Imanul buqhariah

1505112575

Implementing Task-Based language teaching

(David Beglar and Alan Hunt)

Summary

There are two broad categories of syllabuses that instructor curriculum designer can choose are

1. The synthetic syllabus, segments the target language into discrete linguistic items, such as
points of grammar, lexical items, and functions. This type of syllabus is assumed by users
that learner will be capable of resynthesizing these discrete pieces of language into a coherent
whole which can then affectively utilized in communicative situations (white.1988).
2. The analytic syllabus , is a noninterventionist situations, experiential approach which aims to
immerse learners in real-life communication. It provides learners with samples of the target
language which are organized in terms of the purposes for which people use language
learners' analytic abilities will be equal to the t ask of coming to accurate conclusions about
grammatical and lexical usage, since relatively little may be explicitly explained about the
formal aspects of the language. Analytic syllabuses generally represent the educational value
system espoused by progressivism, which stresses the growth and self-realization of the
individual (White, 1988).
List the most salient characteristics of analytic syllabuses as follow
a) They are primarily concerned with how materials are learned (processes-oriented)
b) Some degree of negotiation between learners and the teacher occurs
c) The content is fundamentally defined as what the subject means to the learner and
what the learner brings to the subject in terms of knowledge and interest
d) Assessment is partially decided based on the learner’s own criteria of success
 e) The instructional situation is far more cooperative than in more traditional, teacher-
fronted classrooms.

One type of analytic is the task based syllabus (crookes and long , 1992). In addition to the
characteristics of analytic syllabuses just described, task-based syllabuses are largely derived from
what is known about second language acquisition (SLA). For instance, SLA research supports a
focus on form which uses pedagogical tasks to draw learner’s attention to particular aspects of the
language code which are naturally embedded in the tasks (long and robinson , 1998;robinson, 1998).
In addition, form-function relationships, which are a critical aspects of SLA MacWhinney,1997).
Should be more readily perceived by the learners because of the highly contextualized and
communicative nature of the tasks provided by a task based syllabus.

The project : student-generated acrtion research

Describe an extended task-based project which was implemented at a major private Japanese
university with approximately 340 first-year-students enrolled in a second semester speaking course.
The project, which we have called student-generated action research required the entire 12 week
semester to complete. However ,as part of the same course, kearners were also engaged in other
activities unrelated to the project throughout the term. This activities can best be described as part of
a direct approach to teaching speaking (donyrei & thurell,1994).

Learners must select the most significant aspects of the data, summarize them, and present
them to the class in a formal presentation lasting approximately 5 to 8 minutes. The general
objectives of the project are to :

o Provide learners the opportunity to use English for authentic purposes for an
extended period of time
o Provide intrinsically motivating activities which take advantage of the learner
o Allow learners to take responsibility for their own English education
o Reinforce learner ability to form grammatically and pragmatically
o Enhance the learners presentation skills
o Demonstrate to students that the use of English can further enhance their own
education
o Provide opportunities for learners to work
A more detailed look at how the project unfolds throughout the course of a semester
follows.

THE 12-WEEK PLAN

WEEK 1

In class: Learners are introduced to the project, they are shown a sample questionnaire, and

they view a sample presentation on videotape. Learners undertake various listening tasks

while viewing the video.

Homework: All learners must form groups of two to four students before the second

class meeting and brainstorm ideas for topics. They should come to the second class with

at least three possible topics.

WEEK 2

In class: The teacher checks each group’s ideas. With the instructor’s advice, each group

should tentatively settle on one topic.

Homework: Each group must write a one- to two-paragraph explanation of their topic

and why they have chosen it. This must be submitted to the instructor by E-mail at least

two days before the third class. The instructor will read the groups’ ideas, check to make

certain that the topics are suitable, and give feedback to each group by E-mail.

WEEK 3
In class: Learners discuss suitable target groups to whom they can administer their
questionnaire.
Homework: Each group must write a one- to two-paragraph explanation of the people
they plan to interview and why they have chosen that particular group. This must be submitted
to the instructor by E-mail at least two days before the fourth class. The instructor
will read the groups’ ideas, check to make certain that the target groups they have chosen

WEEK 4
In class: Groups brainstorm the main points they wish to investigate and then brainstorm
possible questions to include on their questionnaire. The instructor gives feedback to each
group in class.
Homework: Each group should write ten to twelve questions for possible inclusion on
their questionnaire and submit them to the instructor by E-mail at least two days before the
fourth class. The instructor will read the groups’ questions, check to make certain that they
are appropriate, and give feedback to each group by E-mail.
WEEK 5
In class: Groups practice interviewing and using their questionnaire by asking questions to
other class members. The purpose is to find out how well the questions they have formulated
are eliciting the type and quantity of information they hoped for.
Homework: Learners rewrite their questionnaires as needed and send the modified
questionnaires to the instructor by E-mail at least two days before the fourth class.
The instructor will read the groups’ questionnaires and give feedback to each group by
E-mail.
WEEK 6
In class: Learners are instructed to begin gathering data by interviewing a minimum of
ten people per group member (e.g., a three-member group will interview a minimum of
thirty persons). All data should be gathered by week 8 of the semester.
WEEK 7
In class: Learners briefly report to other group members on their progress in gathering
data and any problems they have encountered or any useful revisions to the data-gathering
process that they have discovered.
WEEK 8
In class: Group members compare interview data and look for interesting trends. Groups
sign up for their presentation, which will take place in either week 10 or 11.
Homework: Learners meet outside of class and continue analyzing and categorizing the
questionnaire data. They should choose the information they plan to use in their presentation
by the following class.

WEEK 9
In class: The instructor explains how the presentations will be evaluated, in addition to
discussing presentation skills, such as eye contact, the use of gestures, and voice projection.
The video shown in week 1 (or a different video) is viewed and analyzed in terms of
organization, the types of visual aids utilized, the presence of concrete details and examples,
and presentation skills of the presenters.
WEEK 10
In class: Half of the groups make a formal presentation of their results. The presentation is
videotaped and each group member is individually responsible for viewing the video and
completing a self-assessment of the presentation, which is due the following class.

TOPIC CHOICES
A key element to the success of this project lies in the fact that the learners have primary
control over the topic they investigate. Learners have been found to benefit more from the
discourse which results from self- and peer-initiated topics than from topics nominated by
outside sources, such as a text or their instructor

POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT

THE FUNDAMENTAL BENEFITS OF TASKS
Many individual aspects of the project clearly meet the definition of task laid out by
Skehan(1998). Specifically, Skehan proposes that a task is an activity in which meaning is primary,
there is a communication problem to solve, and the task is closely related to real-world
activities.

PRE-TASK ACTIVITIES

Pre-task activities are used at several points in the project. They are essential for providing
adequate support to the learners in their attempts to deal with a series of complex, challenging tasks.
In some cases, new vocabulary, grammar, or knowledge of language functions are presented in the
pre-activities. This is extremely important in SLA since a great deal of evidence indicates that partial
learning is the norm (see Meara, 1984, and Palmberg, 1987, for more information about the partial
learning of lexical items).

THE NEGOTIATION OF MEANING

Tasks that generate greater negotiation of meaning appear to be more beneficial for
interlanguage development. Ultimately, engaging in negotiation should produce higher degrees
of comprehension as it will result in more finely tuned input as a result of paraphrasing and lexical
substitution. It should also promote greater flexibility in the learner’s rule system by encouraging the
exploration of new hypotheses about the structure of the target language (Skehan, 1998).
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES
 Learners should be actively involved in using communication strategies, such as clarification,
confirmation, comprehension checks, requests, repairing, reacting, and turn taking.
CONTEXTUALIZED LINGUISTIC INPUT
One of the greatest strengths of task-based teaching is the fact that much, or all, language
use occurs in a natural, communicative context. As Kumaravadivelu (1994, p. 38) states, “It is . . .
essential to bring to the learners’ attention the integrated nature of language. . . . Introducing isolated,
discrete items will result in pragmatic dissonance, depriving the learner of necessary pragmatic cues
and rendering the process of meaning making harder.”
POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROJECT
Although the learners who took part in the project benefited from it, we firmly believe
thatthis teaching program can be improved. Indeed, curriculum and syllabus design involves a never-
ending process of making adjustments aimed at enhancing the project’s pedagogical usefulness to
learners.
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH TASKS

First, although early empirical indications strongly support the use of task as an effective way
to conceptualize language teaching, the amount of research is still insufficientSecond, and more
worrisome, is the fact that no task-based program has been implemented and subjected to rigorous
evaluation. Third, little is known about task “finiteness.” For instance, if examined carefully, a task
such as the creation of a questionnaire is composed of a large number of “microtasks” which must be
successfully accomplished in order to complete the larger task. There is probably no clearer
explanation of this than in the work of Anderson and
his colleagues in the area of production rules (e.g., Anderson, 1993; Anderson & Lebiere, 1998).
INCREASING THE FOCUS ON FORM
Skehan (1998) notes that there are two contrasting approaches to using tasks. The first, a
structure-oriented approach, emphasizes form over meaning; the second, a communicatively oriented
approach, focuses very little on form
A CLOSER ANALYSIS OF THE MAJOR TASKS
Skehan (1998) proposes three dimensions for the analysis of tasks. The first dimension
involves code complexity (the language required). This includes such factors as linguistic complexity
and variety, vocabulary load and variety, and redundancy and information density. The second
dimension, cognitive complexity, involves the type of thinking required for the completion of the
task. The first aspect involves the consideration of cognitive familiarity, which consists of topic
familiarity, topic predictability, familiarity with the discourse genre, and familiarity with the task.
The second, cognitive processing, includes the organization of the information, the amount of
computation necessary, the clarity and sufficiency of the information provided, and the type of
information provided. The third dimension, communicative stress, takes the following factors into
consideration: time limits and time pressure, the speed of presentation, the number of participants
involved in the task, the length of texts used, the type of response expected, and the opportunities the
learners have to control the interaction.

CONCLUSION
The task-based project described in this paper was well received by the majority of the
learners in the course. They found the experience to be rewarding, intrinsically interesting, and
educationally beneficial. Many of their final presentations were impressively polished and included a
considerable amount of detailed information, which was well organized and effectively supported by
appropriate visual aids. Thus, the final product was generally of a high level. The concern of this
paper, however, has been with process – a concern common to most analytic syllabuses.