|
Literature
review: EFL syllabus design (Continued). 3.4.4.2.3.2.
Task Selection 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
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):
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)
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).
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)
*
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)
Candlin
(1987) summarises task-selection research findings by proposing a guide
to task-selection:
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
Other published problems regarding the TBS are presented in table 39, below: TABLE
39: THE TASK-BASED SYLLABUS - REVIEW OF PROBLEMS
Continue reading this literature review: "The Process Syllabus" |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||