That said, there were some points raised during “Task Based Learning: Challenges and Possibilities” (surely that was dusted off from some previous plenary??) that stimulated some conversation.
First, the contention was made that TBL mimics the processes that underlie the acquisition of the mother tongue. TBL is meaning-based, outcome-focused, and intrinsically communicative. All true. However, it is certainly controversial to suggest that the process of learning a first language is necessarily the optimal path for learning a second: the environmental conditions are different (relations between interlocuters, the supportive differences between home and school, sheer frequency of exposure); physical conditions are different (the brain has developed into a more logically grounded one which may/may not be attuned to language in the same ways as in younger years; the accumulation of background knowledge / experience interferes / interacts with language accumulation).
Second, the speaker's use of the word language is slightly disingenuous: I think he actually meant L1 oracy. Children typically do NOT learning writing skills until they go to an institution. Many cultures have been and still are largely oral-based, and so while it is true that everyone, all things being equal, learn a language, this means they learn to speak it, not necessarily write it. Native speakers of English have varying levels of proficiency when it comes to writing, hence the growing numbers of writing centers at universities, to assist native-speaking students to improve writing skills. This is an important distinction, because TBL is often used for developing writing classes, and relies heavily upon the written medium as language support in more advanced learning classes.
Third, what I think is interesting by omission is the issue of authenticity. The speaker referred to Mike Long's work on TBL often, but as far as I can recall, did not mention the word authenticity once in 3 presentations on the subject. Long, OTOH, does emphasize the importance; for example Long, M. H. (1996). Authenticity and learning potential in L2 classroom discourse. In Jacobs, G. M. (ed.), Language classrooms of tomorrow: Issues and responses (pp. 148-69). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. The speaker characterized TBL as outcome-focused, communicative, and meaning-based. I would contend that Long would say meaningful is more important. That communicative depends on the context of language use, and that the outcome needs to be more connected to students' needs and their particular contexts of use than a skills-based curriculum that may developed largely arbitrary to an analysis of learner's needs.
I wrote about this in a paper on authenticity, and tried to capture the essence of authenticity along three dimensions illustrated by the following table:
Authenticity | Criteria | ||||
Engagement of Communicative Competence | Degree of interaction | Length of discourse | Language knowledge areas | Proportion of code vs. context rules | Intercultural competences |
Task Context | Field | Tenor | Mode | Genre | |
Learner-centeredness: Available choices | opics | Tests / Tasks | Output criteria | Administrative prerogatives | |
Authenticity in EFL teaching practice is an increasingly important issue, made more difficult by the lack of any concise description of what the concept constitutes. I wonder if the speaker holds to the commonly-held view of textual/script authenticity, which I reject, and would propose instead a view that sees authenticity as the interaction between the text, the context, and the user. These factors are operationalized along three dimensions: the engagement of learner communicative competence in terms of interlocutor interactivity and discourse; the description of task context in terms of systemic functional linguistics; and the orientation of the task towards a constructivist approach. This characterization of authenticity is seen as crucial for being able to discuss and evaluate best practice in both testing and teaching contexts.
Last night the speaker rejected the notion of pre-teaching, as TBL practice subsumes such practice. However, Widdowson and Long have both supported such practice. Following on from Widdowson’s (1979: 257ff) recommendation, teachers can legitimately use so-called interlanguage (ie simplified) texts, without compromising authenticity. These texts are created by the teacher, for example, to highlight some kind of language features that students may need for future real-world tasks. Widdowson (1979) maintains that task authenticity is not compromised as long as the manipulation of such texts reflects purposes and activities that real-world users would normally engage in.
Using such simplified texts also finds justification in Long and Robinson’s (1996) Interaction Hypothesis. In this model, form-focused instruction on these language elements proceeds opportunistically, through the teacher-led exploitation of communicative, interactional classroom analyses of text. Again, what is important is not so much the process by which a text is created initially or modified from its appearance in its original (ie genuine) context, but in how the textual features (purpose, roles, context) are de-constructed in the classroom context by means of meaning-based interaction.
The use of simplified texts is also supported in the Genre-based approach. This can be described as an approach involving students in opportunities to master a given genre through repeated exposure and practice. Teachers guide students toward greater understanding of the genre gradually, in a process of teacher-student interaction referred to as “scaffolding”: “[Students collaborate] with others, who serve as conduits through which cultural knowledge, including language, is acquired. Initially, learners require the scaffolding provided in interaction with others to understand and to perform a new skill but subsequently, they are able to access this skill unaided.” (Ellis, 1997: 242)
No comments:
Post a Comment