Literature review: EFL syllabus design (Continued).
Previous Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

3.4.4.2.3.2. Task Selection
Using task (in its various classifications) as the unit of analysis, and lacking a sequenced list of grammatical items purporting to present input language in increasing difficulty, selection and grading of tasks is an important issue for the syllabus designer and teacher (cf. table 33, below):

The essential problem to be solved, then, is how to achieve a rational articulation in selecting, sequencing and integrating tasks so that the curriculum is more than an untidy 'rag-bag' of tasks which, while theoretically motivated in psycholinguistic terms, are unrelated to each other and disconnected from the learner. (Nunan 1993:56)

TABLE 33: METHODS OF ANALYSING TASKS FOR SELECTION IN TASK-BASED SYLLABI 

Researcher

Criteria for task selection

Brindley (1987)

Factors contributing to difficulty

  • Relevance to the learner
  • Complexity (number of steps involved, complexity of instructions, cognitive demands, quantity of information)
  • Amount of context provided and knowledge of the world required
  • Language demands
  • Assistance given
  • Accuracy required
  • Time available

Candlin (1987)

The nature of the task as a factor of difficulty

  • Cognitive complexity
  • Communicative difficulty
  • Whether the task follows a general sequence of operations of whether this is unclear
  • Linguistic complexity
  • Continuity between tasks

Candlin & Nunan (1987). The cognitive operations required of the learner, as a factor of difficulty

 

 

  • Attending to or noticing or recognising the input
  • Making sense of the input, e.g. How the language is organised and structured
  • Processing information (e.g. Hypothesising, inferring)
  •  Transferring and generalising what is learned

Candlin (1987)

Set of criteria by which tasks might be selected and graded

  • Cognitive load
  • Communicative stress
  • Particularity and generalizability
  • Code complexity and interpretative density
  • Process continuity

Anderson & Lynch (1987). Factors determining the difficulty and sequencing of tasks

  • The sequence in which the information is presented
  • The familiarity of the listener with the topic
  • Explicitness of the information contained in the text
  • The type of input
  • The type   and scope of the task to be carried out
  • The amount of support provided to the listener (speaker)

Prabhu (1987)

Five factors contributing to task difficulty

  • The amount and type of information provided
  • The amount of reasoning or cognitive operation needed
  • The precision needed
  • The learners' knowledge of the world and familiarity with the purposes and constraints of the task
  • The degree of abstractness of the concept dealt with in the task

Nunan (1989)

Analysis of factors contributing to task difficulty

  • The grammatical complexity of the text
  • The length of the text
  • The propositional density (how much information is contained in the input)
  • The vocabulary used
  • The speed of listening texts and the number of speakers involved
  • The explicitness of the information
  • The genre, discourse structure and sequencing of items in the text (cf. Brown & Yule, 1983)
  • The amount of support in the form of pictures, etc. (cf. Bransford & Johnson 1972)

Brown (1991)

Different dimensions for the analysis of tasks

  • Tight-loose
  • Closed-open;
  • Procedural-interpretative

Skehan (1992)

Three-way distinction for the analysis of tasks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.        Code complexity

  • Linguistic complexity and variety
  • Vocabulary load and variety
  • Redundancy and density

2.        Cognitive complexity

¡¤       Cognitive familiarity

    • Familiarity of topic and its predictability
    •  Familiarity of discourse genre
    •  Familiarity of task

¡¤       Cognitive processing

  • Information processing
  • Amount of 'computation'
  • Clarity and sufficiency of information given
  •  Information type

3.        Communicative stress

    • Time limits and time pressure
    • Speed of presentation
    • Number of participants
    • Length of texts used
    • Type of response
    • Opportunities to control interaction

Berwick (1993)

Underlying dimensions of tasks

  • Task goals (educational/social)
  • Task processes (experiential/expository

Pica, Kanagy & Falodun (1993)

Analysis of tasks in terms of their potential to lead to comprehensible input

1.      Interactional activity

    •  Interactional relationship
    • Interactional requirements

2.        Communicative goal.

  • Goal orientation
  • Outcome option

Robinson, Ting & Urwin(1996)

Influences on task difficulty

  • Cognitive load
  • Planning time
  • Prior information

 

Skehan (1996a; 1998) draws attention to the problem of processing load, with difficult tasks consuming more attentional resources, leaving less available for attention to form, and thereby reducing the "residual" benefit:

It is imperative, therefore, that tasks are sequencable on some principled criterion, since the basis on which tasks are ordered will be a reflection of what attentional resources they require. (Skehan 1996a:51)

 ... it is important to classify task types according to difficulty, so that pedagogically motivated task selection can be more effective. (Skehan 1998:97)

Though researchers agree on task-difficulty as the main criterion of task selection, along with other criteria (e.g. dimensions of analysis [Brown 1991] and interactional criteria [Pica et al. 1993]), there is a difference of opinion between researchers who consider discourse consequences of task features, and those who consider task effects on processing goals (cf. Skehan 1998). Candlin (1987) bases his task-difficulty categories on an essentially data-free account, an approach developed by Nunan (1989) and Skehan (1992). Skehan proposed a three-way distinction for the analysis of tasks (Skehan 1992), which (following Candlin [1987] and Nunan [1989]) he later developed into a scheme for task sequencing, contrasting formal factors (code complexity) with content (cognitive complexity) and with pressure to achieve communication (communicative stress) (cf. table 33, above).

Brown et al. (1984) investigated various task design features in an attempt to establish task difficulty on an empirical basis, proposing dynamic, and abstract tasks (table 34, below):

TABLE 34: TASKS OF ASCENDING DIFFICULTY (BROWN ET AL 1984): 

Degree of difficulty

Static task

Dynamic task

Abstract task

e.g. Diagram

e.g. Pegboard

e.g. Story

e.g. Car Crash

e.g. Opinion

 

Many elements, relationships, characters, etc.
(more difficulty)
Few elements, relationships, characters, etc.
(less difficulty)

 

¡¡ ¡¡ ¡¡ ¡¡ ¡¡

Pica et al.  (1993) start from the assumption that acquisition takes place as a function of the learner engaging in interaction (cf. Allwright 1984a & b) and therefore analyse tasks in terms of interactional patterns and the sorts of goals that underlie the tasks-to-be-transacted (table 35, below): 

TABLE 35: ANALYSIS OF TASKS USING PICA ET AL'S (1993) FRAMEWORK (SKEHAN 1998:105

 

Jigsaw

Information Gap

Discussion

Interactional activity

  •            Interactional relationship

Two-way

One- or two-way

One- or two-way

  •            Interactional requirement

Required

Required

Not required

Communicative goal

  •            Goal orientation

Convergent

Convergent

Divergent

  •            Outcome options

One-only (i.e. agreement)

One-only (i.e. agreement)

Arbitrary; probably more than one

This view requires learners to express meanings and to negotiate meaning: "an activity presumed to be particularly helpful in bringing about language change" (Long 1989). Tasks are therefore seen in terms of their potential to lead to comprehensible output, feedback on production, and interlanguage modification (Skehan 1998), though Pica et al. (1993) acknowledge that "few studies have actually linked negotiation features found during task interaction with the acquisition processes themselves" (Pica et al. 1993:27). Foster (1998) also shows that results can be distorted by a small number of negotiation-oriented individuals, and that most participants do not negotiate meaning.

Bygate (1996a) sees beneficial results from task repetition (greater focus on form - accuracy, restructuring and more complex language), provided that the participants see adequate challenge in doing this, and Skehan (1996a:55) and others advocate use of an "appropriate difficulty" criterion in task selection, since it  encourages and motivates learners to respond to challenges which they can see are achievable with effort (Willis 1996; Williams & Burden 1997). Tasks of appropriate difficulty also make it easier for learners to manage their attentional resources, resulting in "noticing", balanced language performance, and less reliance upon lexicalized language, communication strategies, and elliptical communication. Learners are therefore able to devote attentional capacities to form (accuracy, complexity, and fluency; cf. Skehan 1998, table 36, below): 

TABLE 36: SELECTIVE GOAL INFLUENCES FROM TASK CHARACTERISTICS (SKEHAN 1998). 

Task characteristics

Source

Accuracy effects

More structured tasks (especially when planned)
Clear time line
Familiar tasks

 

Skehan and Foster (1997)Foster and Skehan (1996)

Complexity effects

Tasks requiring more complex decisions
Tasks requiring transformation of elements
Tasks requiring interpretation
Divergent tasks

 

Skehan and Foster (1997) Skehan and Foster (1997) Brown (1991) 
Duff (1996)

Interlanguage change effects

Language focusing tasks

 

Swain (1995)

Fluency effects

Structured tasks (unplanned)
Familiar tasks

 

Skehan and Foster (1997) Foster and Skehan (1996)

 

Researchers have also attempted to predict task-difficulty by comparing task types (table 37, below): 

TABLE 37. FACTORS INFLUENCING TASK-DIFFICULTY (ADAPTED FROM SKEHAN 1998:135) 

Contrast

Source

Small number of participants/elements vs. large number

Brown et al. (1984)

Concrete information and task vs. abstract

Brown et al. (1984)
Skehan and Foster (1997)

Immediate, here-and-now information vs. remote

Robinson (1996)
Foster and Skehan (1996)

Information requiring retrieval vs. information requiring transformation

Skehan and Foster (1997)

Familiar information vs. unfamiliar information

Foster and Skehan (1996)

* italics indicate greater task difficulty

Other factors influencing the grading and sequencing of tasks include the pedagogic option chosen to accompany their use (table 38, below) (cf. Long & Crookes 1993:41). 

TABLE 38: RESEARCH FINDINGS RELATED TO TASK-SELECTION ACCORDING TO PEDAGOGIC OPTIONS (BASED ON LONG & CROOKES 1993:41

Pedagogic options

Researchers

Effects on student comprehension of elaboratively, or interactionally, modified spoken and written discourse

Parker & Chaudron (1988)

Effects on student production of certain types of teacher questions

Brock (1986); Tollefson (1988)

The quality and quantity of language use in whole-class and small group formats

Doughty & Pica (1986); Bygate (1988); Long & Porter (1985)

Relationships between different pedagogic task types (one-way and two-way, planned and unplanned, open and closed)

Long (1989)

Negotiation work and interlanguage destabilization

Berwick (1988); Crookes & Rulon (1988); Pica (1987a); Pica et al. (1989); Varonis & Gass (1985); Review: Crookes (1986); Long (1986); Long (1989); Nunan (1989); Pica (1987b)

Candlin (1987) summarises task-selection research findings by proposing a guide to task-selection:

    1. one-way tasks should precede two-way tasks;
    2. static tasks should precede dynamic tasks;
    3. tasks in the present time should precede ones using the past or future;
    4. easy tasks should precede difficult ones;
    5. simple tasks (only one step) should precede complex tasks (many steps).

It is assumed that if tasks are "well-chosen" (i.e. selected according to criteria such as Candlin's, above), and if it is possible to define and identify relative difficulty in tasks which typically overlap each other and which tend to develop in unforeseen directions, then the syllabus designer and the teacher can hope for "an effective balance between fluency and accuracy" (Skehan 1996a:53), with tasks of "appropriate difficulty" (Skehan 1996a:55) giving learners the chance to direct balanced attention to each of these areas and to operate a dual-mode system (Carr & Curren 1994). Tasks which are too difficult, on the other hand, are likely to over-emphasise fluency, as learners only have sufficient attentional capacity to convey meaning, using production strategies (Faerch & Kaspar 1983), lexicalized language, and stressing meaning (Bygate 1988), at the expense of accuracy (Ellis 1987). If tasks are too easy, they will present no challenge, and will probably not extend goals of restructuring, accuracy, or fluency in any effective way.

It is important to note that "sequencing becomes a crucial component of L2 learning/ teaching operations only in language-centered and learning-centered approaches which are predominantly content-driven" (Kumaravadivelu 1993b:82). If the teacher is provided with the knowledge and skills necessary to make informed choices about the types of tasks and their sequencing (cf. Lee 1987:42), and if students are encouraged (and trained) to make their own informed contributions to syllabus design, in line with process-learning concepts, then it is not necessary to specify a graded series of tasks (whatever the sequencing criterion) in the syllabus.

3.4.4.2.3.3. Assessment of task-based syllabi

Task-based syllabi usually imply assessment of learning through task-based criterion-referenced tests (CRT), in which the focus is on task performance according to a given criterion, evaluating an individual's specific communicative skills (Brown 1988), and providing information "about what the learner can actually do with the target language" (McClean 1995:137) (cf. Section ........... testing). Developments in criterion-referenced language testing hold great promise for language teaching in general and for TBLT in particular. (Brown 1989a).

3.4.4.2.3.3.. Problems of task-based syllabi
Skehan
(1996a:30), warns of excessive focus on meaning during task completion, confining learners to the strategic solutions they develop, without sufficient focus on structural change or accuracy. As a result, it may not be possible to rely on a task-based approach to automatically drive interlanguage forward, and it will be necessary "to devise methods of focusing on form without losing the values of tasks as realistic communication motivators, and as opportunities to trigger acquisitional processes" (Skehan 1996a:42). Sheen (1994) also warns of the inadvisability of associating the TBS with the Comprehensible Input hypothesis (Krashen 1981; 1982), and asks for "concrete examples" of findings on the effectiveness of tasks "in the normal language classroom", suggesting that task-work should focus on two "fundamental questions":

  1. Does task-work result in actual acquisition/learning and, if so, does it have an equal effect on receptive and productive skills?;

  2. What is the role and nature of instruction in TBSs? (Sheen 1994:146). 

Other published problems regarding the TBS are presented in table 39, below:

TABLE 39: THE TASK-BASED SYLLABUS - REVIEW OF PROBLEMS 

Author

Problems

Grice (1975)

Maxims for conversation make for a considerable processing burden because of what is not said.

Clarke & Clarke (1977)

There is natural and unavoidable use of strategies of comprehension.

Schinnerer-Erben (1981)

Difficulty is not easily defined and is of questionable value. Natural sequences do not really exist in sufficient detail to be used as the basis for a precise order, nor have they been shown to facilitate learning in a second language situation. (1981:11)

Duff (1986)

Turns tend to be relatively short, with simple syntactic construction

Anderson & Lynch (1987)

Non-deterministic and non-exhaustive methods are used to recover intended meaning, with the success of this operation often being dependent on only partial use of form as a clue to meaning.

Kellerman (1991)

There is widespread use of communication strategies. These too, help the learner succeed with meaning while having the consequence of sometimes bypassing form.

Skehan (1992)

"Solutions" to communication problems can become proceduralized and re-used on other occasions. Their proceduralization can then become a stumbling block for change in the future.

Long & Crookes (1993)

The research base is limited at present. Some classroom findings may bear alternative interpretations.

Identification of valid, user-friendly sequencing criteria is one of the oldest unsolved problems in language teaching of all kinds (see Widdowson, [1968:134-44] for discussion)

Finiteness. How many tasks and task types are there? Where does one task end and the next begin? How many levels of analysis are needed?

General learning processes need more protection than task relevance can offer.

"No complete programme ... has been implemented and evaluated which has fully adopted even the basic characteristics of TBLT ... much less the detailed principles for making materials design and methodological decisions." A few programmes have been reported which reflect some principles of TBLT (Yalden & Bosquet 1984; Yalden 1987, references in Breen 1987b). "Not one of these innovations has been subjected to the kind of rigorous, controlled evaluation we think essential, however. We are therefore urging consideration of partly untested proposals."

Few commercially published materials based on these ideas exist.

Seedhouse  (1999)

There is a lack of studies which present a 'holistic' analysis and evaluation of the interaction produced by tasks in the classroom.

The task constrains the nature of the turn-taking system and the kinds of linguistic forms used in the learners' turns.

There is a general tendency to minimise linguistic forms.

There is tendency to minimise the volume of language used and to produce only that which is necessary to accomplish the task.

"Interactants ... seem to produce utterances at the lowest level of explicitness necessary to the successful completion of the task."

Continue reading this literature review: "The Process Syllabus"