Читать книгу Task-based grammar teaching of English - Susanne Niemeier - Страница 13

Presumably the first scholar who reported on having taught along the lines of what was going to be known as task-based language teaching was PRABHU, who describes his view of foreign language teaching as follows:

The development of competence in a second language requires not systematization of language inputs or maximization of planned practice, but rather the creation of conditions in which learners engage in an effort to cope with communication. (PRABHU 1987: 1)

In other words, second language acquisition happens in and through communicative activities and all the teacher needs to provide are opportunities for authentic, natural communication, which can be done by using tasks. PRABHU conducted an experimental project, the so-called ‘Communicational Teaching Project’ in Bangalore, in which especially the messages (i.e., the communicative content) were meant to be noticed by primary and secondary classes and not so much the structures, which were only paid incidental attention. The learners did not follow a syllabus consisting of a progression of linguistic structures but instead engaged in certain meaningful activities, in which tasks were used as a vehicle through which language was to be generated.

Today, task-based language teaching is not seen as one specific approach but rather as a “family of approaches that are united by two principles: First, meaning is primary, and second, there is a relationship between what learners do in the classroom, and the kinds of things they will need to do outside of the classroom” (NUNAN 2015: 13). In order to cater for these principles, the learners are confronted with well-organised tasks which they have to solve and which should be based on communicative needs in the real world. For example, if the communicative topic is ‘healthy food’1, the learners are not only provided with vocabulary and language structures relating to food (word fields, plural –s etc.) but are furthermore enabled to achieve goals that go beyond the classroom, namely to obtain food and drink in an English-speaking culture and to know about healthy nourishment – which, by the way, can additionally be seen as an example for the learner-centredness of task-based language teaching.

Although ‘tasks’ are the core of task-based teaching, there is no unanimous agreement on what a ‘task’ is. NUNAN (2015: 192) calls a task “the basic building block of the instructional design”. He differentiates between so-called ‘real-world tasks’ and ‘pedagogical tasks’ (NUNAN 1989). Real-world tasks (such as painting a fence, repairing a bicycle etc.) do not necessarily involve language, but as soon as they enter the classroom (for example, in the form of telling others how to paint a fence or how to repair a bicycle or making plans or shopping lists in preparation of performing such real-world tasks) they become pedagogical tasks. According to NUNAN, the aim that the learners are meant to reach is to convey meaning rather than to focus on grammatical form2. Most other researchers only mention the pedagogical tasks, not the real-world ones. Therefore, in what follows the term ‘task’ is only used to refer to pedagogical tasks. WILLIS, for example, one of the best-known proponents of task-based language teaching, offers a very wide definition of (pedagogical) tasks as “activities where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (…) in order to achieve an outcome” (1996: 23), which rules out most of the didacticised “communication” in a traditional classroom. The notion of a task achieving an outcome means that the learning is goal-oriented and leads – depending on the task – to a solution or to a product.

There are various classifications of tasks, however, a discussion of all of them would lead too far at this point3 and therefore only three of them are briefly characterised in what follows. These three classifications are each based on different ways in which tasks can be classified and should not be mixed up when designing tasks, because tasks can be addressed from quite different perspectives depending on the learning results that are meant to be reached.

Whereas PRABHU (1987) uses a cognitive typology of tasks and differentiates between three different types of task, namely 1) information gap activities, 2) reasoning gap activities and 3) opinion gap activities, not all task-based scholars follow this differentiation. A cognitive typology such as PRABHU’s orders the tasks according to the kinds of cognitive operations involved. According to PRABHU, information gap activities are the easiest tasks and reasoning gap activities the most difficult ones (with opinion gap activities coming somewhere in between) as they involve more cognitive steps than the other two types.

Information gap activities involve “a transfer of given information from one person to another – or from one form to another, or from one place to another – generally calling for the encoding or decoding of information from or into language” (PRABHU 1987: 46). An example for such an activity could involve the creation of a weather chart, using spoken radio weather forecasts.

A reasoning gap activity involves “deriving some new information from given information through processes of interference, deduction, practical reasoning, or a perception of relationships or patterns” (PRABHU 1987: 46). This kind of activity is similar to a gap activity, however, some of the necessary information is not provided by the teacher or by the task but needs to be found out by the learners themselves. An example could be witness reports on the occasion of a lost or stolen schoolbag. The witnesses report, for instance, to have seen the bag at a certain time and at a certain location and may have observed a mysterious somebody taking it away – some witnesses saw the mysterious person’s sunglasses, others saw other parts of this person’s outfit, still others saw in which direction the person was running etc. The groups then have to pool their information and need to deduce or figure out what happened to the schoolbag.

Finally, opinion gap activities involve “identifying and articulating a personal preference, feeling, or attitude in response to a given situation” (PRABHU 1987: 47). Many examples fit this task type, from finding an end for a story via taking part in a discussion on a specific topic to collecting data on the likes and dislikes of the other classmates.

PICA et al. (1993) use a psycholinguistic typology of tasks and identify five task types, which they classify as 1) jigsaw tasks, 2) information gap tasks, 3) problem-solving tasks, 4) decision-making tasks and 5) opinion exchange tasks. A psycholinguistic typology orders the tasks according to their potential for language learning. PICA et al.’s typology is “based on interactional categories that have been shown to affect the opportunities learners have to comprehend input, obtain feedback, and to modify their own output” (R. ELLIS 2003: 215).

In jigsaw tasks, the group members receive different pieces of information and have to pool their knowledge by exchanging information in order to reach a task solution. For example, the teacher enters the class and holds up a mobile phone that was found in front of the school building and which apparently belongs to one of the English exchange students who are currently visiting the school. The learners then get different fragments from WhatsApp conversations and have to find out the correct chronology of these conversations in order to find out whose mobile phone was found.

Information gap tasks, which are best done in pair work, are somewhat similar to jigsaw tasks as again some pieces of information are missing for one of the participants and this information is then provided by the other participant. For example, the learners describe their rooms to each other and the person who is listening has to draw the described items into an empty map of a room. Then the learners change their roles and the second room map is produced. Afterwards, the learners comment on whether their rooms were drawn correctly.

Problem-solving tasks can refer to a wide variety of activities, from solving short puzzles, for example of the odd-one-out type, to solving real-life problems, such as recommending a certain course of action for something or to somebody, for example, giving directions to a stranger who asked for the way to a certain building or institution.

Decision-making tasks usually do not have a predetermined outcome, i.e., there are no right or wrong solutions. Instead, they require the participants to agree on a solution after several options have been discussed. An example could be that the learners create a huge pizza for the next class party, with toppings that everybody in the group likes.

Finally, opinion-exchange tasks do not have a predetermined outcome either, but there is no need for the group to reach a unanimous solution. An example would be a discussion on where the next class trip should lead. In such a discussion, the learners can collect the advantages and disadvantages of specific locations without having to come to a decision.

WILLIS (1996), as the third classification example, uses a pedagogic typology of tasks and speaks of six different task types, namely 1) listing, 2) ordering and sorting, 3) comparing, 4) problem-solving, 5) sharing personal experiences and 6) creative tasks. Pedagogic typologies are usually directed at learner training, most frequently the training of the four language skills. WILLIS’ typology is somewhat different and is, according to R. ELLIS (2003: 211), “based on an analysis of the kinds of tasks commonly found in text book materials. The types reflect the kind of operations learners are required to carry out in performing tasks”.

Listing can mean, for example, that the learners produce a list or a mindmap of items, activities, locations etc. Such lists could refer to things that are necessary for repairing a bicycle, animals that one would like to see in a zoo, places one wants to visit during a class trip etc.

Ordering and sorting can, for instance, refer to the fact that the learners use such a list as outlined above and rank the items on it concerning their importance, distance, or any other factor.

Comparing can mean, for example, that the learners try to find similarities or differences between what the individual group members above prepared or between what the different groups came up with. To stick to the example above, if several groups listed and ordered places and sites for an upcoming class trip, not all groups will have the same results and a solution has to be found how to evaluate the differences.

Problem-solving tasks are seen in the same way as described for PICA et al. (1993) above, with examples ranging from giving directions to finding something hidden in the classroom in some kind of treasure hunt.

Sharing personal experiences could refer to the learners’ likes or dislikes, for example, when it comes to leisure activities or music or travelling or to presenting one’s family or one’s Christmas wishes.

Finally, creative tasks are usually the most complex task type. They can be done verbally, as, for example, by writing an additional verse for a Christmas song or in rewriting a popular song, or they can result in a product, such as preparing a healthy snack, a classroom party or a school trip. WILLIS also mentions that an activity can belong to more than one task type, which is usually the case for creative tasks.

Apart from the general types of task outlined above, the task topic is certainly of interest as well. R. ELLIS suggests that

… the guiding principles in the selection of content for tasks will be (1) topic familyarity and (2) intrinsic interest. Some appeal may also be made to (3) topic relevancy by predicting the general situations that learners may later find themselves in. (R. ELLIS 2003: 218)

As already mentioned earlier on, topics have to be motivating for the students in order for them to participate and to be willing to involve themselves in working on the task. However, a learner group is always heterogeneous, and therefore the learners’ areas of interest will vary. When planning a task, a teacher needs to keep in mind that the topic should be interesting for the majority of learners. Furthermore, as solving a task needs to draw on the learners’ world knowledge, the topic should be familiar enough to them to enable them to use their background knowledge, which will of course vary from individual to individual, so that the learner groups can pool their knowledge and profit from each other in this respect. R. ELLIS’ third point, although given as somewhat of an addendum in the quotation above, is actually equally important as the other two points he makes, because learners need to be prepared for situations beyond the classroom, for example, when spending time abroad in the culture(s) of their target language. They have to be able to ask for directions or to give directions, to obtain food and drink, to visit tourist attractions, to plan their travels and excursions, to interact with native speakers, just to give some few examples.

A well-designed task should furthermore allow the learners, at least as much as possible, to act in a self-determined way, and it should respect the learners’ individuality, i.e., their creative ways of thinking and their personal views in understanding and solving problems, which is of course easier for more advanced learners than for beginning learners. New ideas are appreciated, as there is not only one answer to every question and there is no set answer.

When planning grammar-related tasks, though, finding a suitable communicative topic is only half of the story, as the grammatical construction needs to fit into the topic as well. Therefore, the topic has to be well-structured and the language chosen for the pre-task phase as well as for the task instructions and potential worksheets needs to guide the learners into using the grammar construction in question. When the grammar topic is chosen first, situations in which the construction is used in natural communication behaviour need to be found which follow the above-quoted guidelines for suitable task contents. This task-finding sequence can also be turned around, as the teacher can first decide on a communicative situation, then see which grammatical constructions are frequently used in this situation and finally decide to focus on one of them.

After having provided an overview of diverse typologies of tasks and of ideas on what a task is, it may have become obvious that there is no definition which is shared by all researchers. Therefore, as a working definition, this book follows – at least to some extent – the definition provided by R. ELLIS:

A task is a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the real world. (R. ELLIS 2003: 5f.)

What can be seen differently from what R. ELLIS claims is that in the approach of task-based grammar teaching, as proposed in this book, a task always wants the learners to choose particular forms, they not only “may” do so but instead have to do so. Whenever a certain grammatical structure is the leading competence to be acquired in a lesson, besides the communicative topic, this influences the task design because the teacher first of all needs to find situations in which the structure in question is used in natural communication and then has to select one of these situations and create a task which guides the learners towards using exactly this structure.

As a matter of caution, it should also be mentioned at this point that the task-based approach is not universally accepted but has also been criticised, especially since not all task-based language teaching proponents necessarily agree on what this approach entails nor, as mentioned above, do they all share the same definition of ‘task’, which makes it somewhat difficult to provide a coherent account of the approach. Criticism comes, for example, from RICHARDS/RODGERS (2001: 241), who lament “the absence of systematic grammatical or any other type of syllabus that characterises current versions of TBLT” and state that an evaluation of task performance is difficult. Furthermore, SEEDHOUSE (1999) claims that the language use in task-based lessons can be rather minimalistic and limited and therefore suggests that task-based learning should not be the only approach used. A counterargument, however, would be in this case that if the teacher offers rich input and prepares tasks that demand more than minimalistic language use from the learners by repeating useful words and phrases during the pre-task phase and by constructing tasks that demand a more sophisticated language use this danger may not be so imminent, especially when compared to PPP grammar lessons, where the learners’ use of the foreign language is normally limited to reading out isolated sentences.

COOK (2016: 289) argues that the task-based approach does not reach far enough beyond the classroom environment, by saying that “ …it (i.e., task-based teaching) does not appear concerned with overall teaching goals” and that

… there are higher goals to language teaching than fluency, accuracy and complexity, such as the beneficial effects on the students of the second language (personal goals), the usefulness of knowing a second language for the society (local goals) and the benefits for the world in general (international goals). (COOK 2016: 289)

These additional goals, however, are very far-fetched and it seems as if COOK (not exactly a supporter of the task-based approach) has tried to find whatever criticism he could think of. He certainly seems to be demanding far too much from one single approach to foreign language teaching and presumably no approach will ever be able to achieve all the goals mentioned in the quote above.

COOK does agree that fluency and accuracy may profit from the task-based approach and this is already a lot more than was reachable by previous approaches. Boiled down to a more manageable level, COOK’s “higher goals” can even be fulfilled by a task-based approach. In an ideal case, task-based instruction motivates the learners and can therefore be seen as an enrichment for their own lives (“personal goals”), and it can furthermore be useful outside of the classroom (“international goals”, although not necessarily for “the world in general” but rather for individual encounters in an international environment). Finally, as task-based foreign language teaching aims at contributing to the learners’ knowledge of and about the second language, even the “social goals” are addressed.