CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW: EFL syllabus design

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)

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]), ther e 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):

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):

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. italic">(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):

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

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). 

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 40, below:

Continue reading this literature review: The Process Syllabus

---