The “Tasks” in Task？鄄Based Language Teaching

顏薇薇

【Abstract】This essay attempts to make a critical analysis and evaluation of Task？鄄Based Language Teaching （TBLT）. TBLT originates form communicative language teaching （CLT） methodology and “task” is its central part.

【Key words】TBLT； tasks

【中圖分類號】H31 【文獻標識碼】A 【文章編號】2095-3089（2014）06-0041-02

Introduction

Task？鄄based language teaching （TBLT）， simply speaking， is “an approach based on the use of tasks as the core unit of planning and instruction in language teaching （Richards and Rodgers， 2001：223）”. Due to its natural connection with communicative language teaching， much attention of the researchers in second language teaching has been paid to this approach. Some of its advocators claim task？鄄based language teaching is “a logical development” of communicative language teaching on the ground that it adopts some basic principles of the latter （ibid）. They argue that the focus on meaning instead of form serves as one of the key factors in language acquisition （Cook， 2001：37）. Others， however， assert that task？鄄based approach differs considerably from the mainstream communicative approach in that it lays much emphasis upon form and aims to provide learners with sufficient opportunities for “meaningful input” as well as “l(fā)anguage use” （Klapper， 2006：118）. In this sense， TBLT approach focuses on form as well as meaning and sees task？鄄based class activities as the key means to offer sufficient comprehensible input which is conducive to learning process. Despite these disparities， TBLT approach is generally agreed to be a language pedagogical approach which provides learners with “functional tasks” that require a focus mainly on “meaning exchange” and a language use for “real？鄄world， non？鄄linguistic purposes” （Van den Branden， 2006：1）”.

Ⅰ. Concepts of “Tasks”

The concept of “tasks” constitutes the pivot of the class design and teaching practice in Task？鄄based language teaching. In other words， all the arrangements and activities in a language teaching class revolve around tasks. Foster （1999， cited in Knight， 2001：159） points out that the tasks in TBLT are given to learners not as learning material but for the purpose of interaction， and that they provide a setting to facilitate learners learning process. Historically， tasks were first used as the basic unit of the curriculum for vocational training practices of the military in 1950s （Richards and Rodgers， 2001：225）. At that time， the analysis made on task？鄄based training was primarily concerned with “solo psychomotor tasks” which involved very little oral interaction （ibid）. Then the concern on tasks was shifted from individual performance to team performance， in which communication was an indispensable part. Ever since the early 1970s， the use of tasks for academic purpose has attracted focal attention among applied linguists and language teachers （Richards and Rodgers， 2001：226） as they became more and more aware of the necessity to “elicit samples of meaning？鄄focused language use” that represent learners actual language performance when accuracy is not focused upon （Ellis， 2003：1）.endprint

Ⅱ. Definitions of “Tasks”

In a broad sense， Long （1985， cited in Ellis， 2003：2） offers a definition that includes both the tasks which involve language use and those that do not. In a narrower sense， “task” is defined as “an activity that necessarily involves language” （Richards， Platt， and Weber， 1985， and Nunan， 1989， cited in Ellis， 2003：2）. In Prabhus （1987， cited in Richards and Rodgers， 2002：233） opinion， a task is an activity in which learners are supposed to come up with some output from the message they are offered by means of mental process， and teachers are able to guide the whole process.

Actually， the definition of “task” is fairly variable since no complete consensus has been reached as to its definition so far. According to Nunan （1989：10）， a task is the work that learners are required to complete in the classroom with the language they are learning by engaging themselves in the comprehensional， manipulative， productive or interactional activities while focusing primarily on meaning instead of form. For Breen（1987， cited in Nunan， 1989：6）， a task is neither an activity nor a piece of work but a “structured language learning endeavor” with its specific aim， good content， clearly？鄄defined arrangements， as well as a variety of performances it may bring after learners fulfill the task. Simply put， here “task” is assumed to be any operable class design aimed to make language learning easier and more effective. Like most researchers， Ellis （2003：3） defines “tasks” in a narrower sense as activities primarily concerned with “meaning？鄄focused language use”. A task， in Ellis（ibid） view， essentially involves “pragmatic meaning” which refers to contextualized language use. Despite the lack of consensus in the definition of “task”， a commonly agreed？鄄upon understanding still exists in which a task refers to “an activity or goal that is carried out using language”， such as the exercises in puzzle solving， map reading， letter writing， etc. （Richards and Rodgers， 2001：224）.

Ⅲ. Features of “Tasks”

Ellis （2003：9-10） identifies six features of tasks that can serve as the judging criteria for task designs. First， a task acts as a working procedure to facilitate learners language learning process. The form a task assumes can be either instructional materials or improvised teaching plans for randomly occurring activities in the process of teaching. Unsurprisingly， there are chances that the final results of tasks may turn out to be quite different from what teachers originally expect. Thus it can be predicted that a communication？鄄aimed task sometimes may lead to a non？鄄communicative result. Second， the central concern of a task is meaning. Instead of encouraging learners to show their linguistic competence， a task should engage them in meaningful communicative practice using the second language. Naturally， the aim of these meaning？鄄focused interactions is to develop learners second language proficiency. To achieve it， a certain type of “gap” is often employed in tasks， which can take the form of information gap， or opinion gap， etc. Third， a task features the authenticity of language use. Whether the language activities learners are required to participate in are actual or artificial， they should reflect what is really going on in the real communications that are happening in daily life. Fourth， the four basic skills， i.e.， listening， reading， speaking and writing skill， may be singly involved or incorporated in a task. In this sense， a task is a form of language exercise. Fifthly， cognitive processes are involved in the completion of a task. Learners have to collaborate and be mentally engaged to work out a solution to a task. In complementing tasks， learners are trying to use their linguistic knowledge and real？鄄world experience to express their ideas and to negotiate solutions. Finally， the communicative outcome of a task should be clearly specified. Though not linguistically related， this outcome is the aim of the activity and indicates the whether the task is completed or not.endprint

Ellis（2003：16-17） also distinguishes two general types of tasks in terms of the range of forms involved in language teaching， i.e.， unfocused tasks and focused tasks. The distinction between an unfocused task and a focused task is that the former does not focus on specific linguistic features while the latter does. The goal of a focused task is to direct learners attention to particular linguistic phenomena.

Ⅳ. Components of “Tasks”

As to the components of tasks， a variety of breakdowns are proposed by different researchers. Shavelson and Stern （1981， cited in Nunan， 1989：47）， whose studies are mainly focused upon educational planning for general purposes， propose six elements for task design， which are composed of “content”， “materials”， “activities”， “goals”， “students”， and “social community”. From a completely different perspective， Candlin（1987， cited in Nunan， 1989：47） lists seven elements， which includes “input， roles， settings， actions， monitoring， outcomes， and feedback”. Wright （1987， cited in Ellis， 2003：17） proposes two essential elements， i.e.， “input data” and “instructional questions”. “Instructional questions” intend to provide learners with some guidance for using input data. In Wrights opinion， “output” should not be regarded as a task component due to the fact that the same tasks may sometimes result in a wide range of outputs that are different from task designers expectations. In view of the teaching practice that takes place in a real classroom instead of an idealized one， this point makes real sense. Nunan （1989：48-73） identifies three components of tasks， i.e.， “input”， “goals”， and “activities”. Here “input” is the data with which an interactional task starts， such as shopping lists or photos. “Goals” refer to the general purpose for designing and carrying out particular learning tasks， such as to develop students oral skills. And “activities” mean how learners deal with the input in their process of task completion. Interestingly， Ellis （2003：19） suggests jus two distinct components， “input” and “conditions”. “Input” is “the kind of input data” provided by a task while “conditions” is “the way in which the data are presented”. His perspective addresses the need to differentiate data genres from data treatments. Learners of different groups may be provided with the same “input data” but varied “conditions”. And vice versa， they may be given varied input data but equal conditions.

Conclusion

Noteworthily， learners actual communicative needs consti？鄄tute an important consideration in tasks （Klapper， 2006：118）. In the classroom， the top priority for language learners is to fulfill tasks effectively and to bring about a practical outcome. Compared with traditional approaches which expect learners to show their grasp of previously obtained linguistic knowledge by re？鄄expressing others messages with the target language， task？鄄based approach requires learners to fulfill their classroom tasks by drawing on their present linguistic knowledge. It is this distinc？鄄tion that differentiates task？鄄based language teaching from the mainstream communicative language teaching.endprint

Bibliography：

[1]Cook， V.， （2001）. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. 3rd ed. London： Hodder Arnold.

[2]Ellis， R.， （2003）. Task？鄄based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford： Oxford University Press.

[3]Klapper， J.， （2006）. Approaches to Language Teaching. in Klapper， J.， Understanding and Developing Good Practice： Language Teaching in Higher Education. 103-125. London： CILT.

[4]Knight， P.， （2001）. The Development of EFL Methodo？鄄logy. in Knight P. （ed.）， English Language Teaching in its Social Context. 147-66. Abingdon： Routledge.

[5]Nunan， D.，（1989）. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.

[6]Richards， J. and Rodgers， T.， （2001）. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.

[7]Richards， J. and Schmidt， R.， （2002）. Longman Diction？鄄ary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. 3rd ed. London： Longman.

[8]Van den Branden，K.， （2006）. Introduction： Task？鄄based Language Teaching in a Nutshell， in Van den Branden，K.， （ed.）. Task？鄄Based Language Education： from Theory to Practice. 17-4. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.endprint