时间：2022-09-18 12:05:38
Abstract Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) was invented as a logical product of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). The strengths and weaknesses of the task-base syllabus design in language teaching generated many controversies in the beginning of implementing. The assessment should be on the basis of teaching situation.
Key Words task-base syllabus; strengths and weaknesses; teaching situation
Introduction
The mainstream approach of foreign language teaching has been shifting from traditional methodology of imparting by teachers to the emphasis on language development of learners themselves since the late 1960s. The emergence of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) was a revolution on traditional methodologies and still widely influences language teaching till today, because language is more likely to be considered as a tool for communication and the attention is paid on practice as a way to develop communicative skills (Richards and Rodgers, 2005). In the 1980s, Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) was invented as a logical product of CLT. The task-base syllabus design in language teaching generated many controversies in the beginning of implementing.This essay shows some key theories which influences task-based syllabus, and makes general comments on this syllabus. There are some teaching environments suited this type of syllabus the best, and this easy explores them in great detail. The first section of this paper introduces what is task-based syllabus; the theories which had influence on it follows; the third part makes assessment of strengths and weaknesses on this syllabus; and the last section describes some suitable teaching situations.
1. What is task-based syllabus?
In the 1970s of last century, Davies (1976) classified two principal approaches of curriculum design and later White (1988) summarized them into two types of language teaching syllabuses. Syllabus of type A (product based) reflects the orientation of focusing on pre-arranged linguistic items and language skills; while type B (process based) syllabus, to which task-based syllabus belongs, is a ‘non-interventionist approach’ that aims at involving learners in a natural communication (White, 1988).
Referring to the term task, Long (1985:89) defined it as ‘a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for another, freely or for some reward. Thus, examples of tasks include painting a fence, dressing a child…by task is meant the hundred and one things people do in everyday life…’. In the ELT class, Task-based Language Teaching is a kind of work which requires students to comprehend, manipulate, produce or interpret the target language through fulfilling given tasks with emphasis on meaning instead of forms and provides them with a simulated real-world language environment (Nunan, 1989). Skeham (1996: 20) also suggested that tasks should ‘bear some resemblance to real-life language use’.
On the basis of these principles, Willis’s framework of TBLT is generally accepted as a guidance of task-based syllabus design. She suggested that TBLT consists of three phases: ‘pre-task’, ‘task-cycle’ and ‘language focus’. In the first phase, the teacher introduces topic and task, explains and recalls useful words and phrases to students. There may also be some pre-task language activities if the topics are difficult or the students are not familiar with them. Finally the teacher makes sure that all the students understand what the topics involve, what the target is and what outcome they are required to achieve. It is usually a relatively short stage in the whole framework. The second phase includes ‘task, planning and report’. Students carry out the task in pairs or groups first, with the teacher playing the role of monitor or facilitator. Then the teacher asks the students to plan their presentation and tells them what form the presentation should be take. Later, students report their result of their discussion to the whole class orally or in writing. The purpose is to enable students to compare their own work to others’ and widen their experience. At last, the teacher should sum up all the presentations and give feedback to the students. In the third phase, the students do some ‘consciousness-raising activities’, such as evaluating their work and analyzing language features in order to gain useful language items (Willis, 1996: 39-115).
2. Theories which influence task-based syllabus
Since the dominant approach of foreign language teaching and learning has been gradually moving from traditional methodologies to more communicative ones, many linguists put forward theories which influenced the emergence and development of task-based syllabus a great deal.
Krashen’s theories impact widely in this field all over the world especially in America. His four hypotheses were ones of the early psycholinguistic theories. These are ‘the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis and the input hypothesis’ (Nunan, 2004: 77). The acquisition-learning hypothesis insists that, in addition to learning second language consciously, there is also a process of subconscious acquisition which is basically the same as learner acquiring their first language and can only happen naturally when they use language as a tool for communication (Krashen, 1982). This hypothesis indicates that attention should be drawn on creating a communicative environment rather than presenting linguistic items during designing syllabus. The natural order hypothesis states that learners tend to acquire main grammatical items of the second language in a particular order no matter what their first languages are and what the formal order in the textbook is (Krashen, 1982). This theory aroused controversial directions of syllabus design that whether ELT syllabus should contain sequence of grammatical rules or not. It supports the adoption of the task-based syllabus to some extent because this kind of analytic syllabus focuses less on grammar orders, and provides opportunity of using language in order to achieve acquisition complying with the natural order in a great degree (Nunan, 2004). According to the monitor hypothesis, learning second language consciously can only enable learners to monitor and correct their language instead of producing it (Krashen, 1982). Therefore, it is obvious that only language demonstration and explanation in traditional syllabus can not provide with sufficient class time and chance for learners to acquire language. Task-based syllabus was designed to remedy this disadvantage. The last hypothesis suggests that progress of language learning can only be achieved when the level of input is a little higher than learners’ current competence. This theory is in a big controversy hence replaced by the ‘output hypothesis’ which was put forward by other linguists (Nunan, 2004: 79).
From the hypothesis of giving priority to the output, Hatch (1978) argued that learners should acquire target language by communicating with others instead of learning grammatical items and then arranging them into utterance in their real-world conversation, so the importance of output can not be ignored. Swain (1985) also maintained that grammatical rules can be inputted and adjusted during producing language. Later, Long (1985) put forward the theory termed as negotiating of meaning. He mentioned that learners are impelled to reproduce their utterance and choose more intelligible linguistic items to improve it when they can not be understood by others. It is a natural process which is similar to the communication in the everyday life and can benefit acquisition. These points of view make it necessary to bring communicative context into ELT syllabus.
Task-based syllabus was also influenced by the theories of ‘focus on form’ by Long and Robinson. They claim that focus on form, as an opposite of focus on forms, ‘often consists of an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features C by the teacher and/or one or more students C triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production’ (Long and Robinson 1998: 16). So merely paying attention to meaning or linguistic forms in language teaching is not an effective approach. It is better to combine the advantages of the two while dealing with their weakness during syllabus design and material selection, because the second language acquisition is a ‘process explicable by neither a purely linguistic nativist nor a purely environment theory’ (Long and Robinson, 1998:22). Therefore, the language focus phase in the framework of TBLT conforms to this principle and can benefit acquisition after interaction in the second phase.
However, there are also some theories which do not support task-based teaching. The ‘noticing hypothesis’ put forward by Schmidt (1990) pointed out that noticing is an important factor for language acquisition, and only linguistic items which are paid attention by learners consciously can be available for intake and processing. So many efforts have been devoted to search for a balance of form and forms in task-based syllabus.
3. Strengths and Weaknesses of Task-based Syllabus
As a kind of analytic syllabus, task-based syllabus apparently differs from the traditional synthetic syllabus and has its advantages and drawbacks.
The most notable strength is that more authentic language is exposed to students in the classroom. Task-based syllabus can involve the real world situation into the procedure of class. During syllabus design, tasks in the daily life are adapted and transformed into pedagogical tasks which are suitable for classroom. For example, tasks can be getting to know each other, describing the best book, explaining a map, attending a job interview and so on. Namely, in the process of fulfilling the tasks, students are immersed in a simulated real situation and encounter authentic use of language (Nunan, 2004). And there are less formal grammar clauses in the syllabus, which enable students to produce their own utterance instead of memorize stereotype of language.
In the pre-task phase of the framework, the students are given some key words or phrases which might be used during completing tasks. This phase makes the beginning of a lesson to be whole class activities, and it is the main part of traditional syllabuses. While in contrast, task-based syllabus arranges more class time for communication in the following phase which allows students practice the lexis or grammar rules they learned in real conversation immediately. For an instance, the task describing the best book is designed to practice the present perfect tense and vocabulary about books. The teacher can explain sentence pattern have you ever…, the best book I have ever…to students and require them to use it in their own speech. Further, this syllabus provides students with the chance to evaluate their results, analyze specific language features, and receive the feedback from the teacher after doing tasks (Willis, 1996). All the classroom time distributed to each part of a class can be well arranged and clearly shown on the syllabus. In other words, task-based syllabus integrates input, output and evaluation together in order to achieve quality acquisition.