Introduction
For many decades, teachers have struggled to find an effective teaching technique to facilitate the transfer of knowledge between students and teachers in language learning. Due to this fact, many teachers have noted that there is a strong need to come up with effective teaching methods that concentrate more on the students instead of the teachers.
For a group of Hong Kong students in China, it is confirmed that defining learning from a student-centric point of view is the most appropriate way of teaching language (Nunan 2004, p. 92). Such sentiments have been reiterated by Nunan (2004, p. 93) when he affirms that “teaching efficiency is improved when the learners and their contemporaries are the focus of attention instead of the teacher and his/her teaching”.
From this point of view, many teachers have decided to adopt a student centric approach in designing their teaching curriculums. This new learning paradigm has been adopted to increase student-information interaction during learning processes (LouLeaver 2004, p. 1). In language learning, the task based technique is the most commonly known technique that seeks to accommodate the new learning paradigm.
Task based learning has been extensively used as a teaching technique in the study of languages because it relies on authentic language understanding, even though it still demands that learners use the target language as the common mode of communication (Branden 2006, p. 1).
The technique is task based, in that, it requires learners to perform different tasks, such as calling the police, calling the fire department and such simple tasks using the target language. This technique is unique, in that, learner assessment virtually depends on a learner’s ability to successfully complete a task, instead of his/her ability to use the target language to complete the same task.
Nonetheless, the task-based technique has been extensively used to improve the fluency level of learners when using the target language, in addition to instilling a sense of confidence among learners (Hattie 2005, p. 61).
As noted from the name of the technique (task based), the core of the task based technique in language learning is the task itself. Practically, the active language components of the learning process are usually deemphasized because learners are expected to focus more on the task instead of the language (Flowerdew 2005, p. 14).
Several frameworks are usually used to achieve desired results in task-based learning but this study seeks to analyze a framework of learning advanced by Jane Willis. This framework incorporates the pre task, task, and post task (output) as the major design components (Wenger 1998).
This framework will act as the basis of the second language curriculum design analysis as a critical component of this study. The second language to be used will be English and it is to be taught among a group of Chinese learners.
Conceptual Analysis
Traditionally, the most commonly used learning model for language teaching was the presentation, practice, and production model (PPM) (Errey 2005). The model was quite different from the task based approach model because in the words of Littlewood (2010, p. 3):
“ According to the PPM model, individual language items (for example, the past continuous) are presented by the teacher, then practiced in the form of spoken and written exercises (often pattern drills), and then used by the learners in less controlled speaking or writing activities”.
The task-based approach was considered effective by most researchers until its arbitrariness was discovered (especially in the teaching of grammar) because the technique was noted to fall short of the learner’s needs in language learning (Littlewood 2010, p. 3).
Moreover, the production stage of the technique was largely considered inauthentic by many teachers and students because it failed to stick to the chosen learning structure (Littlewood 2010, p. 4). These PPM shortcomings later led to the development of the task based learning technique.
Curriculum Design Analysis
In analyzing the group of Chinese learners, the task based learning technique will engage the students in a three-step task process (according to Willis model).
The first stage is the pre-task stage where the learners are required to comprehend or recall the teacher’s introduction of the task or topic to be covered (at this point, the learners also take part in gathering and coordinating important pieces of information which will enable them accomplish their specific tasks).
In the second stage, the learners are allowed to proceed with undertaking their tasks either individually or in a group setting. Finally, in the third stage, the learners are required to come up with a report detailing the tasks they have undertaken and the challenges or conclusions they arrive at.
After the completion of the task and a submission of the task’s report are done, the learners are then required to focus on the specifics of the language inclusion where important language highlights are carefully analyzed and evaluated (based on how they were or could be integrated into the overall task).
Pre-task Stage
As a basic task in English learning, students undertaking the task-based technique are required to identify sources of media which fit a number of selected profiles. The profiles selected are: identifying official media sources meant for the general population, identifying media sources meant for the youth and identifying media sources meant for children.
Despite the fact that the learners are required to identify a specific communicative activity (identifying media sources meant for different age groups), it remains clear that the learners will be learning specific forms of media meant for different audiences. With such a task at hand, the learners are likely to pay more attention to the meaning of the task they arrive at (when carrying out the task).
The same situation can also be depicted when the learners have to carry out a given task of publishing their written essays in a specific type of media but fail to agree on the modalities of undertaking specific courses of action. Because of this reason, they have to explain the reasons why they think a specific course of action is better than another.
For student A, he thinks having his piece of work published in the local newspaper is the right decision and therefore he has to justify his reasons. Student B thinks her work should be published in a female magazine and has to justify her reasons. Student C thinks his work should be aired on local radio while student D thinks her work should be aired on local television.
For this task, it becomes a difficult duty to draw a clear-cut difference in understanding the form of the task to be undertaken and comprehending the meaning of the task. Because of this ambiguity, it is advisable to come up with a new continuum where both the form of the task and its meaning are encompassed.
Afterwards, it will be easier to quantify where different activities lie along the continuum, since it will be easier to establish whether the activities focus more on the form of the task as opposed to its meaning. The diagram below best represents this comparison since the shaded region represents a stronger focus on the meaning of the task while the un-shaded region represents a stronger reference to the form of the task.
(Adapted from www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_3997/task_based.doc)
All different continuums are however focused on improving the goal of communicative learning.
The diagram below is a representative of the same continuum, only that it is more detailed on the activities and tasks to be carried out by the learners.
(Adapted from www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_3997/task_based.doc)
According to the diagram, specific tasks and activities depicted in the left wing of the continuum are representative of exercises, but those on the right side are representative of tasks (Littlewood 2010, p. 5). The middle boxes are nonetheless a representation of both (exercises and tasks).
According to the Interim Report of the TOC Evaluation Project, the writers propose that the “half-and-half’ activities have played an important role in helping Hong Kong teachers to gradually implement task-based learning and they propose placing them into a category of ‘exercise-tasks”. (Littlewood 2010, p. 6)
Task: Non Communicative Learning
The non communicative learning task is normally centred on instilling a sense of proficiency in grammar among the group of Chinese learners. However, in this task, there is a minimal sense of communication because students are inclined to learn the rules of grammar, based on practical examples of sentences.
For instance, in the following example, the learners are required to look for the specific use of the adverbs: always, often, sometimes, usually and never then identify the rules applied in the sentences. The following sentences are representative of the exercise:
Customers are usually disappointed when the local newspaper is delivered late.
The Herald is never elaborative on its articles.
His parents often bought the London Post until the scandal surfaced.
I am never sure of whether to buy the Herald or the London post.
I sometimes watch the news on Fridays.
We never rely on informal media.
Larry king often carries out his interviews informally.
I always like to quote official sources of media in my academic papers.
They have never got back to me since I applied for the job.
You can always be sure the news will air political stories.
I will never understand why informal media is more widespread than all forms of media. Jeremy is often seen writing for two media houses.
The students are later required to apply specific rules of language understanding to the following simple sentences by placing the adverbs in their respective right places. They air sports in the evening (often).
I can watch the local news at 9 p. m (never).
Jack and Jill are good media critics (always).
They fail to air sitcoms on Sundays (sometimes).
The Washington Post uses American English (usually).
Informal media transcends international borders (often).
We read newspapers in the morning (never).
Informal media is elaborate (usually).
Christian media is not secretive (never).
Task: Pre Communicative Language Practice
In the pre communicative language practice, learners are often required to pay close attention to the discrete components of learning, but at the same time comprehend how various aspects of their meanings are applied. As part of the first segment of this task, the learners have to look at a given table and understand what the subjects have to do and what they would like to do. This task is normally undertaken in groups.
The major type of activity practiced in this activity is the question and answer styled activity where the Chinese learners need to probe and seek answers regarding various questions, pictures, or topics they may find of interest to them.
Most often than not, the answers are usually already determined, even though the students are normally required to emphasize more on the meaning of the questions. In this type of task, the students are required to provide answers regarding a given topic, such as the ones presented in the following scenario:
Task: Communicative Language Practice
The main purpose of this task is to bridge the language gap created by the non-communicative type of information because the communicative language practice is more detailed on the meaning of given tasks. The question and answer type of activity (for example) is more descriptive and does not dig deeper into the real meaning of the questions asked.
This particular task is therefore important because in a task-based approach, there is more emphasis on the context of the question. For this task, a simple questionnaire is normally used to expose the information gap created by a student’s own experiences with specific forms of media (for example) as described below.
Perhaps, to provide a follow up to this exercise, the learners may be required to write what they think of their colleagues’ preferences. Alternatively, the learners may be required to use specific images and pictures that symbolize the same meaning as the texts, but which have a different contextual meaning.
Task: Structured Communication
Already, we know the specific type of language needed to carry out specific tasks from the above examples. From this point of view, we are able to exercise various functions of language in terms of grammar. However, for the next type of task, the learners shift focus and move a step further into the continuum to communicate specific meanings in language communication.
Implicitly, this means that it becomes increasingly difficult to establish the type of language to be used in this segment. However, for purposes of this study we will still stick to English language.
Nonetheless, it is possible for different teachers to restructure tasks into given languages to improve their students’ proficiencies in the same. For purposes of this activity, students will be required to undertake an exercise regarding the use of future tense.
For instance, the task can be titled “the Media Tomorrow” where students will be required to predict media changes that will happen in the world for the next fifty years (from the date the task is being carried out). For instance, how will the working day be? Will every home be connected to the internet? Will the media be exclusively aired through the internet? And such like questions.
The learners are hereby expected to write a number of ideas on the given topic, or on a different subject area, after which the ideas will be read out in the class and analyzed among the students.
The most commonly agreed ideas can then be written on the board, according to various variations; for instance, students sort out their work in various groups, say, optimistic and pessimistic, or students may decide to use specific topics of high appeal as topics for their next essay.
Another common way in which students can develop structured communication is when they are given instructions on what roles to play, but still undertake various interpretations on the same.
Post Task (Output)
At the post task output stage, the learners are usually required to have completed all the tasks and expected to provide a report, either in oral or written form, to both the instructor and the class. Most of the time, the oral form of presentation is most appropriate because it enables the learners to improve their oral skills in utilizing the foreign language.
However, written forms of presentation are also good because they improve the learner’s ability to use English in written form but it is normally assumed that such tasks are already covered when undertaking the earlier tasks.
The teacher input at this point of the exercise is basically limited to monitoring the activities of the students and taking questions, or facilitating the exchange of information, questions and answers between the students and the rest of the class. However, at the report stage, the teacher may give an oral or written feedback on a student’s performance (of the tasks).
At this point, the teacher may make recommendations on ways through which the student may improve his or her understanding of the language or how the student may better perfect the completion of the work. René notes that in the output stage,
“the focus returns to the teacher who reviews what happened in the task (with regards to language). It may include language forms that the students were using, problems that students had, and perhaps forms that need to be covered more or were not used enough” (Faßbender 2009, p. 3).
For poorly performing students, the teacher may recommend all the tasks be redone but this depends on the type of institution and the policies they practice.
Conclusion
The task based learning technique has a number of advantages, but the most basic is that the technique is authentic and can be used in improving a learner’s ability to communicate using the target language.
Also, during the report stage, learners are normally engaged in adopting the target language in a more generalized form, as opposed to the initial specific language utilization, as was evidenced in the PPM technique. When further comparing the advantages of the task based technique and the PPM technique, Littlewood (2010, p. 8) notes that:
“Whereas the aim of the PPP model is to lead from accuracy to fluency, the aim of TBL is to integrate all four skills and to move from fluency to accuracy plus fluency. The range of tasks available (reading texts, listening texts, problem-solving, role-plays, questionnaires, etc) offers a great deal of flexibility in this model and should lead to more motivating activities for the learners”.
The major difference between the task based approach and its predecessors is that the task based approach is more random but if correctly analyzed with a systematic analytic language tool, learner needs can be met. Another major advantage identified with the task-based approach is its strong emphasis on student activities (Thornbury 2009, p. 267). In other words, this shows the student-centric nature of the technique.
To a great extent, this provides a more meaningful sense of communication for the learners and in most scenarios; it provides a practical basis where learners can develop their linguistic skills.
Even though some observers point out that the technique has its own grammatical weaknesses; in the pre task stage (just after the teacher introduces the language), the learners can adapt whatever grammatical constructs they wish, or use whatever vocabularies they want.
This is especially useful in orienting beginners to new language learning because they are allowed to use their primary languages at the beginning stages of the learning process. Studies show that as the students orient themselves with the language, they are likely to be more motivated in using the target language (especially after undertaking the tasks) (Littlewood 2010).
Nonetheless, one of the major problems associated with task-based learning is its poor teaching of grammar (Lee 2004, p. 2). This is a particular area of concern for most teachers, considering grammar is a major part of the overall comprehension of language.
This shortcoming is often exhibited, despite the fact that task based learning is supposed to develop the learner’s ability to communicate and a fluency in grammar is a major part of empowering student fluency in communication. It is one of the most basic forms of communication.
Also, the task based learning technique has been faulted by some teachers as lacking a strong relationship between its tasks and the final objective of improving the communicative ability of learners. Nonetheless, the task-based technique has been extensively used to improve the fluency level of learners when using the target language, in addition to instilling a sense of confidence among learners.
Due to this reason, most teachers are still of the opinion that the task based learning technique is the missing link between tasks and communication because it is the most commonly known technique that seeks to accommodate the new learning paradigm.
References
Branden, K. (2006) Task-Based Language Education: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Errey, L. (2005) Whose Learning Is It Anyway? Developing Learner Autonomy through Task- Based Language Learning. New York, Garant.
Faßbender, R. (2009) Using New Media in the Task-Based German Conversation Classroom. New York, GRIN Verlag.
Flowerdew, J. (2005) Second Language Listening: Theory and Practice. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Hattie, J. (2009) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating To Achievement. London, Taylor & Francis.
Lee, C. (2004) Language Output, Communication Strategies and Communicative Tasks: In the Chinese Context. New York, University Press of America.
Littlewood, W. (2010) “Task Based learning of Grammar”. <www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_3997/task_based.doc> .
LouLeaver, B. (2004) Task-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education: Practices And Programs. Georgetown, Georgetown University Press.
Nunan, D. (2004) Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Thornbury, S. (2006) Conversation: From Description to Pedagogy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Wenger E. (1998) Communities of Practice. Cambridge University Press, New York.