learning. “L1 can serve as a useful cognitive tool to scaffold L2 production
and facilitate private speech” (Ellis, 2013,
p.16).
The eighth misconception is that TBLT is not suitable
in EFL contexts. This is due to the limited nature of the learners’ grammatical
knowledge and their communicative abilities in L2. This misconception arises
based on the assumption that TBLT is only suitable in ‘acquisition-rich’
environment compared to the poor one. This is untrue and in fact it is the
reverse. TBLT is actually suitable in an ‘acquisition-poor’ environment since
it provides many communicative opportunities that cannot be found outside of
the classroom. In addition, learners are free to use the linguistic or the non-linguistic
resources in their repertoire depending on the developmental stage they are at
be it pre-basic variety, basic variety or post-basic variety. As for the
limited grammatical knowledge to produce accurate language, one has to remember
that grammar is learnt gradually and dynamically.
These misconceptions if not address properly may
hinder the implementation of TBLT in real classrooms. Teachers need to
understand TBLT principles and how to implement them in their teaching
contexts.
Task-Based
Language Teaching for Young Learners
There
are many studies conducted on TBLT that focus on adolescent and adult learners
at intermediate level and advanced level (Bygate, Skehan & Swain,
2001; Ellis, 2003). However, not much
literature can be found on TBLT involving beginners especially young learners
and in real classroom contexts (Carless, 2002).
Some teachers believe that it is impossible for second language beginners to
start using the target language without having basic knowledge of the language (Duran. & Ramaut, 2006).
Verhelst (2006)
and other studies discuss in this section prove otherwise.
Verhelst (2006)
conducted a study on teachers’ interactional support of young children’s early
second language acquisition involving 11 infants aged between 2.5 and 5 years
old. The study involved observations on how the teacher provided language input
to the young learners for the first ten weeks of school. The assessment of the
children’s progress was done using two types of tests namely reception-based
test and production-based vocabulary test. In the reception-based test, a word
and three pictures were shown to the children and they were asked to match the
correct picture to the word given. In production-based test, the child was
shown a picture and asked to name the object in the picture. The finding
indicated that relevant vocabulary the children found interesting and were used
in task-based action made a significantly stronger impact on the child’s language
acquisition than vocabulary that was used and presented outside a task-based
action context.
Duran and Ramaut (2006)
shows that a task-based approach could be suitable and doable at basic language
levels provided that few conditions of task design and task implementation were
met. In this study, Duran and Ramaut (2006)
develops a complexity scale when designing tasks for a syllabus of Dutch as a
second language involving children of refugees coming to Belgium from different
parts of the world. This is to manipulate the complexity of the tasks and to
build a gradual increase of task complexity as the children progress into the
syllabus. The parameters of the complexity scale are divided into three main
features namely, representation of the world, communicative and cognitive
demands of a task and text used. The predictive validity of these parameters
was empirically supported by analysing the results of a task-based language
test in which the items were also developed using the complexity scale.
Teachers could utilize the same set of parameters in guiding them to achieve
fully the task’s learning potential for each individual language learner.
Shintani (2012)
conducted a quasi-experimental study comparing input-based instruction and
production-based instruction involving thirty six children aged between six to
eight years old. Production-based instruction involves learners in speaking and
writing. On the other hand, input-based instruction focuses on learners’
comprehension of input in order to achieve an outcome i.e. listen and do task.
In input-based task, language production is not required and the learners
complete the task by utilising non-verbal reaction. This is more suitable for
young learners. The results indicated that input-based tasks provided
opportunities for richer interaction for the learners than the production-based
activities. This explained the better performance of the input-based group on
the task-based comprehension test and the same level of achievement in the
production tests despite relatively fewer opportunities for second language
production.
Pinter (2007)
studies peer-peer interactions involving a pair of 10 years old learners using
six sets of spot-the differences task in EFL context in Hungary. The learners
repeated the tasks and the focus was on the observable changes of the
interactions from the first to the last repetition. She found that the learners
became more confident in using English with better fluency and they were more
responsive to their partner’s contributions in completing the tasks as a result
of the repetition of doing similar tasks using different sets of pictures.
Garcia and Lazaro-Ibarrola
(2015) investigates the oral interaction of 3rd
year primary school children (age 8-9 years old) and 5th. year primary
school children (age 10-11 years old) in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context and in
Content-and-Language-Integrated-Learning. (CLIL) context. In CLIL context the
children learned all the school subjects in the target language. In contrary, the
children in EFL context only learned the target language in the language
classes. Comparisons were made between the different contexts and years of
primary schooling. They found that children in both contexts and years of
schooling used negotiation strategies such as clarification request,
confirmation check, comprehension check, conversational adjustment and
repetition while completing a picture placement task. However, children from
both years in CLIL contexts outperformed the children taught in EFL context in
terms of conversational adjustments and repetitions. These children also used
less L1 in completing the task. This indicated that intensive exposure to the
target language led to better command of the language and less reliance on L1.
In
conclusion, TBLT can be implemented to teach a second language to young
learners. To achieve successful implementation of TBLT in teaching the young
learners, teachers need to understand the concept and principles of TBLT in
order to provide better scaffolding in terms of interactional, linguistics and
affective supports to the pupils. When two speakers interact, the more
knowledgeable other (MKO) will scaffold the other speaker and hence, learning
occurs. The teachers as MKOs need to be able to strategise and use their
creativity to overcome constraints that exist in their context.
TBLT in Asia
TBLT
is gaining popularity and superiority over the traditional method of teaching
English worldwide which includes Asia (Butler , 2011).
CLT was introduced in Asia in the 1970s but only in late 1980s and early 1990s
it had gained attention among scholars and policy makers in Japan (Butler &
Lino, 2005; Choi, 2007 as cited in Butler, 2011).
Due to technological advancement that entails global communication, governments of many Asian countries started
adopting CLT. For instance, CLT syllabus was introduced in China in 1992; Japan
in 1999 (Butler & Lino, 2005 as cited in Butler, 2011))
and Singapore in 1991 (Zhang, 2006 as cited in Butler, 2011)).
Hong Kong adopted TBLT syllabus in 1997 (primary school) and 1999 (secondary
school) (Carless, 2007 as cited in Butler, 2011).
Other Asian countries including Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam adopted CLT and/or
TBLT in their curricula (Nunan, 2003 as cited in Butler, 2011).
Adamson and Davison (2003)
presented analysis of the various stages of the curriculum decision-making
process in Hong Kong primary education from the intended curriculum as
manifested in policy documents; through the resourced curriculum, as
exemplified in a commercially published textbook resources; through the
implemented curriculum – what teachers teach
and the experienced curriculum – what students learn. Task-based
curriculum was introduced in 1993 in Hong Kong. The results of the analysis
indicated that the resourced and implemented curriculum were not very congruent
with the planned curriculum. Detailed content analysis of the resources i.e.
the textbook, found no major shift towards task-based learning. The role of
task served as add-on to language practice than being the central organising
unit of the syllabus. Based on interviews involving publishers, they admitted
that this was due to lack of experience and expertise in developing task-based
materials and expressed grave concern on taking high risk by supporting reform
that did not meet market expectations.
There
was also an incongruence of the implemented curriculum to the planned
curriculum. Many teachers reverted to traditional approaches when they felt the
reform was incompatible with the reality of their classrooms. Teachers’
conceptual understanding of the task-based syllabus was vague. Dominant types
of activities observed were exercise-task which was a hybrid of task-based
approach and the conventional method. Exercise-tasks commonly took the form of
language games or activities that required the repeated use of certain
structures. For instance, getting students to conduct survey in the classroom
with no context or purpose other than practising wh-questions. The incongruence
of the implemented curriculum with the experienced curriculum was even greater.
Despite finding the new activities less stressful, more interesting and helpful
to learning, the students were worried about their test scores. This was due to
fierce competition to get to selected secondary schools and parents’ negative
attitudes to any curricular change since they were uncertain of the
consequences of the reform to their children’s academic advancement (Adamson & Davison, 2003).
Carless
(2002)
discussed four relevant themes in implementing TBLT to young learners by
drawing on qualitative classroom observation data from case studies conducted
involving three primary school teachers in Hong Kong with pupils aged six-seven
years old. The themes were noise
and indiscipline, use of mother tongue, pupil involvement in tasks and role of
drawing and colouring (or other activities which do not involve much target
language production).
Based
on the classroom observations, there were three circumstances that produced
noise/indiscipline. Firstly, when the pupils did not understand what they were
supposed to do. This caused discussion and arguments among pupils while the
teacher was overwhelmed with queries. Secondly, when the pupils found the task
was too easy or too difficult, the pupils became ‘off-task’. If the task was
too easy, they completed the task early and did not know what else to do. On
the other hand, if the task was too difficult, they became frustrated. Thirdly,
the class became noisy when the pupils got over-excited in activities such as
role-play. The teachers were concern of the noises generated, perturbed that
the school heads would equate noisy classroom to poor class management. The
next theme identified in this study was the use of mother-tongue by pupils
during task. In the classes observed, the pupils used Cantonese frequently
rather than English during tasks. It was also observed that mother tongue was
used more often when the task was more open-ended and more linguistically
complex. Another important insight from the observation was, the more proficient
the pupils were, the less Cantonese they used. The third emerging theme from
the classroom observations was about the pupils’ involvement in tasks. During
task-based learning, only certain pupils produced more language compared to the
others. Group leaders of five or six pupils participated actively compared to
the other group members. Carless (2002)
explained that the pupils were not ready to speak up and were more comfortable
observing their friends carrying out the task. The last theme surfaced from
this study was drawing, colouring, or other tasks that involved limited
target-language production.
Carless (2002)
suggested several strategies for teachers to overcome the challenges in
implementing tasks. For instance, to control the level of noise during task,
the teachers need to make the pupils understand clearly the rationale of the
activities, appoint group leaders to help curb the noises and offer reward for
good behaviour. To ensure the target language is used more than the mother
tongue during task, the teachers can be good language models themselves,
teaching their pupils how to negotiate meaning and state expectations in terms
of the language use at the beginning of the lesson. In order to maximise
pupils’ participation, the teachers can find ways to “gently discouraging the
more domineering pupils and encouraging the more reticent ones” (p. 394) and
assign roles to each pupil in doing group work. As for activities that do not
involve much target language use, firstly, teachers can get the pupils to
produce language first either at the beginning or the middle part of the task
before the drawing or colouring activities. Secondly, the time allotted for
language production need to be more significant than the time spent on
non-linguistic element of the task.
Newton,Trang and Crabbe (2016)
conducted a two-phase mixed-method study to examine the implementation of TBLT
in a Vietnamese high school. The first phase of the study investigated how nine
EFL teachers in their nine respective classrooms implement interactive tasks
and what drove their pedagogical decisions. It was discovered that the teachers
conducted rehearsal-public performance interactive tasks. The students were
given time to plan and rehearse the tasks before their public performance in
front of the whole class. Five themes identified from the reasons given by
teachers for implementing rehearsal-public performance interactive tasks namely
performance as outcome of the task; performance had motivating effect;
performance as “happy ending" and a means of self-training and language
learning. Positive feedbacks were given by both teachers and students about
this task design.
The
second phase of the study involved the analysis of Language-Related Episodes
(LREs) in two different tasks that were a problem solving task and a debate
task. LREs. Language-related
episodes (LREs) are “any part of a dialogue in which students talk about the
language they are producing, question their language use, or other- or
self-correct” (Swain, 1998, p. 70 as cited in Newton, Trang & Crabbe,
2016)). The results showed that from the
total of 648 LREs, majority of them (76%) were resolved, 16% were incorrectly
resolved and 7% were unresolved. Learners discussed significantly more LREs in
the problem-solving task than the debate task and significantly more lexical
LREs than grammatical LREs in both the problem-solving and the debate task. The
level of uptake of the LREs was also high in public performance. These finding
indicated that the learners really attended to language forms and vocabulary
while rehearsing the tasks. However, the anticipation of doing public
performance caused the learners to give less attention to the reasoning demand
of the tasks. All in all, the Vietnamese teachers’ beliefs and pedagogical
decisions were congruence with the principles of TBLT.
Newton and Trang (2017)
conducted a two-phase study in primary schools in Vietnam. In the first phase
of the study, they investigated how teachers implemented the mandated textbook
and their cognition. They sought to find congruence between the resourced
curriculum (the mandated textbook) and the implemented curriculum (classroom
teaching). The planned curriculum was a top-down TBLT curriculum. The focus of
the study was on the textbook speaking lessons which were in PPP format. Seven
teachers from urban, semi-urban and rural schools participated in the first
phase of this study. They found that all the seven teachers followed the PPP
sequence closely as prescribed in the textbook. However, they tended to add a
more communicative and task-like activities in the presentation and production
stages. It was also found that despite the TBLT curriculum was in place, the
textbook lessons reflected more task-supported language teaching in PPP format (Ellis, 2003)
than task-based approach with task as central to language teaching and
learning. These teachers were also interviewed on their cognition of PPP and
TBLT lessons. Three of them favoured PPP format since according to them the
predictable structure of PPP lesson was more suitable to lower grade class and
this was what they were trained during their pre-service teacher education. One
teacher was neutral about the value of the approach. Another three expressed
dissatisfaction with PPP format and preferred the lessons to be more
communicative and task-based. One teacher even reversed the sequence of the PPP
lessons doing the meaning-focused communicative activities first before
focusing on forms. The teachers articulated that PPP lessons were too
mechanical, time-consuming, boring and theoretical.
The
second phase of the study involved three teachers from the first phase. These
teachers taught PPP textbook speaking lessons that were modified into
task-based lessons (Newton & Trang, 2017).
Three main affordances emerged from the analysis of the transcripts and
interviews with the teachers. The ftrst affordance identified was ‘pushed
output’ where learners noticed the gap in their utterances and what they could
correctly say. The second affordance was peer scaffolding and negotiation of
meaning. It was evident that the learners worked collaboratively when a more
capable one helped their less capable friend by providing English words that
were needed in the interactions and by prompting in Vietnamese what question
should be asked to keep the conversation going. They also negotiated meaning
when one learner sought clarification on a word and the other clarified and
refined the appropriate word to be used in one of the instances given. The
third affordance emerged by implementing the task-based lessons was learner
engagement. When comparing between speaking lessons in PPP format as prescribed
by the mandated textbook and the modified task-based lessons, it was apparent
that the learners were really engaged in task completion unlike when they were
asked to listen to recordings in PPP lessons. The learners just did not listen
and found such activities boring. These provide positive outlook on TBLT
implementation in the Vietnamese primary schools involved in this study.
In
Asian contexts, the main theme surfaced from the studies discussed were the
contextual constraints in implementing TBLT. The constraints included the use
of L1 in task completion, problems managing pair and group work in big
classrooms, teachers’ misconception of task, difficulty to implement task with
low proficiency learners, rote learning for examination and the lack of focus
on accuracy or grammar. Most comments made by teachers were unfavourable with
the exception of the studies in Vietnam. The teachers in Vietnam seemed to be
more receptive to TBLT and implemented it in their classrooms with desirable
effects.
TBLT in Malaysia
Zarina Mustafa (2015)
investigates the relationship between Form Four secondary English language
teachers’ Levels of Use (LoU) in the adoption of Task-Based Language Teaching
in the classroom. There were eight levels of use that drew the distinctions
between non-users (Non-Use, Orientation and Preparation) and users at different
levels of usage (Mechanical, Routine Refinement, Integration and Renewal). She
found that 43.8 % of the 210 participants in the survey were at Mechanical and
Refinement level of use. Mechanical level of use was defined as the focus on
short term, day to day use of TBLT with not much reflection done. The use was
more to cater to the clients’ needs (students) rather than the benefit of the
users in this case the teachers. The use was rather superficial. As for the
refinement level of use, “the user varies the use of the innovation to increase
the impact on clients within immediate sphere. Variations are based on
knowledge of both short and long term consequences for clients.” (Zarina Mustafa, 2015, p.7).
Zarina Mustafa (2012)
conducted in-depth interviews involving 16 Form Four teachers on the challenges
they faced when implementing TBLT in the classrooms. These teachers were
selected based on their TBLT user or non-user status, their age, teaching
experience and the subject they majored in. Six challenges were identified. The
first was the large class size. It is common in Malaysian schools to have large
classes that consist of 40 to 45 students who occupied a small classroom. This
poses challenge when the pupils need to sit in their groups. Other than the
overly crowded classroom, the noise and other related discipline problems can
arise and jeopardise the effectiveness of TBLT adoption. Managing group
activity is time consuming especially if it is a single period lesson and
students’ passivity which is a common scenario that results in an ineffective
lesson. In the end, teachers resort to use PPP approach in their teaching as to
ensure learning of language took place.
The
second problem faced by these teachers in adopting TBLT in the classroom was in
giving adequately challenging task to a group of mixed-ability students in a
classroom. It is a challenge for teachers to cater for individual student’s
learning needs and different learning styles. Therefore it is a good practice
to pair up a good and weak student in a group and anticipate peer assistance in
completing the tasks. The third challenge faced by the teachers interviewed in
this study is despite their initiative to adopt TBLT in the classroom to
promote communication; the multi ethnic students of Malaysia had the tendency
to use their mother tongue. When the students who shared the same L1 are
grouped together, they had strong tendency to use L1 while completing the task.
Teachers could promote the use of English in group interaction, but due to the
students’ difficulties to express themselves in English, using L1 seemed to be the best alternative to
these students and L1 was usually used out of the teachers’ earshot (Zarina Mustafa, 2012).
The
fourth challenge was the teachers’ dilemma whether to adopt TBLT or the PPP
approach due to the issues related to suitability of TBLT in teaching students
with low proficiency level. Many students were not able to express themselves
in English due to their limited vocabulary hence making group activity
unproductive when they were not able to contribute to the discussion. The fifth
challenge in TBLT adoption according to the teachers in the study was to cater
to the competing needs of either emphasizing on fluency or accuracy. TBLT
promotes fluency while PPP approach focuses on accuracy. The exam-oriented
education system in Malaysia requires accuracy in obtaining good grades. So,
this was the root of the dilemma to the teachers in implementing TBLT in the
classrooms. Finally, the teachers voiced their dilemma in choosing between
teaching with task or focusing on the teaching of content. The examination
pressure led the teachers to choose the latter (Zarina Mustafa, 2012).
Harison Mohd Sidek (2012)
analyses Malaysian EFL Reading Curriculum against Communicative Task-Based
Language Teaching (CTBLT) curriculum principles. Malaysian EFL Reading Curriculum was
explicitly stated as a communicative curriculum in the document itself, She
found that there was a misalignment between the Malaysian EFL secondary reading
curriculum to the features of a CTBLT curriculum. The reading tasks mainly
involved individual processing of the text and not much pair or group work that
required interaction with the others in processing the text read. In short, it
was found that the reading tasks in the curriculum lacked communicative
features and therefore, the curriculum needed to be revised. The misconception
of a theory as a foundation of a curriculum might lead to erroneous enacted
curriculum then what was originally planned.
Reza Raissi and Fazirah bt
Mohd Nor (2013) interviewed 30 secondary
school teachers regarding their perceptions on the implementation of
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in Malaysia. 76.7% of the teachers
favoured CLT and 23.3% voiced their dissatisfaction with the implementation of
CLT in Malaysia. The reasons given were difficulty to teach students with
different L1 (Malay, Chinese and Indian); greater emphasis on fluency rather
than accuracy and implicit grammar teaching hindered students from
understanding grammar principles. The teachers were satisfied with the quality
of the textbook used generally but expressed their concern on the lack of
authentic materials in the textbook that provided real-life situations to
develop the students’ communicative abilities. Despite the favourable attitude
of the teachers toward CLT implementation, they expressed their hope that
students’ different cultural background should also be taken into consideration
in the implementation of the curriculum. Lastly, according to these teachers,
translation was needed in teaching weak students.
Hall (2015)
conducted a qualitative research funded by the Ministry of Education Malaysia
involving 30 teacher educators and 16 teachers (12 primary school teachers and
four secondary school teachers). The participants worked in thirty rural
districts from the total of 87 such areas in Malaysia. This was part of the
Malaysian English Language Project. The focus of the study was to examine how
teacher educators built acceptance of TBLT among rural primary and secondary
school teachers. The finding indicated that learning by doing experiential
tasks and acknowledging plurilingualism might promote greater uptake of the
innovation in this case TBLT especially in the rural areas. In these areas,
English was a foreign language and there was no real communicative need of
English in the students’ daily lives. Council of Europe (2012)
defined plurilingualism competence as the repertoire of resources which
individual learners acquire in all languages they know or have learnt that are
also related to the cultures associated with those languages. Simply put, the
new techniques introduced by the teacher educators were more readily accepted
by the rural school teachers when national language was also used to explain
difficult and abstract concepts in the in-service teacher education courses.
The teachers also believed that TBLT could work since it involved learning by
doing.
Prior
to this, Hall (2015)
conducted a need analysis in June 2002 by means of survey involving 168 primary
and secondary school teachers in one rural district with the cooperation of the
Malaysian Ministry of Education. The survey was to examine the teachers’
perceptions and views of their own practices and their perceived needs. Fifty
of the teachers were also interviewed. The 2002 need analysis was still
relevant and informed the 2015 study discussed earlier involving teacher
educators and teachers working in rural areas. Based on the need analysis,
teachers stated that “a quiet classroom
based on textbook input as a frequent norm while reading comprehension tasks,
copying from the board and answering worksheets were widely used” (Hall, 2015, p. 162).
Rote learning for examination was also mentioned by the teachers.
Khedidja Kaouter, Mechraoui,
Amal, Mechraoui and Kafayat Motilewa (2014)
investigates the effect of TBLT on second language learners’ autonomy involving
80 pre university students and 12 lecturers at the International Islamic
University Malaysia using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The
lecturers involved in this study understood the concept of learner autonomy
with 85.71% of them believes it was important. However, 71.42% of the lecturers
opined that their learners were not autonomous. The lecturers in this study
believed tasks were meaningful and purposeful and tasks encouraged cooperative
learning. However, the learners were not used to cooperative learning and
needed to be encouraged to participate in such learning approach especially
students with low proficiency level. As anticipated, students with higher
proficiency level were motivated to participate in cooperative learning. Five
of the seven lecturers interviewed believed that tasks encouraged learners to
make decisions pertaining to their learning process. Conversely, the other two
lecturers believed that their learners were dependent and relied on the
lecturers to make decisions concerning their learning.
The
lecturers also believed that tasks taught lifelong skills. However, the
learners thought differently. They did not see life-long learning as the aim of
the tasks assigned. The lecturers believed that tasks encouraged peer teaching
and self assessment. They also agreed that tasks were interesting and
motivating and so do most of the learners. However, some learners responded
that it was a waste of time and they rather focused on the exam. The lecturers
believed that tasks encouraged learners to take an active role in their
learning process but the reality pointed to a different direction. The learners
were dependent on the lecturers probably because they were so used to
teacher-centred teaching and spoon feeding throughout their primary and
schooling years. This was evident when the lecturers stated that the learners
were not able to evaluate and reflect on their work (Khedidja Kaouter, Mechraoui,
Amal, Mechraoui, Kafayat Motilewa, 2014).
The
same themes from the other Asian countries discussed earlier reverberate in the
studies related to CLT and TBLT in Malaysia. The extensive use of shared L1 in
task completion, difficulty in managing pair work and group work in big
classrooms, rote learning for examination and lack of focus in grammar teaching
are the main themes in the implementation of CLT and TBLT in Malaysia. The
studies mostly involved interviews of teachers and teacher educators. There
seems to be lack of research in primary classroom settings where how the
planned curriculum being implemented. The actual implementation of the
curriculum can be observed and analysed to inform policy decisions and to
ensure success in curriculum revamps.
Conclusion
Since
Malaysian primary curriculum is based on CLT, it is crucial to understand the
principles of CLT and identify the embedded principles of TBLT in the
curriculum that can enhance the learning of a second language. The themes
identified in the literature on TBLT in Malaysia and other parts of the world
are similar. The main themes emerged are the extensive use of L1, classroom
management problem when conducting pair work and group work in big classrooms,
problems implementing task with beginner learners, teachers’ misconceptions of
task, rote learning for examination and lack of focus on grammar or forms.
REFERENCES
Adamson, B. & Davison, C.
(2003). Innovation in English language teaching in Hong Kong primary schools:
One step forward, two steps sideways? Prospect, 18(1), 27–41.
Bachman, L. & Palmer, A.
(1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Batsone, R. (2012). Language
form, task-based language teaching, and the classroom context. ELT Journal,
66(4), 459–467.
Butler, Y.G. (2011). The Implementation of Communicative
and Task-Based Language Teaching in the Asia-Pacific Region. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36–57.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P. &
Swain, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning,
teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman.
Candlin. C. (1987). Towards
task-based language learning. In C. C. & D. Murphy (Ed.), Language
Learning Tasks (pp. 5–22). London: Prentice Hall.
Carless, D. (2002).
Implementing task-based learning with young learners. ELT Journal, 56(4),
389–396.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in
teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL
Quarterly, 38(4), 639–662.
Caroll, J. (1993). Human
cognitive abilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe. (2012).
Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and
intercultural education . Retrieved September 27, 2016, from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/%0AGuide_curricula_EN.asp
Duran, G. & Ramaut, G.
(2006). Tasks for absolute beginners and beyond: Developing and sequencing
tasks at basic proficiency levels. In K. Van Den Branden (Ed.), Task-Based
Language Education: From theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Ellis, R. (2013). Task-based
language teaching: Responding to the critics. University of Sydney Papers in
TESOL, 8, 1–27.
Ellis, R. (1991). Second
language acquisition and language pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language
learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. & Shintani, N.
(2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition
research. Oxon: Routledge.
Garcia, M.P. &
Lazaro-Ibarrola, A. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based
interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 54,
40–54.
Hall,
S.J. (2015). Gaining acceptance of task-based teaching during Malaysian rural
in-service teacher training. Retrieved from http://www.stephenjhall.com/uploads/5/2/4/7/52479351/2015_contemporary_task-based_language_teaching_in_asia_s_j_hall.pdf
Harison Mohd Sidek. (2012).
EFL reading instruction: Communicative task-based approach. International
Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 109–128.
Hu, G. . (2005). Contextual
influences on instructional practices. A Chinese case for an ecological
approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 635–660.
Khedidja Kaouter, Mechraoui,
Amal, Mechraoui, Kafayat Motilewa, Q. (2014). The effect of task-based language
teaching on learner autonomy: A case of pre university students at the International
Islamic University Malaysia. International Journal of Humanities and
Management Sciences (IJHMS), 2(1), 2320–4044.
Klapper, J. (2003). Taking
communication to task? A critical review of recent trends in language teaching.
Language Learning Journal, Summer 200(27), 33–42.
Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches
to syllabus design for foreign language teaching. Englewood: Prentice Hall.
Lee, S. M. (2005). The pros
and cons of tased-based instruction in elementary English classes. English
Teaching, 60(2), 185–205.
Li, C. Y. (2003). A study of
in-service teachers’ beliefs, difficulties and problems in current teacher
development programs. 7, 64-85. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies,
7, 64–85.
Littlewood, W. (2007).
Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms.
Long, M. H. (1985). A role
for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching.
In K. Helstenstam & M. Pienemann (Ed.), Modelling and Assessing Second
Language Acquisition (pp. 77–99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Newton, J. (2001). Options for vocabulary learning through
communication tasks. ELT Journal, 55(1), 30–37.
Newton, J. Trang, B. &
Crabbe, D. (2016). Rehearsal and public performance in task-based teaching in
EFL classes at a Vietnamese high school. TESOL Quarterly.
Newton, J. & Trang, B.
(2017). Teaching with tasks in primary school EFL classrooms in Vietnam. In
Ahmadian & Mayo (Ed.), Current trends in task-based language teaching
and learning. Boston, MA: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing
tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based
Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pinter, A. (2007). Some
benefits of peer–peer interaction: 10-year-old children practising with a
communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 189–207.
Prabhu. N. (1987). Second
language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reza Raissi & Fazirah bt
Mohd Nor. (2013). Global Summit on Education (GSE2013). In Teachers’
perceptions and challenges regarding the implementation of Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT) in Malaysian secondary schools (pp. 875–884).
Shintani, N. (2012).
Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A
process-product study. Language Teaching Research. http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811431378
Skehan, P. (1998). A
cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Den Branden, K. (2016).
The role of teachers in task-based language education. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 36, 164–181. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000070
Van Den Branden, K. (2016).
Introduction: Task-based language teaching in a nutshell. In K. Van Den Branden
(Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp.
1–16). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Verhelst, M. (2016). A box
full of feelings: Promoting infants’ second language acquisition all day long.
In K. Van Den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to
practice (pp. 197–216). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Willis, D. & Willis, J.
(2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, J. (1996). A
Framework for Task-based Learning. London: Longman.
Zarina Mustafa. (2012).
Teachers’ encountered challenges in the adoption of Task-Based Language
Teaching in Malaysian classrooms. International Journal of Arts &
Sciences, 269–279.
Zarina Mustafa. (2015).
Malaysian teachers’ level of use in the adoption of Task-Based Language
Teaching. Malaysian Education Deans’ Council, 4. Retrieved from
http://education.usm.my/images/docs/MEDC/VOL4/the relationship between teachers
lou of tblt and their demographic profiles-1.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment