Overview of a framework for task-based teaching three
Specialists and policy makers in American education have developed a framework for task-based teaching recognized in section 1 above. In fact, such a sophisticated teaching method cannot achieve its targeted goals without an involvement of specific guidelines, specifically established for the teachers. In this section, a framework for the CLT will be reviewed.
The main aim of this discussion is to describe how the task based language teaching applied in elementary classroom will be enhanced in order to yield the desired outcomes. This framework provides a description of the key issues in the teaching model introduced in lower elementary schools. This will include enabling both the target and pedagogical skills.
This section provides an outline of the procedures that elementary school teachers will apply to develop integrated syllabus. In the process of designing the syllabus, focus on material design will be an area of the main emphasis. Moreover, the principles for the procedures are going to be established.
The Task Framework
The target tasks or real-world tasks are the point of departure for TBLT. These tasks are several things that human beings do every day, such as using language, including writing, reading, exchanging ideas and socializing. These have been recognized as the four-macro functions of a language. According to this model, language is used for three basic purposes; they are exchange of goods and services, socialization as well as enjoyment.
Teachers and policy makers in elementary education must develop effectiveness as they seek to develop pedagogical tasks by transforming the real-world tasks described herein. According to Richards and Rodgers (23), such tasks in language teaching are better achieved when they are considered and placed as a continuum from the rehearsal to activation tasks.
Pedagogical task
Rehearsal is an important task in teaching language in lower elementary levels. Rehearsal is actually a rationale behind the transformation of real world targets in language toward pedagogical tasks.
For example, when teaching communication skills, a teacher may ask a student to take part in the task of writing his or her personal profiles. Students will be asked to exchange their reports with their partners in order to see how different their answers are. From this task, it is evident that the task has been transformed from the real world task (the process of job seeking) to language teaching in class.
This framework is designed to provide the students with an opportunity to involve them in rehearsing some performance done outside the classroom, but which will activate their language skills in the classroom. In this case, foreign and second language learners will gradually move from the stage of “reproductive” use of the second or foreign language to a stage of “creative” use of the language.
The creative use of language is a state in which the learners are able to recombine some familiar words, expressions and language structures in a fresh way. At this stage, the students of both the foreign and second language are likely to gain the ability to maximize their language acquisition.
This is more possible when such students start using the language in a creative. In addition, it is evident that they will gain this capability primarily because they must make use of the resources as well as emerging skills to learn and use the language. This is known as activation rationale in language teaching.
Considerations for syllabus design
In most cases, task based teaching approach faces a major problem because it consists of a random collection of tasks that have not been tied together. To tie these tasks together in an appropriate manner, it is necessary to consider two things. Within the syllabus, it involves macro functions, grammatical elements and micro functions they express.
To enhance the process of task tying, there is need for an effective syllabus design. The syllabus is designed in a manner that expresses the task and the three elements of a task.
For instance, in the task section, the teacher will make the students assume that they are in a party, where their partners will introduce three new friends. In this case, the macrofuction is to socialize; the micro function of the task is to exchange personal information while the grammar elements of the task include “stative” verbs such as “yes” or “no”. The following is an example of a syllabus design:
Syllabus content: Tasks and Functions
Tasks and functions of a task are related. A single task is always underpinned by at least one function. Tasks are normally made of a function and another element such as context. Tasks allow grammar and functions to be activated within a give context of communication. Unlike the normal things done in a language, functions of a task appear more abstractive realizations.
Within the context of the syllabus, it is normally important for the leaner to share with others, as they get oriented to the transformation of the real-life target to classroom experience with the task-based language and grammar elements.
In this case, grammatical and functional elements must appear in a number of times within a wide and diverse range of contexts. In particular, this syllabus has proved important for second language students primarily because it has been found to have the capacity to allow these students develop and restructure a deep understanding of the grammar.
Research has shown that a leaner’s ability to use a particular form of grammar several times and over a longer period will progressively increase his or her accuracy rates. However, research has also shown that the mastery of language does not proceed in a liner fashion from zero state to native-speaker state. Sometimes, the learners’ ability may stabilize, while at other times, the ability gets from good to worse.
This is primarily because linguistic items do not exist as isolated entities, but rather any item is likely to be influenced by a number of factors. Accordingly, learners must undergo a “linguistic metamorphosis” since language acquisition is a long and organic process (Richards and Rodgers 47). The syllabus for task-based teaching is based on this model in order to allow the leaner to enrich their language.
Task-Based Language Teaching
According to Ellis (52), one of the major aims of developing task-based language teaching (TBLT) is to provide a better alternative to the traditional methods of language teaching, especially the age-old instructional-based preventative-practice-production (PPP). Willis and Willis (147) have asserted that TBLT draws on a number of pedagogical and learning theories.
For instance, it draws extensively from theories of acquisition of L2, including Skehan’s theory, Long’s theory of interaction hypothesis, cognitive theory of L2 learning and Robinson’s cognitive hypothesis. It is worth noting that TBLT largely relies on its primary learning principle.
According to Bachman (453), this principle is based on the assertion that learners are placed at a better position to learn a language if they are actively and frequently involved in certain activities that normally have authenticity of interaction. Long (27) asserts that this principle is important in ensuring that the learners’ attention is captured and concentrated in such tasks.
Moreover, Long (31) has shown that the learners attention is more importantly involved in the construction and comprehension of messages, but in TBLT, such attention will be directed to form where there is need to do so. It has been shown that negotiation of meaning is an important aspect when there is need to provide learning opportunities.
Based on such theories, it has been realized that different definitions of the term “tasks” have emerged since the introduction of the TBLT methods in teaching lower grade learners. Despite this, all these definitions seem to provide a special reference to a number of features that were also summarized in the definition by Ellis (94).
In this context, Ellis (93) summarized some key features that appear in most of the meanings developed in various studies on TBLT since 1980s. First, Ellis (95) argues, “meaning is primary”. Secondly, he asserts, “a gap does not exist”. Thirdly, the student’s form of communication should necessarily allow them to make use of both linguistic and non-linguistic resources available to them. Finally, Ellis (102) asserts that other than the perceived display of the correct language, there is always some other outcome of the TBLT when used in class.
According to Long (98), there are different ways through which teachers and policy makers in education can devise, design and “operationalize” tasks. For instance, tasks can be focused or unfocused, production-based or based on comprehension. Moreover, it has been shown that there is freedom of either including or excluding the use of post-activity or pre-activity when implementing tasks.
According to Murphy (342), focused tasks emphasize on involving the students on certain and specific features of linguistics when they are performing a given tasks. On the other hand, Murphy (346) argues that unfocused tasks lack any specific feature in mind when performing tasks.
When applying comprehension-based tasks, there is need for the language learners to show a high degree of input. Such input must either be in form of descriptions or directions. On the other hand, production-based tasks, learners are required to make utterance with the specific feature marked as a target by the teacher.
According to Murphy (354), TBLT display some unique features not common in the old methods of language teaching and pedagogy. For instance, it involves a series or cycle of events used to ensure smooth language acquisition. According to Willis (121), this cycle involves pre-task, the main task and post-task stages of activities. However, it is worth noting that a lesson in language teaching can proceed normally with the main task and without the other two stages of the cycle as shown by Willis and Willis (234).
Prior to the development of TBLT, the main method of language teaching in most elementary schools in the united states was largely based on the age-old present-practice-product model (PPP), whose origin can be traced to audiolingualism. As shown in most 20th century books on ESL and EFL, this model had been the mainstream approach to teaching students a second and a foreign language not only in the United States, but also in Europe and most parts of European colonies in Africa, Asia and South America.
According to DeKeyser (41), skill acquisition theory is a relatively recent theory of language acquisition that has emerged to underpin the older teaching methodology. DeKeyser (42) argues that skill-acquisition theory of teaching language emphasizes on practice as the key feature in allowing learners as they progress to a procedural stage of knowledge from a declarative stage.
According to Ellis (86), this method is applicable in language teaching, where it entails three important features. First, it presents the learners with unequivocal information regarding to the establishment of declarative knowledge using a target feature. Secondly, it provides the learners with a practice in the form of activities in order to ensure that procedural knowledge is developed.
According to DeKeyser (142), such activities are controlled production in nature. Finally, the methodology entails engagement of the learners in free-production activities through the involvement of structure-based tasks as described by Ellis (99). This allows learners to “automate” the declarative knowledge in language acquisition.
Apart from these methodologies of the PPP model, several others do exist but with little importance both in practice and research. For instance, the task-supported language teaching model by Ellis (94) and the ESA (engage, study and activate) model by DeKeyser (149), have been studied, but have not been used explicitly in classrooms in most cases. In both these methodologies, task is introduced only in the final production stage of the learning cycle.
Despite the importance, effectiveness and popularity of TBLT, a number of critics have argued that it does not provide a better alternative to PPP. In fact, other have cited a number of loopholes in the method when compared to the old PPP model, arguing that TBLT is likely to mislead teachers and policy makers if used exclusively as the sole and ideal method of language teaching in lower grades.
For instance, Swan (388), has argued that the theoretical rationale behind the TBLT method is only applicable to grammar acquisition, while largely ignoring other important areas as vocabulary and phonology. In addition, Swan (389) claims that TBLT has little efficiency and capacity to provide the learners with new language compared to traditional PPP (Swan 393).
To describe the weakness with TBLT, Swan (391) has further claimed that TBLT is not applicable to lower grade learners as well as beginners. He cites a problem with TBLT in that it can only provide limited language inputs to the learners. Finally, Swan (394) has argued that TBLT lacks empirical evidence that can support the hypothesis that was used to construct the theoretical rationale or demonstrate its advantages over the traditional approaches that largely relied on the focus-on-forms methodologies.
Despite Swans arguments, it is worth noting that there is little evidence obtained from a comparison between TBLT and traditional methods such as the PPP to provide evidence that the former is much weaker or less effective than the traditional methods. A study by Sheen (268) has become among the first of its kind in comparing the impacts of TBLT with those of PPP in an empirical setting.
Using two groups of elementary grade 3 learners in a normal school, the researcher gave the students some seven months of TBLT and an equal number of students were given PPP. The researcher then measured the ability of the learners using three tests. An Aural written comprehension test was used a test, alongside two others- grammaticality judgment test and an oral interview test.
In this case, the oral interview test was based on scores for correct use of certain structures marked as the target. Using the grammaticality and oral production test, the study by Sheen found that TBLT had some weaknesses compared to the PPP methodology. However, this method should not be used as the ideal study to assert or conclude that TBLT is much weaker than the PPP. In fact, in practice, it has been found that the opposite holds true.
Noteworthy, the study by Sheen was biased because of a number of reasons. For instance, this study had a number of methodological problems, as evidenced by the fact that it is quite difficult to determine whether his approach was properly implemented. For example, this method might have ailed to create adequate opportunities to focus on forms.
From an in-depth analysis of both the PPP and TBLT, it is worth noting that TBLT has a number of advantages to the leaner and the teacher in general. According to Jeon (93), developing this new approach to teaching was necessitated by the advent of communicative language teaching approaches in late 1970s and early 1980s.
In addition, there was much emphasis on the communicative abilities of the learners since 1960s, which developed a debate on the most effective method in teaching language, especially in lower class levels. In fact, TBLT has become the most effective approach to providing language skills to second language learners over the last three decades. SBLT method has increasingly become popular has among the policy makers in American early education as well as among the teachers in elementary schools.
According to Nunan (403) and Richards & Rogers (21), it is evident that Rogers TBLT is compatible with the philosophy of leaner-centered classroom education. Secondly, Murphy (354) has shown that TBLT has particular components such as a specific outcome, procedures as well as a goal. Moreover, Murphy (358) and Littlewood (321) assert that TBLT advocates for content-oriented and meaningful activities as compared to the PPP and other models that had been advocating for linguistic forms.
The method provides learners with additional and greater opportunities for language acquisition and use. According to studies, it has been indicated that TBLT has emerged and evolved over the last five decades as a central concept realized from long-term education tests empirically in classrooms.
Studies have further provided empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that the method is good for teaching lower elementary language classes. For instance, it has been confirmed that there a number of pedagogical benefits to the learners because it involves a culture of participation. However, it has been shown that little amount of research materials have been developed from an in-depth review of the method.
According to carless (642), TBLT’s view of teaching foreign and second language is primarily based on the constructivist theory of learning as well as the communicative language teaching models. This perspective indicates that the inherent problems and limitations associated with traditional PPP approach.
Comparison studies have shown that the procedure of presentation, performance and practice are faced with a number of limitations in PPP (Long 98).
These studies have indicated that language teaching is a part of developmental process that promotes communication and well as social interaction. In contrast to previous methods, this method does not rely on product acquisition through practicing of language items. TBLT allows learners to learn the target language more effectively through exposure to the meaningful task-based activities in class.
Conclusion
Task-based language teaching applied in elementary classroom from grade 1 to 3 is better developed within the context of a framework that takes into consideration the tasks, their functions and grammar elements. The task-based framework allows the teacher to take into consideration the process of transforming real-life tasks to pedagogical and grammar skills. Within this context, developing a syllabus that will take into consideration this framework must be based on the theoretical aspects of language acquisition.
Works Cited
Bachman, Lewis. “Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment”. Language Testing, 19 (2002): 453-476. Print
Carless, David. “Issues in teachers’ re-interpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools”. TESOL Quarterly, 38.4 (2004): 639-662. Print
DeKeyser, Manuel. Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print.
Ellis, Richard. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Print.
Jeon, In-Jae. “An analysis of task-based materials and performance: Focused on high school English textbooks”. English Teaching, 60.2 (2005): 87-109.
Littlewood, Willis. “The task-based approach: some questions and suggestions”. ELT Journal, 58.4 (2004): 319-326. Print
Long, M and Griffith Crookes. “Three approaches to task-based syllabus design”. TESOL Quarterly, 26.1, (1996): 27-56. Print
Loschky, Laban and Rowan Bley-Vroman. Grammar and task-based methodology. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1993. Print.
Murphy, James. “Task-based learning: the interaction between tasks and learners”. ELT Journal, 57.4 (2003): 352-360. Print
Nunan, Davis. Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print.
Richards, Jack and Theodore Rodgers. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print.
Sheen, Richard. “Focus on forms as a means of improving accurate oral production”. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006. Print.
Skehan, Paul. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print
Swan, Maurice. “Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction”. Applied Linguistics, 26.3 (2005): 376-401.
Willis, Davis and James Willis. Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print
Willis, James. A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman, 2006. Print.