This paper examines task-based syllabus and task-based teaching approach. In addition, a definition of task by prof. El-Okda is stated. According to Ellis (2003), tasks are classified into focused tasks and unfocused tasks. Furthermore, number of rationales for task-based syllabus (TBS) and task-based language teaching (TBLT) are investigated; the primacy of meaning, Communicative language teaching, Language acquisition and Long’s Interactional Hypothesis. Moreover, the paper reviews three types of task-based syllabus appeared; procedural syllabus, process syllabus and task syllabus. Then, two subordinate types of syllabus; synthetic and analytic are discussed. Ellis’ (2003) Framework for Task-Based Course Design is presented. Furthermore, number of General guidelines principles for selection of options in designing and teaching lessons and Misunderstandings about TBLT are reviewed. In the final section of the present paper, online tasks-based syllabus and Technology Contributions to TBLT are investigated.
Task-Based Syllabus
A task refers to “a thematically and procedurally unified” and a learner-centered language learning experience in which meaning is primary. It comprises of three main components: first, the givens, second, the learner procedure and finally the outcome(s) which have to be real outcomes (El-Okda, 2012; 2016). In this respect, Task-based syllabus is a course design approach where task is used as the unit of analysis (Long and Crookes, 1992).
Although a task requires learners to focus on meaning and make use of their linguistics knowledge, the task design may lead the learners to choose certain forms (Ellis, 2003). Nevertheless, a task should result in authentic language use that is similar to real life language use (Long and Crookes, 1992; Ellis, 2003). According to Ellis (2003), tasks are classified into focused tasks and unfocused tasks. Unfocused tasks are tasks that give the learner opportunities to use language in general in communication whereas focused tasks are tasks that give opportunities to engage in communication using predetermined linguistic features as in grammatical structure (Ellis, 2003; 2009). However, if the syllabus only included unfocused tasks, then there is no place for grammar. Also, if the syllabus contains entirely focused tasks, then only linguistic content is required (Ellis, 2009).
Types of task-based syllabus
In 1980s, there are three types of task-based syllabus appeared; procedural syllabus, process syllabus and task syllabus. These types are different from other earlier types of syllabus since their rationale are derived generally from human learning and/or specifically second language acquisition (Long and Crookes, 1992). Although these three syllabus are different from each other, they reject linguistics components, for example, structure, word function or notion to be the unit of analysis and chose instead the concept of task as unit of analysis. These three types are different approaches to the design of task-based syllabus. Especially, the task syllabus holds particular promise when it employed in TBLT (Long and Crookes, 1992).
Rationale of task-based syllabus
1. The primacy of meaning
Communicative language teaching reflects the realization of the primacy of meaning and it is no exception for task-based language teaching and task-based syllabus (Torres, 2014). Number of theories of language and learning have influenced task-based syllabus. First, language theory which states that meaning is essential. Meaning is the starting point in task-based syllabus and task-based language teaching (Willis & Willis 2007). In order for the learners’ language system to be developed, learners have to engage in meaning (Torres, 2014). In tasks, meaning is primary since tasks require meaningful exchange of language for authentic purpose. Language is used as a mean to complete the task in order to achieve an outcome (Ellis, 2009). Thus, the display of language is not a concern for task-based syllabus and task-based language teaching
2. Communicative language teaching
Through communicative language teaching, task-based language teaching and task-based syllabus have developed (Torres, 2014). Within the framework of task-based syllabus, tasks are based on the principles drown from Communicative language teaching. These principles are as follows: activities that include authentic communication are fundamental to language learning. activities that involve the use of language to carry out meaningful tasks promote language learning. When language is meaningful to learners, then the process of the learning is supported (Torres, 2014).
3. Language acquisition
According to Krashen (1982, cited in Torres, 2014), input is made comprehensible through negotiation of input. Through comprehension language acquisition occurs. In order for the acquisition to take place, learners have to understand the message of the language which is one step above their current competence level (I+ 1). When learner engages in varied rich input, his/her language system is going to developed automatically without focused language instruction (Skehan 1996). However, input is not enough for language development. That is why Swain (1985) proposed her comprehensible output. Therefore, negation is not only a one-way process that includes the talk of the caretaker but also the talk of the learner.
Task-based syllabus have influenced by theories of input and output (Torres, 2014). Meaningful interaction is facilitated in tasks where learners are given wide opportunities to understand meaningful input and generate meaningful output (Van den Branden, 2006). The learner assumes the central role in task-based language teaching. During the task, the learnere is given the freedom to choose linguistic form from her/his linguistic repertoire, negotiate the content of the course, discuss different options for performing the task and evaluating the outcomes of the task (Van den Branden, 2006). Hence, the teacher role is to motivate learners to involve in natural communication and support them to perform and evaluate thetask (Van den Branden, 2006).
4. Long’s Interactional Hypothesis
Long (1989) has stressed on the importance of output in second language acquisition. Input is made comprehensible through negotiation of meaning which includes both the talk of the caretaker and the learner. In this respect, it is essential to engage in communicative task not form focused task. Negotiation of meaning concerns with how learners encounter difficulties in communication and how they overcome such difficulties during completing a task (Skehan, 1996). According to the interactional hypothesis, learners make adjustments in order to address difficulties encountered in order to make their interlocutors modify the input. As a result of negotiation of meaning, learners receive feedback when “meaning is problematic” and when the learner is mostly to be receptive. This has influenced task-based syllabus where group and pair engage in task completion. In addition, focus on form which was developed by long has integrated into tasks in order to promote the development of language (Torres, 2014).
Macro options in the design of syllabus
According to Wilkins ((1976) cited in Long and Crookes (1992)), there are two subordinate types of syllabus; synthetic and analytic. Synthetic syllabus divides the target language into different linguistic items in order to be presented separately one at a time (Long and Crooke, 1992). Synthetic refers to the role of the learner because her/his task is “to re-synthesize the language” which was separated into many small segments with the purpose of making the learning of the task easier. The synthetic syllabus depends on learners’ ability to understand a language as segments that are independent from each other and integrate (synthesize) these segments when it is time to use them for communication (Long and Crooke, 1992). For example, Notional and functional and structural syllabus are synthetic.
Analytic syllabuses display the target language as whole blocks at a time with the absence of linguistic control or interference (Long and Crooke, 1992). Analytic syllabuses depend on learners’ ability to comprehend input and to produce rules. Moreover, they rely on learners’ innate knowledge of language universals. Examples of analytic syllabus is process, procedural and task syllabuses (Long and Crooke, 1992). TBS uses task as unit of analysis. These units represent a link between real tasks (target tasks) that exist outside the classroom and pedagogical tasks that exist inside the classroom (Littlewood, 2004). In Type A (synthetic), the focus on what is learnt as in L2 whereas type B (analytic) the focus on how language is learned.
A Framework for Task-Based Course Design
To construct a task-based syllabus, first, the tasks specification is needed. The specification of the tasks involves selecting and sequencing. To make a selection of tasks, it is necessary to make a decision about the type of task and their topic content (Ellis, 2003). In order to make sequencing of tasks, identify proper criteria for grading learners’ level of difficulty. This is sufficient for a task-based syllabus that contains only of unfocused linguistic tasks (Ellis, 2003). In addition, in the framework, specification of features of language is an optional element. If this option is incorporated in the syllabus, the syllabus will be either consisting entirely of focused tasks or both of unfocused and focused tasks (Ellis, 2003). Figure 1 presents the syllabus as the basic element in preparing teaching materials in the workplans form of a task.
Sequencing tasks
One of the requirement of designing task-based syllabus is sequencing tasks and facilitates learning to the maximum (Ellis, 2003). Sequencing tasks requires determination of the tasks complexity, thus, tasks can match the level of learners’ development and the task can be scaffolded by the one that follows it. Learners’ ability to perform tasks depends on three groups of factors. First, “task complexity” that refers to certain inherent characteristics of the individual task. These characteristics are related to the kind of input, the conditions of the task, required outcome and the processing operations included in task completion. Task complexity refers to intra-learner variability.
Second, there are factors relate to the learner as an individual that affect how difficult or easy a certain task is for various students. These factors go under the heading of “task difficulty”. These factors include learner’s proficiency level, learner’s intelligence, learning style, memory capacity, motivation and language aptitude. Task difficulty refers to inter-learner variability. Third, set of factors called “task procedures” which include the methodological procedures that are used in order to teach a task. These factors can make the learner’s processing burden increase or decrease. These factors involve using pre-task activity and planning time which allows student to plan before performing the task. Task procedures are like task complexity factors since they result in intra-leaner variability.
General guidelines principles for selection of options in designing and teaching lessons
Ellis (2006) proposed set of principles that are used as general guidance for selection of options in designing and teaching lessons. (1) Determine a suitable level for task difficulty. (2) There should be clear objectives for every task-based lesson. (3) Appropriate orientation should be developed in order to perform the task. Students should be aware of the reason of performing a task. (4) Maximize the role of the students in task-based lessons. One of the main goals of TBT is to present opportunities to the learners to participate in classroom discourse. (5) Students should be encouraged to undergo risks during task performance. They should widen their “interlanguage resources”. Thus, learners should be willing to experiment with language. Choices in methodology that encourage using private speech during task performance can provide opportunities for ‘pushed output’ and create suitable level of challenge in an affective atmosphere which support risk-taking (Ellis, 2009).
Additionally, (6) make sure that students are essentially focusing on meaning while performing a task. Providing a context that requires processing language communicatively is the main goal of a task. Language should not be treated as an object but rather as a tool. Therefore, students must be mainly concerned with reaching an outcome not language display while performing a task. This can be achieved only when students are motivated to perform the task (Ellis, 2009). Designing various task-based lessons can motivate different leaners. (7) learners should be provided with opportunities for doing tasks that focus on form. (8) Students are required to evaluate their progress and performance.
Misunderstandings about TBLT
According to Ellis (2009), there are number of misunderstandings regarding TBLT. (1) The definitions of task available in the literature are not completely clear, except for prof. El-Okda’s definition, to differentiate it from other types of activities. (2) Pragmatic meaning is a priority in tasks whereas semantic meaning is neglected. (3) Impoverished interaction results from task, hence, it cannot provide for L2 acquisition a sufficient context. (4) It is not always possible to predict the kind of language that result from doing a task, therefore, it is impossible in a task-based course to insure a complete covering of the target language. (5) Since there is no grammar syllabus in TBLT, there is no endurance of a sufficient coverage of grammar.
(6) In TBLT, there is limited attention in form to corrective feedback to minimize interruption during task performance. (7) TBLT theoretical rationale pays attention only to grammar but ignores pronunciation and vocabulary. (8) In TBLT, the emphasis is only on output, thus, it ignores exposing learners to rich input. (9) Teacher’s role is limited in TBLT as the teacher is a ‘facilitator’ or ‘manager’ in communicative activities. (10) TBLT is solely suited to contexts that are ‘acquisition-rich’. (11) There is absence of sufficient empirical findings that support TBLT theoretical rationale or uncover the superiority of TBLT to other traditional approaches.
Online tasks-based syllabus
The aim of online tasks is to compensate for achieving what is difficult in distance learning and that is communicating with other learners (Thomas & Reinders, 2010). Therefore, interactive tasks dominate over individual tasks that revolve around language and content. Tasks should fit the course with regard to content knowledge and linguistic skills. Therefore, online tasks should be part of the course design from the very beginning. Also, The syllabus should be developed to contain the following information: functions, content, text kinds and all the skills involved in the course (Thomas & Reinders, 2010). Students can discuss issues about the course materials with each other in blogs or forums since the online tasks are already integrated with the course materials that they study for the course. Now, students have the opportunities to share more personal details about the course topics, reflect on the course and collect online materials at their spare time (Thomas & Reinders, 2010). For example, wikis allow students to collect more recent information about different topics.
Technology Contributions to TBLT
(1) Technology increases language production while performing a task. Text-based CMC allows anonymous participants, thus, helping lower affective filters while doing a task and as a result generating more production of language (Lai & Li, 2011). Text-based CMC increases the quantity of language, for example more words, sentences and turns that are produced by student while performing tasks. This is due to the fact the context was more motivating and they were more comfortable in generating the target language (Lai & Li, 2011). Furthermore, in multimodal CMC, video, audio and text helped to boost learners’ language production while performing a task (Lai & Li, 2011).
(2) Technology can enhance language production quality while performing a task. Text-based CMC produces written conversation form that incorporates both advantages of written discourse and oral communication that are used in task performance (Lai & Li, 2011). This is an advantage of technology since this feature allows eliciting more accurate grammar and complicated structures in doing tasks than traditional contexts (Lai & Li, 2011). Moreover, it has been found out that learners produce more discourse functions and speech acts while performing a task in both a 3-D virtual world and text chat (Lai & Li, 2011). Additionally, it has been found that collaborative project-based tasks in wikis result in writing more creatively and more complicated language production along the run (Lai & Li, 2011).
(3) Technology helps to promote the development of task-based language. Native English speakers and ESL students found out to be engaged in a wide range of collaborative behaviors through playing digital games. During the interactions of such games, the second language learning of ESL students is scaffolded (Lai & Li, 2011). In addition, As a result of performing technology-meditated tasks, language develops overtime in vocabulary, writing, syntax, speaking and intercultural competence, for example, email interactions, online chats and blogs (Lai & Li, 2011).
(4) Technology provides equal opportunities for learners’ production while performing a task. Participations while doing a task are equalized in text-based CMC since there are no constraints on oral interaction such as speakership transfer, interruption and monitoring pronunciation (Lai & Li, 2011). (5) Technology provides self-monitoring and noticing enhancement and facilitate social cohesiveness and language play while performing a task. (6) Learning is facilitated by technology while performing a task. During the performance of technology-mediated task, learners are faced with an online interaction with an ambiguous nature. Thus, learners are forced to take an extra step in order to uncover their intention for negation to their interlocutors (Lai & Li, 2011).
In conclusion, this paper addressed number of aspects of TBS such as its theoretical rationale, guidelines principles inside the classroom, misunderstanding and technology contributions. TBS and TBLT provide opportunities inside the classroom for natural learning. Meaning is emphasized over form but learning form can be catered for in TBLT and TBS. In TBLT and TBS, rich input of language is afforded for learners where they are motivated. Although TBS and TBLT are learner-centered education, it allows input and direction provided by the teacher. They develops learners’ communicative competence but don’t neglect language accuracy (Ellis, 2009). In addition, TBLT can be used with another traditional approach (Ellis, 2009).