literaturethinksns

TheTask-basedApproachinLanguageTeachingAQUILINOSANCHEZ*UniversityofMurciaTheTask-BasedApproach(TBA)hasgainedpopularityinthefieldoflanguageteachingsincethelastdecadeofthe20fhCenturyandsignificantscholarshavejoinedthediscussionandincreasedtheamountofanalyticalstudiesontheissue.
Neverthelessexperimentalresearchispoor,andthetendencyofsomeofthescholarsisnowadaysshiftingtowardsamoretemperedandmoderatestandontheirclaims.
Reasonsforthatarevarious:thedifficultyintheimplementationofthemethodintheclassroom,thedifficultyinelaboratingmaterialsfollowingtheTBAandthescarcityoftask-basedmanualscountasimportantandperhapsdecisivearguments.
ButtherearealsotheoreticalimplicationsintheTBAwhichdonotseemtobefullyconvincingormaylacksoundfoundations.
Inthispaper1willattempttodescribetheTBAcriticaIly,pointingoutwhat1considerpositiveinthisapproach,andunderliningtheinadequacyofsomeassumptionsandconclusions.
ThedesignofanewTBAmodelisnotthegoalofthisstudy.
Buttheconclusionssuggestthattasksmaycontributetotheproductionofamorerefinedandcompleteforeignlanguagesyllabus,helpingtomotivatethestudentsandfocustheattentionofteachersandlearnersonmeaningandcommunicativelanguageuse.
KEYWORDSLanguageteaching,methods,methodology,communicativemethodology,tasks,taskbasedapproach,processapproach,languagelearning.
*Addressfvrcorrespondence:DepartamentodeFilologíaInglesa,FacultaddeLetras,CampusdeLu,I,lerced,30071Murcia.
Spain.
Tel.
968-363175.
E-mail:asanchez@um.
esOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71Changesandshiftsinlanguageteachinghavebeenpresentthroughoutthehistoryofthisdiscipline.
Atthebasisofthisapparentlyunendinguncertaintyabouttheefticiencyofmethodsatspecifichistoricalmomentsthereisalsoapermanentsearchandstrivingtofindbetterwaysofteachingandlearninglanguages,whichimpliesacknowledgingdissatisfactionwithongoingmethodsandprocedures.
Inthesecondhalfofthe20thcenturythosechangesinmethodologyweremorefrequentandpressingforteachersandlearners.
Theneedforcommunicationarnongpeopleofdifferentculturesandlanguages.
triggeredbytravellingandglobalisation,putspressureonpeopletolearnlanguagesmorequicklyandefficiently.
Leaminganewsystemofcommunicationisalsosubstantiallydifferentfromwhatitusedtobeinpreviouscenturies:wehavemoreneedtocommunicateorally(notonlyinwritingandreading)andwecannotwaitforyearsbeforeweengageinrealcommunication.
Thisurgencytolearnlanguagesisfelteverywherewithinsocietyal1overtheworld.
Thesearchfornewandmoreefficientmethodsisaconsequenceofoursocialorganizationandtherequirementsforfluidcommunication.
Methodologicalchangesfolloweachotherwithinshortperiodsoftime.
Eventhoughthemajorityofeducationalinnovationsendinfailure(Adams,R.
andChenD.
,1981)positiveeffectscanbeexpectedfrommostofthem.
Butitistruethatnewmethodsdonotappearal1ofasuddenordisconnectedfromtheworldintowhichtheyareborn.
Theyoverlapforsometimewithcurrentmethodologicalpractices.
This'incubation'periodisarealtestfornewideas:someofthernpassthetest,othersdonot.
Manydiscussions,argumentsandcounterargumentsareexhibitedintheprocess.
Butsometimeswhatwasconsideredadecisivegainagainstexistingpracticesatagivenmoment,provedtobewrongafewyearslater,andanewtheoryormethodreplaceditinitsturn.
OncemoreWherewilltheendlie.
ifthereistobeoneThemethodswhichprevailareusuallythosethatarebestsuitedtothechallenges,demandsandneedsofthetime.
Inotherwritings(Sánchez1992;1997)1haveoutlinedtwomaintrendsinlanguageteachingmethodology:the'grammatical'andthe'conversational'approach.
Bothapproacheshavebeenpermanentlyintensionwitheachotherandarerepresentativeofadichotomythatseemstoreappearagainandagainindifferentwaysandformats:writtenvs.
orallanguage;learninggrammarvs.
learninghowtospeak;andformalvs.
informallanguageuse.
Inthelastpartofthe20thCenturythedichotomyfocusonformvs.
focusoncontent,teachingandlearninglanguageforaccuracyvs.
teachingandlearninglanguageformeaningdevelopedasthenewparadigm.
Emphasisononeortheotherendofthescaletendstobecyclical,sothatifform.
structureandaccuracyprevailedinthesixtiesandseventies,meaningandcommunicativepotentialgainedmomentumintheeightiesandaftenvards.
TheTaskBasedApproach(TBA)mustbeplacedwithinthiscontext,attheendofthe20IhCentury.
Itisnotanisolatedor'unique'methodologicalevent.
TBAcanonlybefullyunderstoodifyoucontrastitwithprecedingmethodsandanalyseitwithinmainstreamcommunicativemethodology.
Somebackgroundinformationwillthereforebeneeded,andthatOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES:vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71TheTask-basedApproachinLanguageTeaching41isthegoalinthefirstsectionofthispaper.
Adetaileddiscussionwillfollowonwhatataskisandonthevariousdefinitionsproposed.
Thiswilllaythegroundfora'balancedcriticism'oftheTBAandwillallowthereadertodrawsomepositiveandrealisticconclusionsontheissue.
BACKGROUNDANDRATIONALEBEHINDTHETBAINLANGUAGELEARNINGTheemergenceoftheTBAisconnectedtowhatbecameknownasthe'BangaloreProject'(Prabhu1987)initiatedin1979andcompletedin1984.
Theword'task'isoftenusedheretorefertothespecialkindofactivitiescarriedonintheclassroom.
Suchactivitiesarecharacterised.
amongotherfeatures,bytheemphasisputonmeaningandtheirnportanceassignedtotheprocessofdoingthings(how)vs.
theprevailingrolegiventocontent(nzhut)intheteachingpracticeofthatdecade.
Thepurposeoftheprojectistoinvestigatenewwaysofteachingwhichsprangfromastronglyfeltpedagogicintuition,arisingfromexperiencegenerallybutmadeconcreteinthecourseofprofessionaldebateinIndia.
Thiswasthatthedevelopmentofcompetenceinsecondlanguagerequiresnosystematisationoflanguageinputsormaximizationofplannedpractice,butratherthecreationofconditionsinwhichlearnersengageinanefforttocopewithcommunication.
Piabhu(1987:1)Thepro-iectaimedatimprovingtheSOS('situationaloralapproach')andtheemphasislayoncompetenceandcommunication.
Prabhustatedexplicitlythatcompetenceistobeunderstoodas'grammaticalcompetence'('theabilitytoconformautomaticallytogrammaticalnorms')andcommunicationas'amatterofunderstandingorconveyingmeaning'.
Communicativecompetencewastodevelop'inthecourseofmeaning-focusedactivity'.
Itshouldalsobeborneinmindthatgrammaticalcompetencewastobebuiltthrough'intemalself-regulatingprocesses'andforthatitwouldhelptoconveymeaningin'favourableconditions'.
Themostimportantresponsibilityoftheteacherswastocreatetheconditionsfortheleamerstoengageinmeaningfulsituations.
Anypriorregulationofwhathadtobelearntaccordingtoapredefinedformalogrammaticalsyllabuswastobeexcluded.
Emphasisonmeaningandauthenticityofcommunicationappealtomanyteachersandlearnersoflanguages.
Afterall,weuselanguagefortransmittingmessages,whichiscontent.
andassociationofmeaningandlanguageisperceivedasclosetoreality.
Theproblemisthatthetransmissionofmeaningcannotbeseparatedfromtheformal'vehicle'throughwhichitisconveyed.
Theroleofeachoneofthoseelementsincommunicationandtheirmutualrelationshipsareattherootofaproblemthathasneverbeenfullysolved.
Mostmethodsareheavilyrootedinlinguistictheories,theoriesofleamingortheoreticalassumptionsonthenatureoflinguisticcommunication.
ItwouldbeunfairtostudytheOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Al1rightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71communicativeapproachwithoutlinkingittosuchnamesasVygotsky(1962;1978),Austin(1962)orHalliday(1973;1978),orKrashen(1983),amongothers.
Vygotskythinksoflanguageasasocialevent,asharedsocialactivitythroughwhichindividualsdeveloptheirpersonalitywithinacommunity.
Inhisview,languageisnottheresultof'isolated'learning;itrequiresasocialbasis.
Andlinguisticabilityisbuiltinsideourmindtocommunicatewiththeoutsideworld.
Childrenenhancetheirownpersonalityas'different'humanbeingspreciselythroughcontrastandinteractionwiththeirenvironment,andparticularlywithotherhumanbeingsaroundthem.
Infact,Vygotskyconsidersthatthought,asseparatefromlanguage,takesrootwheninteractiongiveswaytoorturnsintomonologue.
Throughmonologueschildrencommunicatewiththemselves,andtheydothatwithwordsorsentencesthatmightbedifficultorimpossibleforotherstounderstand.
Whilethis'innerspeech'consolidatesandstrengthenslinguisticthought,communicativeinteractionallowsfortheconsolidationofthesocialdimensionofthe'speakers'ashumanbeings.
Thissocialperspectiveshouldneverbeabsentinthelearningprocessoflanguages.
Theconclusion,then,shouldbethatwhenwelearnlanguagesotherthanthenativeone,thesocialdimensioncanonlybereachedthroughinteractionandinterpersonalrelationswithothers.
Vygotskyanassumptionsleadtoconcludethatinteractionbelongstotheverynatureoflanguage,becauselanguageissociallybased.
Fromthisperspective,contentisimportant,butinteractionisstillmoreimportant:youcannotreachtruelinguisticachievementsifopportunitiesforinteractionarenotpresent.
Itisobviousthatthekindofinteractionneededmustbe'meaningful'andrelevant.
WhatelsecanbeexpectedfrominteractionwithothersOnemightraisetheproblemofhowthelearnerwillmanagetointegrateandassimilateknowledgecomingfromoutside.
Andtheanswertothatisthatnatureprovidesthelearnerwiththenecessarycapacityandresources,asneeded.
YoumayfurtherraisetheissueofhowdifferentitislearninganL1andanL2.
WithintheVygotskyanperspective,however,bothprocessesoflearningsharethesameobject(language)andsomebasicconditionsoflearning(shapingrealitythroughlanguage,establishingconnectionstotheoutsideworld),anditisonlytobeexpectedthatsomepedagogical'therapy'hastobeapplied.
Languagelearnt(bothL1andL2),ontheotherhand,servesthesamepurposeforthelearner:itmakescommunicationpossible.
ThejunctionalnatureoflanguageishighlightedbyFirthianandHallidayanlinguistics.
AnditisthroughtheworkofWilkins(1976)thatthisfunctionaldimensionisincorporatedintomethodologicalissuesonlanguageteaching.
Wilkinsdoesitbycontrastingsyntheticandanalyticsyllabuses.
Hedescribessyntheticlanguageteachingasastrategyinwhichthedifferentpartsofthelanguagearetaughtseparatelyandstep-by-stepsothatacquisitionisaprocessofgradualaccunlulationofthepartsuntilthewholestructureofthelanguagehasbeenbuiltup.
Wilkins(1976t2)Thisstrategyrequiresthatthelanguagebe'brokendown'intoitsparts4.
e.
structuresOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(1).
2004,pp.
39-71TheTusk-busedApprouchinLunguugeTeuching43andlexicalitems-,thatthesepartsbeorderedfollowingspecificcriteriaandthattheybepresentedtothelearner.
Samplesbroughtintotheclassroomwillbenecessarilylimitedandatleastpartiallydisconnectedfromthewhole,whichmakesthetaskofthelearnerstillmoredifficultwhenattemptingtoputal1theelementstogetherinordertobuildmeaningful'chunks'oflanguage.
Analyticapproachesdonotemphasizesuchatightcontrolofelementslearntorlearningitself.
InWilkins'words,Inanalyticapproachesthereisnoattemptatthiscarefullinguisticcontrolofthelearningenvironment.
Componentsoflanguagearenotseenasbuildingblockswhichhavetobeprogressivelyaccumulated.
[.
.
.
]Ingeneral,structuralconsiderationsaresecondarywhendecisionsarebeingtakenaboutthewayinwhichthelanguagetowhichthelearnerwillbeexposedistobeselectedandorganized.
Wilkins(1976i2)Andheaddslater:Theprioranalysisofthetotallanguagesystemintoasetofdiscretepiecesoflanguagethatisanecessarypreconditionfortheadoptionofasyntheticapproachislargelysuperfluousinananalyticapproach.
[.
.
.
]Theyareorganizedintermsofthepurposesforwhichpeoplearelearninglanguageandthekindsoflanguageperformancethatarenecessarytomeetthesepurposes.
[.
.
.
]Theunits[.
.
.
]arenotprimarilylabelledingrammaticalterms.
Wilkins(1976:13)Wilkinsadvocatesnotionalandfunctionalsyllabuses,whichareanalyticinnature-hesays-and,indoingso,hemovessignificantlyawayfromcurrentteachingpractices,basedonaudiolingualmethodologyandattachedtothelearningoflinguisticforms.
Itmaybequestionedwhetherhis'notional-functional'syllabusisfullyanalytical,asheclaims,sinceitrequiresapreviousanalysisoflanguage,decomposingitintonotions,functionsandothersmallerlinguisticunits,whichlearnersmustlaterputtogetherintolargersituationsornotions.
Notionalsyllabusesarestill'elaboratedsyllabuses'andderivefromapreviousanalysisofthelanguage.
Theresultofthisanalysisisthenorderedaccordingtoparticularrulesorprinciples,andthisisthefinalproductthatmustbetaughtandlearnt.
Selectionofthecontentiscontrolledbyprinciplesotherthangrammaticalorstructuralones,butthereisacontentorganizedin'pieces'oflanguageofdifferentkinds,stratifiedatdifferentlevels,someofthem,itistrue,ofasemanticnature(meaning).
FromthatpointofviewWilkins'notional-functionalsyllabusismoresyntheticthananalytical,asLongandCrookes(1985;1992)claim.
ButitisonlyfairtoadmitthatWilkinspavedthewaytowardsanapproachfocusedonfunctionsandnotions,andhence,onmeaning.
Thesituationislesssatisfactoryifweapproachtheteachingscenefroma'communicative'perspective.
Inthisview,itissaidthatintheprocessoflanguageacquisitiontheroleofthelearneriscentralanddecisive.
'Acquisition'-asopposedto'learning',followingOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-7144AquilinoSúnchezKrashen(Krashen.
1985)-isthetruegoalinlanguagelearning,butittakesplaceonlyifknowledge(language)isintegratedbytheindividualintohisownsetofvaluesandidiosyncrasyandifalinguisticsysternisbuilt.
'Leaming'alone(Krashen,1985)isnotenough.
Theprincipietakenforgrantedinsyntheticapproaches,'whatistaught=whatis(oroughttobe)leamt'(Prabhu1984:273cannotbeacceptedanymore,sinceitcomesfrornoutside(externa]syllabus)orisirnposedonthelearner(bytheteacher).
Underthosecircurnstances,'acquisition'willbehindered,oratleastnotfavoured.
Thisisajobthatonlythelearnercando;hernustbe'invited'tocollaborateinthispurpose,assurningthisgoalbyhirnself.
AsLongandCrookes(1985:34)putit,'languagelearningismoreapsycholinguisticthanalinguisticprocess'.
LANGUAGELEARNINGASAPROCESSPrabhuandothersinitiatedtheBangaloreProjectin1979.
AtthattimePrabhuaffirmed:CommunicativeteachinginmostWesternthinkinghasbeentrainingfoi-communication,which1claiminvolvesoneinsomewayorotherinthepreselection;itisakindofmatchingofnotionandform.
WhereastheBangaloreProjectisteachingthi-o~ghcommunication;thereforetheverynotionofcommunicationisdifferent.
Piahhz~(1980:164)Prabhu'sclaimisrevolutionaryregardingsyntheticornotional-functionalapproaches:youdonotprovidethelearnerswithpreviouslyorganizedlanguagernaterialstolearn;youdonotpretendtoachievespecificcornrnunicativegoalsthroughactivitiespreviouslydesignedandsequenced,butratherexpectthelearnerstoleamthroughtheactivitiestheyengageinwhileusingthelanguagetocarryoutthetaskproposed.
Theprocessofcornmunicationitselfistherneunsforlearningtocornrnunicate.
Acquisitionoftheformalsystemoflanguagewilltakesornetime,butwillbereached'subconsciously'throughtheactivationofaninterna1systernofrulesandprincipiesbythelearner.
Theconditiontobernetisthatcornrnunicativepracticernustbecarriedoutinameaningfulway(Krashen1982).
Thereisthereforenosyllabusintermsofvocabularyorstmcture,nopre-selectionoflanguageitemsforanygivenlessonoractivityandnostageinthelessonwhenlanguageitemsarepractisedorsentenceproductionassuchisdemanded.
Thebasisofeachlessonisaproblemsolvingoratask.
Piabhti(1984:273-6)Formalapproachesdefineinadvancewhatthelearnersrnustlearn.
Thesyllabusisregulatedfrornoutside.
Inaprocessapproachassurnptionsareverydifferent:learnersregulatetheprocessoflearningbythemselves,autonornously.
Andthisself-regulatingactivityresultsinlanguageacquisition,asithappensinanaturalenvironrnent(learningofthernothertongue).
Processapproachesdonotseparatetheobjectcf'leurningfrorntheprocessoflearning.
TodoOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
/JE.
S,vol.
4(1).
2004,pp.
39-71TheTask-basedApproachinLanpageTeaching45thatwhenlearningasecondlanguagewouldinvolvedeprivingthelearnersofapplyingtheirpreviousexperiencesinlanguagelearning.
Thatisratherthecaseofmethodsbasedonformalsystems,inwhichnewmodels(object-regulatedinput)areoffered,whileinteractiveactivitiesareabsentoradjusttoformalpattemsandbecomestructurallyconditioned.
Inordernottodivorcetheobjectandtheprocessofleaming,Prabhu(1987)expressestheneedfor'enabling'procedures,thatisoperationalwaysandpracticestoreinforcethepotentialoflearnersnotonlytofulfilspecificcommunicativeneedsincarryingoutatask,butalsocommunicativeneedsinthefuturewhenimplementingdifferenttasks.
Workingwithtasksshouldallowlearnerstocopewithunpredictablecommunicativesituations.
Infact,fulfillingataskshouldnecessarilybringwithitthedevelopmentofthelearner'scognitiveabilities:thiswillautomaticallyderivefromthesolutionofthelogicalproblemsimpliedbythesequenceofeventsinherenttotasks.
Whenleamingaforeignlanguage,themeanstoperformthetaskispreciselythetargetlanguage.
Theobjectandtheprocessoflearningconvergeinonesingleevent,whichis'holistic'innature:theprocessof(interactive)communication,theuseofthesuitablecommunicativeelementsinagenuinecommunicativesituationandthestrengtheningofthecognitiveabilitiesoftheinterveningindividualsal1cometogetherinauniquecommunicativeepisode.
Intermsofsyllabusdesign,tasksarefullyinsertedwithinaprocesssyllabus,buttheycannotgetridofdiscretelinguisticelements.
Howtosolvethetensioninvolvedinbringingtogetherandintegratingbothcomponentsisthemainchallengeofatask-basedapproach.
Whenperformingataskintherealworld,languageisautomaticallylimited:structuresandwordstobeusedwillberestrictedtothesemanticfieldcoveredbythetask.
Andsotheyareaswellthelogicalstepsunderlyingthefulfilmentofthetask.
Gouin's(1892)'seriesmethod'andthe'logicofnature'canbecalleduponheretoillustratethesituation.
Thelogicof'causeandeffect'(anycauseproducesaspecificeffectandanyeffectistheresultofaspecificcause)pushesthetaskforwardinawaythatthelearnercanautomaticallyandunconsciouslydetect.
Onthebasisofthisunderstandingoftheongoingprocess,thelearnerwillbeabletounderstandthelanguagebeingusedandcarryoutthetask,occasionallywiththehelpofhispeersortheteacher(the'outsideworld'),findingtherightwordsfortherightthingsorideas.
Breen(1987a)concludesthattheTBAisaresultofi)Newviewsonlanguage.
ii)Newviewsonteachingmethodology.
iii)Newviewsonthecontributionofthelearnerstothelearningprocess.
iv)Newviewsonhowtoplanteachingandlearning.
Poi~tsiii)andiv)deservesomecomments.
Theroleofthelearnerhasbeensystematicallyleftasideforcenturies.
Andthathasnotonlybeenthecaseinlanguageteaching,butinal1educationalfields.
Traditionaleducationcentredonthetransmissionofcontent,welldefinedandlaiddownbyteachersorbytheauthorities.
NotmuchelsewasaddedorconsideredOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-7146AquilinoSúnchezregardingotherelementsalsopresentintheteachingandlearningsituation.
Researchinlanguageacquisition,amongotherreasons,hasrecentlydemonstratedwhatnowadaysseemsobvious:themostimportantelementintheteaching-learningsituationisthelearner.
Theanalysisoflearningitselfrevealsrelevantfacts.
Allwright(1984)concludesthatlearnersdonotnecessarilylearnwhatteachersteach,whilesometimestheylearnwhatteachershavenottaught.
Andthatissoinspiteofadmittingthatclassattendancehasaneffectonlearning(Long1983).
WhatdolearnersdointheprocessoflearningAndhowdotheydoitAnsweringthosequestionsrequiresanindepthanalysisoftheparticipationofthelearnerintheprocessoflearning.
Researchisstillincompleteinthisarea,butitseemsthatindividualandinherentcapabilitiesofthelearnersprevailoverexterna1factors(sayteacher,materials,syllabus)(Ellis1985).
Learners,consciouslyornot,systematicallyfollowtheirownpatternsoflearningandmanagetoreprocesstheinput'intheirownway'.
Efficiencyinteachingdemandsacarefulre-evaluationofthelearner'sroleintheclassroom.
Regardingpointiv.
,newtheories,methodsorideasonteachingabound.
Thisisonlynaturalifwetakeintoaccounttheexclusiveprominenceofteachersinthepast.
Butiflearnersenterthescene,theprocessoflearningmustalsobethesubjectofamorecarefulattentionandanalysis.
Experiencerevealsthatacarefuldefinitionofthesyllabusdoesnotresultinthelearningofsuchasyllabus.
lnotherwords,thesyllabustaughtisnotnecessarilyequaltothesyllabuslearnt.
Theelaborationofsyllabusesisnolongertheworkofamateurs.
Onthecontrary,specialistsinsyllabusdesignareresponsiblefordefiningandrefiningsyllabusesintheschoolsystem,whichisnodoubtaguaranteeoftheirqualityandadequacy.
Butapparentlythisisnotenoughtoreachasatisfactoryleve1inefficiency.
Somethingmustbetherethathinderstheachievementoftheintendedresultsintheteaching-learningsituation.
Perhapsthe'learningdimension'shouldalsobeincludedinthedefinitionofasyllabus,whichwouldimplythatformalteachingshouldnolongerbetheprevailingcriterionconditioningsyllabusdesign.
Syllabuscomplexityiswellillustratedintheliteratureoflanguageteaching(seeDubinandOlshtein1986,amongothers);whatistaught(content)shouldperhapsbeintegratedwiththewaythecontentistaught(procedure).
Thewaycontentandmethod,contentandproceduresareapproachedneedsreconsideration.
Ifthewayweteachhasaneffectonlearning,processsyllabuseshavearoletoplayinlanguageteaching.
Contrarytothe'propositionalsyllabuses'(basedonthedefinitionofstructures,rulesandvocabularytolearn),'processsyllabuses'facetheteachingsituationfromtheoppositeside:theyfocusnotonwhathastobetaught,butonhowthingsaredoneorhowgoalsareachieved.
Goalstobeachievedarestillthere,butthemeansandskillstoreachthemaregivenpriorityintheanalysisofthesituation.
Itisassumedthatifweperformthetaskadequately,thegoalswillbeachievedmoreefficiently.
OServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
AllrightsreservedIJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71TheTusk-busedApprouchinLunguugeTeuching47WHATISATASKTheoryandpracticearoundTBAarefarfrombeinguniformandclear.
Areviewoftheliteratureonthetopicrevealsthatgoverningprinciplesarelooseandnoteverybodysharesthesarnedefiningcriteria.
TheTBAhasalsobeenappliedindifferentwaysintheclassroom.
Breen(1987:157)advocatesadifferencebetweentask-basedsyllabusesandprocesssyllabuses,althoughheacknowledgesrootscommontobothofthem,whicharenamed'processplans'.
Thatis,task-basedsyllabusesare'processbased'.
DoestheconceptoftaskimplymoreemphasisontheprocessofdoingthingsthanonthegoalitaimsatProcessesandgoalsbothbelongtothenatureoftasks.
Whynotfocusongoalsmorethanonprocesses,orongoalsasmuchasonprocessesAregoalslessimportantthanthewayweachievethemTraditionalmethodologyandschoolpracticehaveprioritisedgoalsingeneralandasimilarpointofviewistobedetectedinmanyotherareasofhumanaction.
ThisappearsnottobethecaseintheTBA.
LongandCrookes(1992:27)affirmthat'threenew,task-basedsyllabustypesappearedinthe1980s:(a)theproceduralsyllabus,(b)theprocesssyllabus,and(c)thetask-syllabus',addinglateronthat'al1threerejectlinguisticelementsastheunitofanalysisandoptinsteadforsomeconceptionofjusk'.
Followingthisstatement,tasksaretobeconsideredessentialtothethreeofthemandconstituteacommondenominator,notjustadistinctiveelementofthetask-basedsyllabusvs.
theothertwosyllabustypes.
Thisviewisnoteasytomatchwithotherviews,inwhich,forexample,task-basedsyllabusesareseenasdifferentfromprocess-syllabuses,whilebotharerootedin'processplans'(SeeBreen1987a;1987b).
DodifferencesderivefromtheunderlyingconceptoftuskTasks,infact,havebeendefinedindifferentways.
Prabhuproposesthefollowingdefinition:Anactivitywhichrequiredleamerstoarriveatanoutcomefromgiveninformationthroughsomeprocessofthought,andwhichallowedteacherstocontrolandregulatethatprocess,wasregardedasa'task'.
Prabhat/IY87:21)Thenatureofraskisdepictedinquitegeneraltraits.
Twoimportantfeaturesarehowevermentioned,tightlyconnectedtowhatwasgoingonintheproject:taskcompletion(anoutcomeattheendoftheactivity)andaprocess'ofthought'whiledoingtheactivity.
Theactivityitself,curiouslyenough.
'allowedteacherstocontrolandregulatetheprocess'(Whereistheautonomyofthelearnerinbuildinghisownpathoflearning).
Long(1985)definestaskslookingatwhatpeopleusuallydoinreallife:Apieceofworkundertakenforoneselforforothers,freelyorforsomereward.
Thus,examplesoftasksincludepaintingafence,dressingachild,fillingoutaform.
buyingapairofshoes,makinganairlinereservation,borrowingalibrarybook,takingadrivingtest.
typingaletter.
weighingapatient,sortingletters,takingahotelreservation,writingacheck,findingastreetOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71destinationandhelpingsomeoneacrossaroad.
Inotherwords,by'task'isnieantthehundredandonethingspeopledoineverydaylife,atwork,atplay,andinbetween.
Tasksarethethingspeoplewilltellyoutheydoifyouaskthemandtheyarenotappliedlinguists.
Long(IY85:HY)Thedefinitionmatchesthesemanticexpectationsofnormalspeakerswhenusingtheword'task'indailylife('Apieceofworkassignedtoordemandedofaperson',inWeb.
ster'Sdictionary.
'Apieceofworktobedoneorundertaken',inTheNewOxji~rdDictionuryof'English).
Butsuchaviewofthenatureoftasksinreallifestillneedsanadaptationtotheclassroomsituation.
'Paintingafence,buyingapairofshoes'orthousandsofothersimilardailytasksarenotlikelytobe'naturally'performedintheclassroom;someofthem-xxtremelyimportantforcommunication-cannotevenbedramatizedintheclassroomenvironment.
LongandCrookes(1992)keeptothatdefinitiontosupporttheirproposalfortask-basedsyllabusesandtheyapparentlyalsoaccepttheonegivenbyCrookes(1986:l)('apieceofworkoranactivity,usuallywithaspecifiedobjective,undertakenaspartofaneducationalcourse,oratwork').
Thesedefinitionsare,however,significantlydifferent:Crookes'definitionderivesfromaclassroomperspectiveandallowsforapedagogicalfunctionandmanipulation('specifiedobjective','partofaneducationalcourse'),whileLong'sdefinitionisrootedinrealworldtasks.
WhileLong'sdefinitionrunsparalleltohisclaimfora'needsidentificationoflearners'tasks',theonebyCrookesseemstobemoredependentoncourserequirementsorpossibilities.
Attheendoftheiranalysis,bothproposeasetof'pedagogictasks'asthebasisforatask-basedsyllabus.
TheirviewsandstatementsleadustoconcludethatLong's'realworldtasks'mustbefilteredandselecteddependingonwhattheclassroomsituationadmits,addingtoitaningredientthatmustbecarefullyadministered:formalcommunicativeelementsnecessaryfortaskconipletion(basicallylinguisticforms).
Candlinformulateshisowndefinitionfroma'pedagogicandoperational'pointofview:Oneofasetofdifferentiated.
sequenceable,problem-posingactivitiesinvolvinglearnersandteachersinsomejointselectionfroniarangeofvariedcognitiveandcominunicativeproceduresappliedtoexistiiigandnewknowledgeinthecollectiveexplorationandpursuanceofforeseenoremergentgoalswithinasocialniilieu.
Candlin(1987:10)Hespecifiesthatataskinvolvesasetofactivities('oneofaset.
.
.
sequenceable.
.
.
'),thattheyimplyaproblemwhichmustbesolved,thatinteractionofvariouskindsmustbeactivatedandthatagoalwillbepursuedandcanbeachieveddeployingcognitiveandcommunicativeprocedures,eithertakingadvantageofalreadyexistingknowledgeorcreatingnewknowledgeifnecessarytoachievethecompletionofthetask.
Thetaskistobeperformedwithina'socialmilieu'.
Candlin'sdefinitionalsoclearlyreferstotaskstobeperformedintheclassroom,preferablyofacommunicativenature.
Proceduresandgoalsarementionedastwooftheingredientsofatask,althoughthenatureof'goals'hastobeunderstoodasa'conipletion'oftheOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004.
pp.
39-71TheTusk-busedApprouchinL~~nguugeTeuching49task,whichmightbeofanon-linguisticcharacter(say.
solvingamathematicalproblem).
Onthatbasisitistobeassumedthatthelanguageusedforcarryingoutthetaskhastobeconsideredasinstrumental.
Learnerswillgainintheirlinguisticskillsthroughthelanguagepracticeneededtoperformthetask,reactivatingtheirownlinguisticresourcesorsearchingfornewoneswhentheknowledgeavailableisinsufficient.
Eniphasis,asinthecaseofPrabhu,isputontheprocessrequiredtoreachaspecificgoalandthemeaningfulnatureoftheresourcesappliedtothatgoal.
Nunanoffersadefinitionfocusedmoreonthelanguageclassroom:Apieceofclassroomworkwhichinvolveslearnersincomprehending,manipulating,producingorinteractinginthetargetlanguage;whiletheirattentionisprincipallyfocusedonmeaningrathertlianform.
Nlrnan(1989:10)Suchadefinitionsynthesizessomeofthemostprominentfeatureshighlightedbyotherauthors.
asNunanhimselfremarks,withtheexceptionofoneelementnotmentionedhere:tasksarenotnecessarily'goal-drivenorgoal-oriented'.
Inthatcase,hisconceptionoftasksishardlytobeputalongsiderealworldtasks,wherepursuingagoalisanessentialfeature.
ForJ.
Willisataskisanactivitywlierethetargetlanguageisusedbytlielearnerforacommunicativepurpose(goal)iiiordertoachieveanoutcome.
J.
Willis(/YY6:23)WiththisdefinitionWillisachievesthemaximumofsimplicity.
butdoesnothelptoclarifytheissue:inthisviewataskmaybeanyofthecommunicativeactivities,ofvariouskinds,availableintextbooksandoftenpractisedintheclassroom.
Skehanwritesthatataskisanactivityinwhich:-meaningisprimary-thereisaproblemtosolve-tlieperfornianceisoutcomeevaluated-thereisarealworldrelationshipSkehnn(2001:12-13)Skehanhighlightsfourkeyfeatures.
whicharefullywithinthemainstreaniintheliteraturearoundthisissue.
Thevarietyofdefinitionssurroundingtheconcept'task'revealsasignificantnumberofdifferentpointsofview.
Italsoappearsthatoneofthereasonsforthedifferencesisthatscholarsdonotapproachthetopicfromthepointofviewofthenatureofthetaskitselfinreallife,butratherfronispecificmethodologicalpreconceptions,whichactasfilterstothefurtherdescriptionOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allriglitsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71ordefinitionoftheobjectofstudy;thus,theyendupwithdifferentresults.
Tasksinreallifeandpedagogicaltasksintheclassroomarenottobefullyequated.
Tasksperformedintherealworldarenotnecessarilytransferabletotheteachingsituation.
amongotherthings,becauseclassroomsdonotofferthesamesituationalenvironmentasthe'realworld'does.
Whenappliedtotheclassroomwearenotinterested,forexample,intasksthatdonotrequirewrittenororallinguisticcommunication(forexample.
amathematicaloperationalone),orintasksunsuitablefortheclassroom(forexample,brushingthefloor).
Thosesameactivitiesmightbethoughtusefulforothereducationalorlearningpurposes(developingcognitiveorlogicalabilities),orforfeelingcomfortableathome,etc.
Butthetaskslanguageteachersareinterestedinareofaparticularkind.
Itseemsnecessary.
therefore,toidenti%theessentialfeaturesofrealandpedagogicaltasks.
Asecondareainwhichmoretransparencyisneededreferstothedualconceptualpair'content-method'(what-how).
Assigningclearfrontierstobothconceptsisanoldproblem.
Thecontenttobetaughtandthewayitisbroughtintoandtaughtintheclassroomcannotbeneatlyseparated:bothinteractwitheachotherandaremutuallydependent.
lncontrasttowhatsomeauthorsmaintain(Kumaravadivelu1993:72f),methodscarrytheteachingofcontentinconcordwiththetechniquespreviouslydefined,andviceversa;onecannoteasilyimaginethecontentofanaudiolingualmethodtogetherwiththehabitualcomn~unicativetechniquesandactivitiesofacommunicativeorgrammar-translationmethod;orDirectMethodistsconductingtheclasstogetherwiththeteachingofstructuralpatterns.
Mutualrelationshipsanddependency,however,donotprecludeaminimumofautonomy,whichallowsforsubstantialdifferences.
Methodsingeneral,astheyhavebeenformulatedbytheirauthorsorconsolidatedbytraditionandpractice,tendtoemphasizeonecomponentortheother:content(whuttoteuch)ormethod(howtoteach).
Grammar-Translationoraudiolingualmethodologiescanbedefinedascontent-driven,whiletheDirectMethodortheCommunicativeApproachemphasizetheroleofmethod(techniques,procedures).
TBA,basicallywithinthecommunicativemainstream,sharesthisview:itmattersmorehowtodothingsintheclassroom,whilethewhuttoteach(priordefinitionofasyllabus)playsalesssalientrole.
ForsomedefendersofTBAthedefinitionofasyllabusfromoutsidemustevenbeexcluded:thelearninggroupshouldberesponsiblefortheirownsyllabus.
lnfactthelinguisticelementstobetaughtwillbedefinedbythetaskselectedandshouldbesubordinatedtoit.
Interaction,thenegotiationofmeaning,thebuildingofapersonalleamingpath.
theimportanteofmeaningversuslinguisticformbecometheskeletonofTBA,wherethe'linear'additionoflinguisticmaterialstobelearnt,typicalofcontent-basedmethodologies,giveswaytomaterialsrelevantforcommunication(basedonthecommunicativeneedsofthelearners'loosely'organized-ifatall.
Acquisitionwilltakeplacebypractisingwiththosematerialsinactivitiesthatsimulatereallifesituationsandcontexts.
ltisalsobelievedthatleamersarenaturallyendowedwiththenecessarycapabilityandabilitiestolearnbyworkingwithactivitiesfocusedonmeaning;hereitseemsthattherearetoomanyingredientsthataredifficulttoconstrainandhandlecoherentlywithinasingleteaching-learningapproach.
OServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71TheTask-basedApproachinLunguugeTeaching51REALWORLDTASKSANDCLASSROOMTASKSTasksineverydaylifearetobefoundeverywhere.
Taskssurroundusfromearlyinthemorningti11lateatnight.
Washingourfaceisatask,asispreparingbreakfast,goingtoworkbycar.
preparingalesson,buyingthenewspaper,etc.
Taskspervadeourlives,somuchsothatthereishardlyanactivitythatcannotbecalledatask.
Whenappliedlinguistsandmethodologistsbeganusingthatword,theyobviouslyreliedinonewayoranotheronthebasicmeaningithadinusual,plainspeech.
Itisobviousthatappliedlinguistsweretakingadvantageofthesemanticfieldcoveredby'task',butatthesametimethey+onsciouslyornot-usedthewordrestrictingandadaptingitsmeaningtoconceptscommontothefieldoflanguageteachingllearning.
The'restricted'(pedagogical)or'unrestricted'(realworld)semanticcontentassignedto'tasks'oftenleadstosomeconfusionandmisunderstandings.
Regardingthefeaturesofrealworldtasks,thefollowingsetissuggested:i)Theyaregoal-orientedorgoal-guidedactivities.
Performanceisevaluateddependingontheachievementornotofthegoal.
ii)Theyconsistmostofthetimeofasequenceofsteps,welldifferentiatedbuttightlyconnectedamongthemselves,mutuallyconditionedbythelogicalsequenceoftheactionsprecedingandfollowingeachoneofthesteps.
Failuretofulfiloneofthestepscaninvalidatetheoutcomeofthetask.
iii)Theprocessandproceduresappliedinthefulfilmentofthetaskconditiontheeffectiveandefficientachievementofthefinalgoal,whichiswhatreallymatterswhenweengageinatask.
Butprocedurespersedonotnecessarilyinvulidatetheattainmentofthefinalgoal.
iv)Toolsneededandproceduresappliedvarydependingonthegoalsweaimat.
V)Thegoaltobereachedmightbeaproblemtosolve,butnotnecessarily.
vi)Whileperformingthetask,efficiencyiscloselyconnectedtotheleve1ofattentiondevotedtoit.
Humanbeings,however,workwithlimitedprocessingsystems,sothatifweconcentrateonaspecificareaortopic,anotheronewillprobablybetotallyorpartiallyabandoned.
vii)Tasksinreallifearefullyholistic:intheirrealizationthewholepersonisinvolved:mindandbody,thoughtandactionmustbecoordinatedandworktogether.
Whencoordinationandcooperationisdeficient,efficiencyintaskperformancedeclines.
DothosefeaturesapplytopedagogictasksMostauthorsontask-basedmethodologyemphasizethedichotomymeaningvs.
form(Breen(1984;1987),Candlin(1984;1987),Prabhu(1984;1987),Long(1991)Ellis(2003),Skehan(1986;1998etc.
).
Suchadichotomyisspecifictotaskswhentheyareusedintheclassroomforteachinglanguages.
Inthecaseofrealworldtasks(makingthebed,mendingaOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(1).
2004,pp.
39-71skirt,etc.
)suchadichotomydoesnotnecessarilyapply,butdichotomiesofadifferentnaturecanbefoundinstead.
lthasalsooftenbeenmentionedthatlearninginanaturalenvironmentcentresonmeaningmorethanonform.
Nowadaysthisisadistinctivelabelinmodernsecondlanguageacquisitionresearch,althoughemphasisoncontentandmeaningwasalreadypromotedandpracticedbyGouin'smethod,bytheDirectMethodistsandbymostdefendersof'conversationalapproaches'(Sánchez1997).
Recentandspecificresearchontheissue(VanPatten1990,1996)furtherconfirmstheimportanceofmeaning-guidedactivities.
Bothcomponentsareimportantinlanguagelearning.
Meaningis'containedin'and'conditionedby'theforminwhichitisinserted.
Formaloneisuselessforcommunicationifmeaningisnotattachedtoit.
Howtokeepbothofthemactivewhenlearningisarealchallengeforthelimitedcapacityofhumanbeings.
Someadvocatesoftask-basedandprocessapproachesinsistontheprimaryroleofmeaning,whileernphasisonformisleftaside.
Experienceoflearningintheclassroomgoesoftenagainstthatclaim,asteachersandstudentsfeeltheneedformoreformalteachingandlearning.
Thereseemstobeagapintheanalysisoftheproblem.
Ontheonehand,emphasisonmeaningissaidtobenecessaryformoreefficientlearning.
Ontheotherhand,inlearningsecondlanguages,emphasizingmeaningandleavingformasidedoesnotworkproperly.
Moreover,whetherconsciouslyorunconsciously,manylearnersdonotacceptthismethodandre-establishafocusonforminsomeway.
Paralleltothat,theimportanceofprocessintaskperformanceisalsoemphasized,whileformallinguisticgoalsmovetoasecondaryplace.
Thisintroducesanewproblem:ifreachingthefinalstageorgoaliswhatreallymattersinperformingatask,theprocessshouldbesecondaryandsubordinatetothisfinalgoal,sinceitdefinesthepathtowardsthegoal,butits'raisond'itre'liesinthegoalitserves.
Fromthatperspective,aprocess'perse'ismeaninglessunlessitisassociatedandsubservienttothegoalsitpursues.
ATBAtakesrealworldtasksasthesourceandmodelforpedagogicalaction.
Thequestionrnustthenbeposed:Inwhichwaycanrealworldtasks'enter'theclassroomandbeadaptedtoitTobeginwith,notal1realworldtasksareeligibleforpedagogicalpurposes,assaidabove.
Tasksusefulforlanguagelearningarethosethatrequireorfavourcommunicationthroughlanguage.
Thesocialdimensionoftaskstowhichrnanyauthorsreferfindsitsrootsandrationalehere.
Languagelearningtasksareuselessforcommunicativepurposesiftheydonotengagelearnersincommunication.
Andaspointedoutabove,itisobviousthatnotal1realworldtasksinvolvethissocialdimension('realworldrelationship',asSkehan(2001:13)putsit).
Tasksarealsogoal-oriented.
Goalsbelongtothenatureofthetaskitself.
Infacttheyaretheultimatetriggerthatmovesthestudenttoengageinatask.
Inpedagogicaltasks,however,wedeviatefromtheprimarygoalsofrealworldtasksandaddnewones:languageuseinperformingthetaskisarequirement.
'Buyingaticket'fortravellingtoNewYorkimpliesthatal1thestagesinthedevelopmentofthetaskwillbeorientedto'buyingtheticket',andnottootherpurposes.
AnythingthatinterfereswiththepursuitofthisgoalwillbeanobstacleandbringOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71TheTusk-husedApprouchinLunguugeTeuching53alowerdegreeofefficiencyintotheaction.
Whenthistaskisbroughtintotheclassroomandturnedintoa'pedagogicaltask',animportantchangetakesplace.
Studentsmaydevotesometimetofindingunknownwordsinadictionary;theymayaskthestudentsforsomesyntacticalproblem;theymayrepeatthesamewordorsentenceseveraltimesbeforetheyfindthecorrectwayofelicitingit;theymaywasteseveralminutesinunderstandingamessage,etc.
Nobodyintheclassroomcontextisreallyworriedaboutthepositiveoutcomeofthetask-buyingaticket-butaboutsomethingelse:buildingcorrectdiscourse,findingtherightwordsandregisterstoaskforapriceoraplace.
The'linguisticdimension'ofthetaskiswhatreallymattersintheclassroom.
Theprimarygoalofthetaskhasthereforeshiftedfromitsoriginalrealworldvaluetoanotheronecentredonlanguage(notontickets).
Thepedagogicaltasktakesarealworldtaskasapretextforachievingdifferentgoals.
Thereisacloserelationshipbetweenrealworldtasksandpedagogicaltasksbasedonthem,buttheirprimarygoalsaredifferent.
Actionsforcarryingoutataskaresubordinatetothegoaldefiningthetask.
Atthesametime,proceduresunderlyingtheactionsandtheprocessasawholemustbedesignedwithefficiency-guidedcriteria.
Theconclusionis,then,thatifgoalschange,theactionstobetakenwillmostlikelyhavetochangeaswell.
Thisisthecaseofrealworldtasksversuspedagogicaltasks.
Changesinthenatureofprimarygoals,asfoundinpedagogicaltasks,requirechangesinthestrategiesandactionsforattainingthosegoalsasfoundinrealworldtasks.
ThecurrentliteratureofTBAdoesnotseemtopayenoughattentiontothisfact(seeEllis2003,however).
Featurestypicalofrealworldtasksareautomaticallyassignedtoandrequiredfromclassroomtasks,disregardingdecisivedifferencesbetweenthem.
Thiswillresultintoamismatch,withundesirableconsequencesforlanguagelearning.
Thosearesomeofthemostsalientandcontrastingdifferences:i)Realworldtasksemphasizetheuseoftherightstrategiesandrelyonchoosingtherightactionstoachievethedesiredgoal.
Thenatureofthosestrategiesandactionsisnotnecessarilylinguistic.
Moreover,Ianguageusemaynotbenecessaryatal1forperformingsometasks.
However,secondlanguagelearningclassroomsareobviouslycentredontasksthatinvolvetheuseoflanguage.
Andthisisnottheonlydifferencetobenoticed.
Notal1tasksrequiringtheuseoflanguageaimatlanguageasthemostimportantgoaltobereached.
Mostoftentheuseoflanguageisameanstoanend,butnottheenditself.
InthosecaseslanguageuseisofamerelyinstrumentaIcharacter.
Realworldtasksconsistthereforeofoperationswithagoalinmind,buttheseoperationsarenotnecessarilyofalinguisticnature;performancerequiresattentionandskills,butnotnecessarilylinguisticskills;theyrequireafocusonwhatisbeingdone,butnotnecessariIyafocusonlinguisticmeuning.
Thetaskslanguageteachersrefertoaretasksofaspecifickindandnatureandtheymustbestudiedandanalysedunderthisperspective.
ii)Sequencingofactivitiesdoesmatterinlanguageteaching(Sanchez,2001).
Therightoutcomeofataskdependslargelyonhowthevariousstepsaimingtothefinalgoalfolloweachother.
Sequencingalsoplaysanimportantroleinunderstandingtheprocess.
Asthecause-effectsequenceproclaimedbyGouin(1892)issupposedtobeself-explanatory,thegoalwhichtasksOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71aimatguidesandconveysmeaningtothewhole,andmorespecificallytothestepsthatpavethewaytosuchagoal.
Thisisanadvantage:theyhelpstudentstounderstandwhatisgoingonintheprocesswithoutexplicitlybeingtoldaboutit.
Itisthenaturalcapacityofhumanbeingstointerpretreality'followingthelogicofnatureandnaturalevents'thatmakesitpossibletoinferthemeaning.
Theproblemwernayfindinpedagogicaltasksisthatthenaturalsequenceoftheoperationsofrealworldtaskshasoftentobeadaptedtotheclassroomsituation,inwhichcasetheoriginalorderofeventsisdistorted.
Theusualsequenceofeventsexpectedwhenperformingthetask('intra-taskoperations')of'buyingaticket'inreallifeandwhen'buyingaticket'intheclassroom,asaclassactivity,illustratesthedifferenceswernayfind.
Tasksascarriedoutintheclassroomtendtodeviatefromrealworldtasks;indoingso,the'naturalsequenceofevents'changesintoa'pedagogicallyconditionedsequenceofevents'fullydependentonlinguisticneedsandskills.
Thepotentialofnaturalsequencingforinferringmeaningwillhardlyworkinthosecircumstances.
Experimentalresearchonthepatternslearnersadjusttointheirlearningprocessisfarfrombeingconclusive.
TheP-P-Pmodel(Presentation-Practice-Production)isusuallyconsideredtobethemostfrequentintheclassroom.
Ifthatisso,weshouldbearinmindthattaskcompletionrnayfollowadifferentscheme.
Canweexpectlearnerstoadapt'automatically'toanovelandconstantlychangingsequentialpatternintheactivitiestheyengagein-asrealtasksmostoftenrequireIfthatisnotthecase,wewouldbesettingtheconditionsforaconflictinlanguagelearning.
Avoidingsuchaconflictrequiresthattasksdevelopedintheclassroomtakeintoaccountthesequenceofthestepsleadingtothefinaloutcomeandhowwelltheyfitthelearningsequencethestudentsareusedto.
iii)AthirdfeaturehighlightedintheliteratureonTBAreferstointeraction.
Tasks,itissaid,favourorrequirecommunicativeinteractionamongpeople.
Again,thisassumptionreferstoclassroomtasks,nottoanytask.
Tasksinreallifedonotalwaysinvolveinteractionwithothers,asweal1know.
Itistrue,however,thatonlytasksthatinvolvelinguisticinteractionareusefulforlanguageteachingandlearning.
Butthenitwouldbewrongtotransferfeaturestypicalofpedagogicaltaskstotasksingeneral.
TBAmustcountonimportantrestrictionswhenintroducingtasksintheclassroomandacceptasapre-conditionthattheyhavetobecarefullyselectedandadaptedtotheteachingsituation.
Interactioncannotbetakentobeanessentialcharacteristicoftasks,butratherasafeaturenecessaryforatasktobeusefulwhenbroughtintotheclassroom.
iv)Realworldtaskscoveranyaspectandfieldofhumanactivity.
Theirperformancernayrequiretheactivationofvarioushumanresources,physicalandcognitive,butlanguageskillsarenotalwaysneededtocarryoutatask.
Ifwetakethatintoaccount,itisdifficulttoacceptthatal1tasksrnaybeequallyefficientifappliedtothelanguageclassroom.
v)Iftheunderlyingstructuralskeletonofrealworldtasksistakenasamodelforelaboratingclassroomactivities,afurtherconclusioncanbereached.
Tasksrnayadmitanykindofgoals,includingpurelylinguisticones.
ThereisnoreasontoexcludelinguisticgoalsfromOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71TheTusk-busedApprouchinLunpugeTeuching55languagetasks.
Inotherwords,itdoesnotbelongtothenatureof'task'thattheybecentredonmeaningalone.
Asalreadycommentedabove,herewefaceaconceptualprobleminrelationtotasks.
Advocatesoftasksinlanguageteachinghaveappropriatedthewordandadapteditsmeaningtotheirownmethodologicalbeliefs.
Methodologicalpointsofvieware,however,different,asaretheinterpretationandadaptationoftask-basedapproachestotheteachingscene.
Thereasonsforassociatingtaskswithactivitiesfocusedonmeaning,orwithprocess-guidedsyllabusesmustliesomewhereelse,notinthenatureofthetaskitself.
ItmustoncemorebeconcludedthatTBAneedsare-evaluationandperhapsareinterpretationofsomeofitsbasicassumptions,particularlythenatureofthetasksthatareusefulforthelanguageclassroom.
Amongotherthings,theideathatteachingthroughtasksisa'natural'process,assumingthattasksinvolve'natural'proceduresdoesnotseemtofitinwithreality.
Tasksintheclassroommaybeusefulforteachingandlearning,buttheyare,afteral],'pedagogical'devices,amongothersavailable.
Theyneedandrequireadaptationforteachingpurposes.
Andintheprocesstheyaresubjecttopedagogicalmanipulation.
COMPLEXITYANDSEQUENCINGOFTASKSRealworldtasksvaryinleve1ofcomplexity.
Andsodopedagogictasks.
Itisnotasimpleandeasymattertoconsiderthatataskmayconsistofjustoneormanyactivities.
Moreover,ataskmayinvolvesomeothertasksorsub-tasksaswell.
'Buyingaticket'mayimplycallingthetravelagent,catchingthebusandpayingthefare,discussingtheoptionsavailable,comparingprices,describingholidayresorts,orlookingfordifferentoptionsontheinternet,readingthetypesofticketsavailable,etc.
Asimple,one-activitytaskfitsanysyllabusorclassroomwithnoproblem(linguisticresourcesneededforitsperformanceareeasytodefine);ataskthatconsistsofseveralactivities,ortasksinvolvingothertasksor'subtasks',maybeextremelydemandingintermsofwordsandstructuresrequiredfortheirimplementation.
Learnerswillhavetocopewitharelativelyeasycommunicativesituationwhenataskrequiresonlyoneactivity,buttherequirementswillovercomethemwhenfacingamorecomplexchainofcommunicativesequences.
Teachersfortheirpartwillfindsimilardifficultiesin'organizing'ormanaginglearninginsuchcircumstances.
SomeauthorsclaimthataTBAshouldnotsubmittopreviouslydefinedsyllabuses.
Andtheyarguethatpredefinedsyllabusesaretypicallycontent-based(whattoteachispreviouslydefined),whiletask-basedsyllabusesshouldbeprocess-andmeaning-guided,wherelearnersbuildtheirownsyllabus.
accordingtotheirneeds,andfindtheirownlearningpathapplyingtheirinnatecapacitytofulfilthecommunicativerequirementsderivedfromthetaskinwhichtheyengage.
Theprotagonismofthelearnersindefiningthesyllabusshouldexcludesomeofthecommonquestionsinsyllabusdesign,suchastheoneconcerningthesequencingoflearningmaterialsfromoutside.
Thisissuehaskeptmanyauthorsbusy(Skehan1996;Willis,J.
1996,amongothers).
Itisnotalwaysclearwhensuchsequencingshouldbecarriedout(beforeorafterOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71thematerialsareusedintheclassroom),orwhowillberesponsibleforit(thegroupoflearners,teacher,teacherpluslearners,orsyllabusspecialists).
CoherenceisneededwhentakingthosedecisionsandthetheoreticaltenetsoftheTBAcannotbeleftaside.
Sequencingisanimportantproblem.
Afterall,evenwhenchildrenlearntheirfirstlanguage,acquisitiontakesplacefollowingaratheruniversalpattern,whichisapparentlybased,morethanonanythingelse,onthesimplicityvs.
complexityaxis.
Fromaformalpointofview,moresimpleisthatwhichisintegratedbyalowernumberofelements;increasingthenumberofelementsmeansgainingincomplexity.
Ifweapproachthequestionfromthepointofviewofsemantics(meaning).
thecriteriaaresimilar:asimple'thought'consistsoffewerideasorsemanticunits,whileamorecomplex'thought'involvesmoreideasorsemanticunits.
Weknowthatchildrenfirstlearnsounds(themostsimplephoneticunits)andfromthistheyturnintomorecomplexphonologicalunitsorsequencesofsounds:syllables,words,phrases,simplesentences,andsubordinatedsentences.
Breen(1987b:163)advocatessequencingtasks.
.
.
onthebasisoftwosetsofcriteriaoronthebasisofrelatingthetwo.
Thesecriteriaare:(i)therelativefamiliarityofthetasktothelearner'scurrentcommunicativeknowledgeandabilities,and(ii)therelativeinherentcomplexityofthetaskintermsofthedemandsplaceduponalearner.
Onemighttakethosewordsasthecriteriatobeappliedsoastosequencethesyllabusbeforeteachingorlearningbegin.
AndthiscanbeinferredfromBreen'sdiscourse,whenherefers,forexample,tothe'taskdesigner',orto'learningtasksplannedinadvance'(Breen1987b;164).
But,apparently,Breendoesnotmeanwhathehaspreviouslysaid:plamingfromoutside,orplanningbeforethegroupoflearnerssetstoworkwouldcontradictthebasicprincipiesofTBA.
Breenseemstobeconsciousofthatrestrictionwhenheadds,Thesecriteriawhichmayguideplanningareonlyhalfthestory.
Thesequencingoftasks[.
.
.
]cannotbeworkedoutinadvance.
Sequencingheredependsuponfirst,theidentificationofleamingproblemsordifíicultiesastheyarise;second,theprioritisingofparticularproblemsandtheorderinwhichtheymaybedealtwith;andthird,theidentificationofappropriatelearningtaskswhichaddresstheproblemareas.
Breen(19876;164)ThisismoreinaccordancewithBreen'sthesis,whichassignsprotagonismtothelearnersindefiningtheirownpathoflearning.
HowcouldyousequencetasksthathavenotyetbeenselectedEventhepossibilityofsequencingisreallyatstakeinthisview:theselectionoftasksdependsonthedailyneedsofthestudents,sothatitisnotpossibletohavealistoftheminadvance.
Ifsuchalistisnotpossible,whatcanyouexpecttosequenceTasksalreadylearntintheclassroommustbenecessarilyexcludedfromsequencing.
Thefactisthatinalearner-centredcurriculumsequencingoftaskshasnomeaningfulroletoplay:sequencingrequiressomekindoforganizationinadvanceandsomematerialstograde,andbotharenecessarilyabsentinaOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71TheTask-basedApprouchinLanguageTeaching57'non-existent'syllabus.
Butif'thereistobeasyllabus',Breenmentions'theinherentcomplexityoftasks'asthesecondcriteriontobetakenintoconsideration.
Here'complexity'hastobeunderstoodintermsofthe'demandsplaceduponthelearner'.
Thosedemands,1assume,willderivefrom,theidentificationandselectionofadequatelinguisticforms,thedifficultyofthoseforms.
measuredespeciallyinrelationtothemothertongue(how'far'theyarefromregularandusualpatternsintheLl),thenumberofformallinguisticelementsrequiredbythetask,thedifficultyinarrangingthoseformalelements,theamountofideasorsemanticunitsthelearnerswillhavetomanipulateorcontrol,thecognitivedemandsthattheelicitationofthoseideaswillrequirefromthelearners,thedegreeofefficiencyandaccuracyneededforcommunicatingthoseideastoothers.
Suchsequencingdoesnotdeviatemuchfromwhatshouldbeexpectedinothertypesofsyllabuses.
Ifwetakethelessonasthebasicunitofanalysis,severalactivitiesareimplementedduringthe50minutesitusuallytakes.
Thesameschemewillbefoundiftheunitofanalysisisawholeacademicyear,oratwo,threeorfouryearcurriculum.
Theactivitiesimplementedmayhavebeenplannedinadvance,ormayhavebeenselectedanddevelopedbythestudentsdependingonwhattheyfeeltheyneedateachspecificmomentoftheirleamingpath.
Inal1instancestheactivitieswillbechainedandconstituteasequence.
1sitnecessaryorpedagogicallyconvenienttocontrolsuchasequenceMostauthors(Candlin1987;Nunan1989;Skehan1996;Ellis2003:220ff.
)advocatecriteriafor'sequencingtasks'.
Oneofthemodelsproposedisbasedonthecomplexityofthecode(formalcode)andthecomplexityofthecontent(conceptualisationofwhatonehastocommunicate).
Othermodelsaremorespecific(comprehending,production,interuction,Nunan1989:118).
InanycasetheneedforsequencingtasksdoesnotderivesomuchfromthenatureofTBA,butratherfromthenatureoftheleamingprocessitself.
Humanbeingsseemtobeconditionedtoproceed,whentheylearn,fromthemostsimpleunitsorelements,tothemorecomplexones.
Andthatissoregardlessofwhatwelearn.
Sequencing,therefore,issubjecttosimilarprincipleswhenappliedtotaskorganization,totheselectionofthedifferentstepsthatmayconstitutethetask,ortothelinguisticelementsusedforperformingthetask.
Themostgeneralprinciplegoverninglearningisguidedbythetransitionfromsimplicitytocomplexity.
Thisprinciplehasmanyfacetsandoffersawidevarietyofperspectives.
Structuralmethodologiesusedtorefertothenumberofelementsneededtobuildstructuresorsentences.
orthenumberofphoneticfeaturesofasound,orthenumberofmorphemesinaword.
Acommunicativemethodologyanalysedthesameconceptfromthepointofviewofelementsneededforcommunicativefunctions.
AfurtherfilterwaslaterappliedwhenthelinguisticOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-7158AquilinoSúncheiexponentsoffunctionswereselectedornotdependingonthenumberofelementsincluded(morphologicalcomplexity)andthesyntacticalpatternsinvolved.
Complexityisnottheonlycriterion,though.
Thelearningoflanguagedoesnottakeplaceonafullylinearbasis,byaddingsimpleelementstothemorecomplexonesthatwehavealreadyacquired.
Wealsolearnlanguage'bychunks',thatismemorizingandconsolidating'piecesoflanguage'regardlessoftheirdegreeofcomplexity.
Inthosecases,thecriterionofcomplexitydoesnotapply,whileothersseemtobepresent,suchasaspecialorurgentcommunicativeneed.
thefamiliarityofthelearnerwiththetopicofthetask,thepreviousexperienceofthelearnerwithwhatisbeinglearnt,etc.
Fromthatpointofview,theclaimoftheTBAinfavourofalearner-centredsyllabusandtheprimaryroleofthelearnerindecidingonwhatshouldbetaughtandlearnt,andthereforeonwhichtasksmustbeplanned,isreasonable.
Somegapshavetobereservedforcopingwithfactorsotherthancomplexityinthelearningprocess.
Theproblemordifficultyliesindefininghowmuchemphasisshouldbegiventoeachofthevariousandrelevantcriteriaapplicable.
Tasks,asalreadydiscussedabove,varyincomplexityandfocus.
Moreover,languagetasksarenottobeequatedwithothertaskswhichdonotrequiretheuseoflanguagefortheirdevelopment.
Specificlearnersmayhavethecognitiveskillstoperformaparticulartask,butnotnecessarilythelinguisticskillstodoorexplainwhattheyaredoingintheforeignlanguagetheylearn.
Andmostimportant,tasksbasedexclusivelyonlinguisticskills,maynotbefeasiblebecauselearnerslackpreciselythoselinguisticskills,forexample,becausetheydonotknowtherightwordsfortheconceptstheyhaveinmind.
Inordertocopewiththisproblem,someauthors(e.
g.
Skehan,1996)advocatethreetypesoftasks,whichhavetobeintroducedintothelearningprocessinthissequence:pre-task,during-task,post-task.
Pre-tashbeginthesequencingbyintroducingthelanguageneededfortaskperformance.
Skehan(1996:54)referstothatstageas'someformofpre-teaching'.
Thatsoundsverymuchliketheclassical'presentationstage'withinthealreadyclassicalsequenceP-P-P.
Andtheactivitiesincludedwouldbecomprehension-typeactivities.
Performanceduringthetasktakesplacewhenthetaskisselectedandlearnersengageinfulfillingthegoalsofthetask.
Tosucceedinthatgoal,manipulationoflanguageisrequiredandheresevera1factorsmustbetakenintoaccountforthestudentstoproceedsuccessfully.
Again,Skehan(1996)mentions'cognitivecomplexity',degreeofdifficulty(neithertooeasy,nortoodifficult)andthecorrectmanagementofthe'communicativepressure'.
Oncethegoalhasbeenreached,post-taskactivitieswillneedtotakecareofrefiningwhathasbeenlearnt.
Studentsmaypaytoomuchattentiontofluency,becausetheyalreadyknowhowtoperformthetask;inthatcaseemphasiscouldperhapsbefocusedonaccuracyorrestructuring,forexample.
Thatwillrequirefurtherpractice,repetitionofthetask.
analyticalreconsiderationofwhathasbeendoneandhowithasbeendone(thecognitivedimensiontheimplementationofparalleltasks,etc.
Theimplementationoftasksintheclassroomadmitsvariety.
Willis,J.
(1996)describesthe'taskcycle'inthreephases,butinmoredetailandclosertorealpracticeintheclassroom:OServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJB,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71TheTask-basedApproachinLunguageTeaching59a)Pre-taskphase:thedescriptionofthedifferentactivitiessuggestedbyWillistakesupagainthe'presentationstage'mostteachersareusedto.
b)Thetaskcycle:threestagesarementionedhere:task,planningandreport.
Inal1ofthemstudentsaresupposedtoproducenaturallanguage,gainfluencyandconfidenceinthemselves.
WillisandSkehaninsistontheneedforgrammaticalaccuracy,oncethetaskhasbeenperformed.
Andthisissobecauseduringtaskperformancethelearnerspayattentiontomeaningandtendtoforgetgrammaticalcorrectness.
c)Languagefocus:thisemphasizesspecificlanguagefeatures.
ltseemsasiftheauthorisconsideringhereakindof'remedial'finaltask.
Sincefocusonmeaningshouldhavebeentherulethroughoutthetwopreviousphases,itisnowtimefor'languagefocusactivities'.
Languageactivitiesrefertosemantics,lexis,morphology,syntaxandphonetics/phonology.
Planninginadvancethesequencingoftasks,oractivitieswithinatask,doesnotfitwellinaprocesssyllabus,centredonlearnersandlearning,withthestudentshavingthemainresponsibilityforbuildingtheirownlearningpath.
Butsomebasicfactsofleamingandtheclassroomenvironmentandpracticeappeartooutweightheoreticalandabstractconceptualisations.
ThisseemstobethecaseofTBAregardingsequencing:itstheoreticalframeworkclaimstofullytransfertothelearnerstheelaborationofthesyllabusandthereforetheorganizationofthetasksandactivities.
But'realteachersandreallearners'arereluctanttoacceptthisapproach,sometimeswithsoundargumentsontheirside.
ThemoreTBAisanalysedandthemorethisissueisinvestigated.
themoreoneisforcedtoadmitthataplannedsequencingofactivitiesisneeded.
Thechallengeistoofferasequencingschemewithoutseriouslyhinderingthelinguisticpotentialofthelearnerandhiscapacityforgettinghimselfinvolvedinthelearningprocess.
ABALANCEDCRITICISMTheroleofmeaninginlanguagehasbeenheavilyemphasizedinthecommunicativeapproachandinal1itsmethodologicalvariants.
Fromthisperspective,earlierpracticesandmethodshavebeenpartiallyundervaluedordistorted.
ltistruethatinthestructuralapproachesemphasiswasnotplacedonmeaning,butonecannotsimplysaythatmeaningwastotallydisregardedinthismethod.
Aparallelcanbefoundinthewayal1methodologiesreactagainstpreviousapproaches:theytendtobuildasimplisticanddistortedpictureofthe'newcomers',stressingcontraststhatwillworkinfavourofthenewelementsproposed.
lnthe'newmethod'emphasiswillalsobeplacedonalimitedsetoffeatures,whiletheotherinterveningelementswillbepushedintothebackground.
TBAisnotanexceptiontothisrule:emphasisonmeaningandprocesscarrieswithitthatgrammaranddiscretegoalsarerelegatedtoasecondaryplaceandasubsidiaryrole.
Inasimilarway,cognitivefactorsinleaming,traditionallyassociatedwithgrammarandform,areOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71givenaminorparttoplayornottakenintoconsideration.
EarlyenthusiasmaboutTBAhasbeentemperedsomewhatanditisbecomingincreasinglyclearthatemphasisonmeaningalonedoesnotresultinmoreeffectivelanguageacquisition.
Asusual,abalancemustbefoundbetweentheroleassignedtomeaningandthenecessaryfocusonlinguisticform.
Thecomplexityofthelanguageacquisitionprocessdemandsamorerealisticapproachtotheteaching-learningsituation.
Dissatisfactionwithlearninganditsoutcomesisandhasbeencommonamonglearners.
Butsuchafeelingisnotexclusivetoonespecificmethodologyalone.
Complaintsaboutpoorresultsinsecondlanguagelearningareparticularlyoutstandingintheeducationalsystemal1overtheworldandarewellillustratedinthehistoryofpedagogy.
Studentsbeginthesecondlanguagecurriculumwhentheyare6yearsoldandtheykeepstudyingasecondlanguagefortenacademicyearsormore.
Inspiteofthat,mostsecondarystudentsleaveschoolunabletocommunicateeffectivelyinthelanguagetheyhavesupposedlylearnt.
lnstructionhasnotbeencompletelyuseless.
butitdoesnotmeetthestandardtheoreticallyrequiredinthecurriculum.
Suchastubbornrealitytriggersapermanentreconsiderationandquestioningofmethodsinteachingandisresponsibleforcyclicalshiftsinoppositeorcomplementarydirections.
PresentSLAresearchandfindingsmaybetakenasareliablepointofreferenceforamorebalancedsolutiontotheproblem.
Expectationsinsecondlanguagelearningshouldbesignificantlymoderatedandadjustedtotheachievementofreasonablegoals.
Thelearningofasecondlanguagebyteenagersandadultsshouldrenouncethepermanentcomparisonwithnativelanguagelearning;secondlanguagelearnerscannotexpecttobecome'nativelanguagelearners'or'nativelanguagespeakers'.
Weshouldratherworkwithinascale(Seefigure1)withamaximurngoal(native-likeresults)andaminimum(communicativeeffectiveness,inwrittenororallanguage,orinbothmodalities).
Perhapslanguagegoalsintheschoolsystemwillhavetobedefinedtakingintoaccounttherealsituationoflanguageacquisitioninanon-naturalenvironrnent,andspecificallyintheclassroomenvironrnent.
Tothatmustbeaddedthefactthatsecondlanguagelearningisnotusuallygivenpriorityinthecurriculumandtheeducationalenvironmentforusingaforeignlanguageisfarfromideal.
fbnarive-Iikenarive-likecomnrunicativecommunicativeeffectivenesseffectivenessTBA.
likeal1cornmunicativeapproaches,triestorecreatenaturallearningconditionsintheclassroom.
Thereasonisthatnaturalconditionsareassumedtobeidealforlearningalanguage,0ServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(1).
2004,pp.
39-71TheTusk-basedApprouchinLunguageTeuching61asalreadyproclaimedinthehistoryoflanguageteaching.
Nowthisviewisputforwardtogetherwithotherrelatedorsupportingassumptions,someofthemconnectedtoSLAresearch:Everyoneisbomwithinnateabilitiestolearnalanguage(whichmakesinstructionnottotallynecessary).
Experiencetellsusthatmanypeopleleamtwolanguagesandtheykeepusingthemsuccessfullythroughouttheirlives(therefore,onecaninferthatthelearningofasecondlanguageshouldnotbesodifficult).
Failurecomeswhenformalinstructiontakesplace,wherethefocusisonformandintellectualabilities,insteadoffocusingonmeaningfulinteraction(movingawayfromthenaturalleamingprocess).
Personalinvolvementinthelearningprocessisakeyfactorformoreefficientleaming(motivationisadecisivefactorinleaming).
Theissue,however,iswhether'naturalconditions'canberecreatedintheclassroom.
Ifthekindoftaskswecanworkwithintheclassroomaredifferentfromrealworldtasksasexplainedabove-itisdifficulttoagreewiththeTBA,whichaimstorecreatesuchanaturallearningenvironmentpreciselybymeansoftasks,whentheyhavetobenecessarily'pedagogicaltasks'.
Otherassumptionsdonotnecessarilyapplytoadultlearning.
Itisawell-knownthesisthatinnateabilitiesofhumanbeingsforlearninglanguagesdonotlastforeverwiththesameintensity.
Andthefactappliesregardlessofwhetherwehaveleamtoneormorelanguagesinanaturalenvironment.
ResearchonSLA(LongandCrookes,1992;PienemannandJohnston,1987)doesnotsupporttheconclusionthatinstructedleamingisafailureeither;rather,thecontraryseemstobethecase:instructionhelpslearning.
Instruction,weknow,isnotessentialforacquiringlanguagesinanaturalenvironment,butitdefinitelyhelpsifwewanttogaininaccuracyand,asaresult,alsoinefficiencyandinamorerefinedcommunicativecapacity.
MostmethodologistsandresearchersinSLAadmittodaythatsecondlanguageleamingisfavouredwhenatleastthreeconditionsaremet:a)Thatlearnersbeexposedtothelanguage.
Thereisadirectrelationshipbetweenexposuretothelanguageandlinguisticacquisition.
Exposurecountsasanecessaryinputphasebeforethelearnersareabletogenerateanyoutputandrefersbothtotheoralandwrittenlanguage.
ResearchinSLAhasreinforcedthishypothesis,firstformulatedbyKrashen.
b)Thatlearnersusethelanguageandpractisewithit,especiallyinacommunicativecontext.
Practica1workwithlanguagemaybequitevaried,though.
Communicativeuseoflanguageisoneofthefactorsthatusuallyincreasemotivation.
c)Thatleamersaremotivatedtousethetargetlanguageorallyandinwritingorreading.
OServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(1).
2004,pp.
39-71Pointsb)andc)arenotnewinpedagogy,atleastintheirbasicclaims.
Pointa)hasbeenintensivelyrevindicatedbythecommunicativemethodandtheTBAisconsistentwithitscommunicativerootsinassumingasimilarclaim.
TBAdoesnotseerntobebasedonnewlearningprincipies.
Ratheritoffersanovelwayofbeingexposedtoandpractisingthelanguage,andatthesametimeinvolvingandmotivatingthestudent.
Thisnovelwayisthetask.
Practisingandusingthelanguagebymeansofataskissupposedtoproducemoreeffectivelearning.
WhataboutformalinstructionTeachingintheclassroomofferssomeadvantages.
butisalsosubjecttoimportantrestrictions.
Twoofthemareparticularlyrelevanthere:instructionusuallypredefinesthecontentofwhatistobelearnt,andthelearningconditionsdonotfavoursimulationofrealworldtasksortherecreationofthenaturalenvironmentintheclassroom.
Itisobviousthatnotal1methodologiesfitequallywellintothisframework.
Thegrammar-translationmethod,aswellasthestructuralapproaches,goeshandinhandwithwhatisrequiredfromteachersandstudentsintheclassroom.
Butothermethodsdonot,aswasthecasewiththeDirectMethod,orwithGouin'smethod,andnowwiththeTBA.
Thereasonliesinthenatureofrealworldtasks;theycannotentertheclassroomwithoutundergoingsubstantialchanges.
TheadaptationsthatrealworldtasksmustundergointheclassroomeliminatesomeoftheoriginalandnaturalcommunicativefeaturesattributedtotasksinTRAS.
Asawayofillustratingtheissue.
peoplewhoperformrealworldtasks'inrealdailylife'alreadyhaveagoodcommandofthelanguage,orperformtaskssuitedtotheircommandofthelanguage;theydonotneedtopayexplicitattentiontolinguisticuse.
Whenstudentsofalanguagedoataskinalearningsituation,thecontextvariessignificantly,sincetheyhavetodothetaskandatthesametimelearnthelinguisticelementsneededtoreachthedesiredgoal.
Unknownwordsorstructureswillnotcomeautomaticallytothemindofthelearner.
Theremustbesomeeffortonhislherparttolookforthosewordsandrestructurethernwithotherlinguisticelementsalreadyavailable.
Thisactiontakesplaceunconsciouslyinanaturalenvironment,whenlearningthemothertongue.
Butthenweshouldconsiderhowdifferentthesituationisintheforeignlanguageclassroom(age,'desperateneed'tolearntocommunicatewiththecommunity,favourablecontext,notimepressure.
.
.
).
Formalinstructioningeneralshouldnotbeunderestimatedasausefulandperhapsindispensabletoolfortransmittinghumanknowledge.
Thesameappliestolanguagelearning.
ThechallengefortheTBAishowtointegratethenecessaryinstructionwithinthesetofactivitiesderivedfrornpedagogicaltasksandcentredonmeaning.
Suchmodelsmustbestilldesigned,appliedandevaluated.
Advocatesofinnovativeapproachestendtobeover-enthusiasticabouttheirpotential.
ItisrewardingtoreadsuchparagraphsasthisoneontheTBA:Intask-basedlearning,cornrnunicationtasks(wherelanguageformsarenotcontrolled)involvelearnersinanentirelydifferentmentalprocessastheycornposewhattheywanttosay,expressingwhattheythinkorfeel.
J.
Willis(lYY3:lCI)OServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71TheTusk-husedApprouchinLanguugeTeuching63Buttherearesoundargumentsagainstandseriousdoubtsabouteveryoneofthestatementsproducedbythisauthor.
Aretheytobetakenas'wishfulthinking'Teachersarewellawareofhowdifficultitisforastudenttoexpress'whathethinksorfeels'inaforeignlanguage,unlessthereisalotofpreviousworkonwhathastobesaid.
Whatthenatureofsuch'previouswork'isremainsverymuchthequestionmethodstrytosolve.
TheTBAtriestodoitthroughtaskwork.
Buttaskspointtoafinaloutcome,andwhatistobedoneonthewaytothisisthequestion:somethingpreviousisrequiredtosucceedintaskperformance.
1sthatformalinstructionOrjustfocus-on-forminstruction(Ellis2002,2003)OrformalinstructionpluspracticeOrformalinstructionpluspracticepluscognitiveconsciousnessaboutthelanguagebeinglearntExplicitinstructionreferstoal1theeventsandactionsaffectingteachingintheclassroom,suchasorganizingthesyllabus,decidingonthetaskstobeselectedandontheirsequencing,elaboratingtheactivitiesrequiredbyeachtask,givingadviceonthesuitablelinguisticelementsforthetask+speciallyifthereareseveraloptions,asisthecaseformosttasks-,etc.
Instructionimpliesthatthecognitivecomponentofthelearnersisactivated.
Thereisnothingwronginthat.
Cognitiveskillsconstituteadecisivedifferencebetweenhumansandotheranimals.
Theyshouldnotbeputasidebutadvantageshouldbetakenofthem.
Itistruethatclassroompracticestendtoemphasizeformalaspectsoflanguage.
Again,thisisnotanegativefeatureoflanguageuse:accuracyandfluencydonotcontradicteachother:rather,theycomplementeachother.
TheimportanceofcomprehensibleinputinlanguagelearningwasfirstemphasizedbyKrashen(1982;1985).
Sincethen.
thishasbeenagenerallyacceptedprinciple.
TBAisfirmlyrootedinthatprinciple.
Tasksareconsideredidealtoolsforprovidingmeaningfullinguisticmaterials;atthesametime,carryingoutthetasksrequirestheuseoflanguagematerialsandevenrecursivepracticewiththem.
Doesthatmeanthatcomprehensibleinputaloneisenough1sthereanyevidencethatforcestheexclusionofinstructionasadditionalcognitiveinputFindingsonthisissuepointintheoppositedirection:productiveskillsareratherpoorinstudentswithahighdegreeofcomprehensibleinput(Sheen1983:136),whilereceptiveskillsarecertainlyfavouredbyintensiveexposuretothelanguage.
Experiencebymanyteachersandlearnersgoesalongwiththesefindings:languagelearntinthenaturalenvironmentgainsinfluency,butaboundsinformalinaccuracies;instructedlearningproducesmoreaccurateoutput,butispoorerinfluency(thissameanalysisisofienfoundinthehistoryoflanguageteaching;seeSanchez.
1992).
Instruction,therefore,isnotnegativeperse,asonesometimesperceiveswhenreadingaboutTBAandprocessapproaches.
lnstructionisahelpful'tool',andsoitmustbekept.
Thehistoryofmankindsupportsthispositiveview.
Butitisnota'perfecttool';norisittheonlytoolforlearning.
Howeveroneanalysestheissue,theconclusionissimiIarandvalidforal1OServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-7164AquilinoSunchrzmethodologies:successinteachingandlearningdependsmainlyonhowwellthecomplexityoftheteaching-learningsituationishandled.
Akeywordhastobementionedagain:balance.
TheneedforabalancedmethodologyisnotexclusivetotheTBA.
Areviewofmethodsinthehistoryoflanguageteachingrevealshowstronglyandsometimesfiercelythenewmethodsrailagainstthecurrentones.
Andopponentsbasetheirclaimsonthefailureofoldmethodstofacilitatelearning.
Weknow,nonetheless,thatmanypeoplehavesucceededintheirlearningoflanguageswithal1methods.
Thisfactforcesustobelievethatperhapstooofteninnovativemethodsgaintheirshareofprestigeinthemethodologicalscenebyclaimingfailureanddissatisfactionwithothermethods.
Thecycle,however,willnotend,andtheinnovativemethodswillsoonbecomeobsolete.
Tothinkofnewmethodsbasicallyasattemptstoadapttothespecificneedsofthetimewouldbeamorereasonableview.
Itwouldalsobewrongtorejectanymethodologicalinnovationbecause'themajorityofeducationalinnovationresultsinfailure'(AdamsandChen,1981,inSheen,1994:127).
TheTBAhasgainedsomemomentuminthenineties.
Thegroupofscholars'leadingtheway'seemtobasetheirmethodologicalclaimsonalimitedsetofassumptionsandprinciples,whicharegenerouslyendowedwithwellsoundingwordsandconcepts.
Theirargumentsarenotalwaysconvincingandresearchinthenewapproachisstillinsignificant.
Thispatternisnotnewinthehistoryofeducationalinnovations:mostofthemofferasimilarprofileinthisrespect.
Thequestioniswhethertheteaching-learningsituationgainsinefficiency.
Theanswertothisquestionisfarfrombeingconclusiveorpositive.
TheTBAmustbeincludedwithintheinductivemethods:learnersaresupposedtointernalisethelinguisticsystemthroughpractice.
TheDirectMethod,theAudiolingualMethodandapproachesgenericallycalled'communicative'arealsoinductive.
Muchhasbeenwrittenontheadvantagesordisadvantagesofbothwaysoflearning.
Butexperimentalresearchonmethodsrevealsthatdeductivemethodsortheirvariantsproducebetterresultsthaninductiveones(Sheen1994:129-130).
ThesefindingsmayalreadyintroduceacaveattotheTBA.
Asecondfactorthatisrelevanthereistheroleofformalinstructioninlanguagelearning.
Processapproaches-andtheTBAistobeplacedwithinthismainstream-arewellknownbecausetheystresstheroleofthestudentsandmarginalizeorassignasecondaryroletotheactionoftheteacherandinstruction.
Insodoing,researchonthepositiveeffectsofdeductivemethodsis,deliberatelyornot,simplystranded.
Sinceformalinstructionisconnectedtodeductivemethodologies,ithastobeunderestimated,asindeeditisintheTBA.
Sheen(1094:133ff)bringsinsomedatathathelptopointoutsomecontradictionsinLong's(1988)andLongandCrookes'(1992)argumentsregardingtheroleofinstructioninlanguagelearning.
1referredabovetosimilar'conceptualgaps'intheviewsofsomeadvocatesoftheTBA,whosometimesseemtoargueonthebasisofpreconceived,butnotproven,principles.
OServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71TheTask-basedApproachinLunguugeTeaching65CONCLUSIONLookingbackintothepastillustrateswhatisreallynewintheTBA.
Theemphasisonthecommunicativelearningorteachingoflanguagesisnotnew,butitoffersatleastapartiallydifferentwayofbeingexposedtoandpractisingwiththelanguage.
ThisleadsustoclassifyTBAwithinthe'conversationalandlornaturalapproach'(Sánchez1992;1997).
Butnewmethodsarenottobetakenasinnatelygoodandefficientbytheirnature,orsimplybecausetheyarenew.
ItmustbeadmittedthattheTBAfacesmostoftheproblemsinherentinnaturalmethods,particularlywhenappliedtoadultlearnersofasecondlanguage.
Thedifferencebetweenrealworldtasksandpedagogicaltasksisattheverycentreoftheproblem.
Theclassroomenvironmentcannotbeequatedtotherealworldenvironment,oratleastnotfullyequatedtoit.
Inaparallelway,leamingalanguageinanaturalenvironment-particularlyintheearlystagesoflife-differsconsiderablyfromleamingalanguageasanacademicsubject.
Thehistoryofteachinglanguagesoffersalonglistofmethodstoteachandlearnlanguages.
1amnotsuggestinginthispaperthatweshouldrejectnewproposalsandnovelideas,but1stronglyfeelthatwhatweurgentlyneedistodomoreresearchonthemechanismsoflearningandaccompanynewproposalsandmethodswithmoreexperimentalevidencebeforewebringthemintotheclassroom.
Abstractconstructsmaybewellelaboratedandtheirelementsmayalsobelogicallyintertwined,butsomethingmorethanthatisneededforthemtoworkinpractice.
TheTBAaddsusefulelementsandcontributestothecommunicativelanguageteachingwithvaluableprocedures.
Butitwouldbenaivetotakeitas'themethod'languageteachersandlearnershavebeenwaitingfor.
BIBLIOGRAPHYANDREPERENCESAdams,R.
aiidClien,D.
(1981).
TheProcessqfEducationa1Innovation.
AninternationalPerspective.
Loiidoii:KoganPressíUNESCOPress.
Allwright,R.
L.
,(1984).
'Wliydon'tlearnerslearnwliatteachersteachTheinteractionhypothesis'.
iiiD.
SiiigletoiiandF.
G.
Little(eds).
LanguageLeurninginFormalandInformalContexts.
Dublin:IRAAL.
Austiii,J.
L.
,(1962).
HowtoDoThingswithWords.
Loiidoii:OxfordUniversityPress.
Berwick,R.
F.
,(1988).
TheEfectofTaskVariutioninTeacher-LedGroupsonRepairofEnglishasAForeignLanguage.
Uiipublislieddoctoraldissertation.
Vancouver,Canada:UniversityofBritisliColuinbia.
Boydell.
T.
H.
,(1970).
AGuidetoJobAnalysis.
London:Bacie.
BreeiiM.
P.
,(1984a).
"Howwouldwerecogniseacoinmunicativeclassroom".
EnB.
Coffey(ed).
OServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71TeacherTrainingandtheCurriculurn.
TheDunfordHouseSeminar.
1982.
London:TheBritishCouiicil.
Breeii,M.
P.
,(1984b).
Processsyllabusesforthelanguageclassroom.
111C.
J.
Brumtit(ed.
).
GeneralEnglishSyllabusDesign.
(ELTDocumentsNo.
118:47-60).
London:PergarnonPressaiidTheBritishCouncil.
Breen,M.
P.
,(1987a).
Learnercontributioiistotaskdesign.
InC.
N.
CandlinandD.
Murphy(eds.
).
Lunca.
srerPrucficalPapersinEnglishLanguugeEducufion.
Vol.
7.
LunguageLearningTasks,23-46.
EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Breeii,M.
P.
,(1987b).
"Conteinporaryparadigmsiiisyllabusdesign",iiiLunguageTeaching,20(3):157-174.
Breen.
M.
P.
,C.
N.
Candlin,A.
Waters,(1979).
"Cornrnunicativernaterialsdesign,sornebasicprinciples",RELCJournal,1012.
Breeii,M.
P.
andC.
Candliii,(1980).
Theessentialsofacommuiiicativecurriculumiiilanguageteacliing.
AppliedLinpislics,l(2):89-112.
Brindley,G.
,(1989).
AssessingAchievernenfintheLearner-CenfredCurriculum.
Sydney,Australia:MacquarieUniversity,NationalCentreforEnglishLanguageTeachingandResearch.
Brown,G.
,A.
Anderson,R.
Schilcock,andG.
Yule,(1984).
TeachingTalk.
StrategiesforProducfionandAssessment,Cainbridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Bygate,M.
,(1994).
'Adjustingthefocus,TeacherrolesinTask-basedlearningofgrammar',inBygate,M,A.
TonkynandE.
Williains(1994).
Grarnrnarand[heLunguageTeacher,NewYork:PreiiticeHallInternational.
Candlin,C.
N,,(1984).
SyllabusDesignasuCritica1Process.
ELTDocurnenfsNo.
118:29-46.
London:PergamoiiPressandTheBritishCouncil.
Caiidlin.
C.
N.
,(1987).
Towardstask-basedlanguagelearning.
InC.
N.
CandlinandMurphy(eds.
).
LuncasferPracficulPupersinEnglishLanguageEducufion.
Vol.
7.
LanguageLearningTasks,5-22.
EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Candliii,C.
N,,J.
Brutoii,andJ.
M.
Leather,(1976).
Doctorsiiicasualty,Specialistcoursedesignfroinadatabase.
InfernafionalReviewofAppliedLinguistics.
14:245-272.
Candlin,C.
N.
andD.
Murphy,(eds.
).
(1987).
LancusferPractica1PapersinEnglishLanguageEducation.
Vol.
7.
LanguageLearningTasks.
EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Carr,T.
andT.
Curreii,(1994).
'Cogiiitivefactorsinlearningaboutstructuredsequences,Applicationstosyntax'.
StudiesinSecondLanguageAcyuisifion.
1612:205-230.
Chaudron,C.
,(1988).
SecondLunguageClussroom.
.
ResearchonTeachingundLearning.
NewYork:CambridgeUiiiversityPressCrookes,G.
andM.
GassSusan,(eds)(1993a).
TasksinaPedugogicalConfext.
Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.
OServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(I),2004,pp.
39-71TheTask-busedApproachinLanguugeTeuching67Crookes,G.
aiidM.
GassSusan.
(eds)(1993b).
TasksandLunguageLearning.
Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.
Crookes,G.
.
(1986).
TaskClassij'icafion.
ACross-DisciplinaryReview(Tech.
Rep.
No.
4).
Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiatManoa,SocialScienceResearchInstitute,CenterforSecondLanguageClassroomResearch.
Crookes,G.
,(1989).
Plaiiiiingandinterlaiiguagevariation.
Sf~rdiesinSecondLanguugeAcquisition.
1l(4):367-383.
Crookes,G.
andLoiig,M.
H.
,(1987a).
Task-basedsecoiidlaiiguageteaching.
Abriefreport(Pt.
1).
ModernEnglishTeacher.
24(5):26-28.
Crookes,G.
aiidM.
H.
Long,(1987b).
Task-basedsecondlanguageteachiiig.
Abriefreport(Pt.
2).
ModernEnglishTeacher.
24(6):20-23.
Doughty,C.
andT.
Pica,(1986).
"lnformationgap"tasks.
DotheyfacilitatesecondlaiiguageacquisitionTESOLQuarferly.
20(2):305-326Dubin,S.
andE.
Olslitain,(1986).
CourseDesign.
Developingprogramsandmaterialsforlanguagelearning.
Cambridge:C.
U.
P.
Ellis,R.
,(1985).
UndersfandingSecondLanguageAcquisition.
Oxford:OUP.
Ellis,R.
.
(2002).
'Doesform-focusedinstructionaffecttheacquisitionofimplicitknowledgeAreviewoftlieresearch.
SfudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition24(2):233-236.
Ellis,R.
,(2003).
Task-basedLanguageLearningandTeaching.
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Fernandez,S.
,(ed.
).
(2001).
Tareasyproyectosenclase.
Madrid:EdinumenFoley,J.
,(1991).
'ApsycholinguisticsframeworkforTask-basedApproachestoLanguageTeaching',AppliedLinguistics,12,No.
1:62-75.
Freire,P.
,(1970).
PedagogyoffheOppressed.
Harmoiidsworth:England,Penguiii.
Gass,S.
M.
,(1989).
SecondLaiiguagevocabularyacquisitioii.
AnnualReviewofAppliedLingzrisfics.
1988.
9:92-106Gouiii,F.
,(1892).
TheArfofTeachingandStudyingLanpages.
Londoii:GeorgePhilipandSon(EnglislitraiislationbyH.
SwanandV.
Betis).
Halliday,M.
A.
K.
,(1973).
ExplorationsintheF~rnctionsufLanguage.
Loiidoii:EdwardAriiold.
HallidayM.
A.
K.
,(1978).
LangirugeasSocialSemiotics.
London:Longinaii.
Hyltenstain.
K.
,(1988).
Lexicalcliaracteristicsofnear-nativesecondlaiiguageleariiersofSwedisli.
JournalqfMulfilingualandMulficultrrralDcvelopment.
Y(1and2):67-84Johnson,K.
,(2003).
DesigningLanguageTe~ichingTasks.
Houndmills:McMillan.
OServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(1),2004,pp.
39-7168AquilinoSúnrhezKarmillof-Sinitli,A.
,(1986).
'Frommeta-processestoconsciousaccess.
Evidenceforchildren'smetalinguisticandrepairdata'.
Cognition.
23:95-147.
Kellerman,E.
,(1985).
'Ifattirstyoudosucceed.
.
.
',inS.
M.
GassandC.
G.
Madden(eds.
).
InputinSecondLunguugeAcquisition.
345-363.
Rowley,Mass:NewburyMouse.
Kouraogo,P.
,(1987).
EFLcurriculumrenewalandINSETindifficultcircumstances.
ELTJournul.
41(3):171-178.
Krashen,S.
D.
,(1982).
PrincipiesundPructiceinSecondLunguugeAcquisition.
Oxford:PergamonPress.
Krashen,S.
D.
,(1985).
TheInputHypothesis.
London:Longman.
Krashen,S.
D.
andT.
D.
TerreII,(1983).
TheNuturulApprouch.
Lung~rugeAcquisitionintheClus.
sroom.
SanFrancisco,CA:AlemanyPress.
Kumaravadivelu,B.
,(1993).
Thenameoftlietaskandthetaskofnaining:Methodologicalaspectsoftask-basedpedagogy,inCrookes,G.
andM.
GassSusan(eds).
TusksinuPedugogiculContext.
Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.
Larsen-Freeinaii,D.
andM.
HLong,(1991).
AnIntrodzrctiontoSecondLunguugeAcquisitionReseurch.
Londoii:Longman.
Long,M.
H.
,(1983).
DoessecondlanguageinstructioninakeadifferenceAreviewofresearch.
TESOLQuurterly.
17,3.
Long,M.
H.
,(1985).
Atoleforinstructioninsecondlanguageacquisition.
Task-basedlanguageteaching.
111K.
HyltenstainandM.
Pienemann(eds).
ModellingundAssessingSecondLunguugcAcquisition.
77-99.
Clevedon,England:MultilingualMatters.
Long,M.
H.
,(1988).
Instructediiiterlaiiguagedevelopinent.
IiiL.
M.
Beebe(ed.
).
Iss~resinSecondLunguugeAcquisition.
MultiplePerspectives.
115-141.
NewYork:HarperaiidRow.
Long,M.
H.
,(1989).
Task,group,andtask-groupinteractions.
UniversiSofHuwuiWorkingPupersinESL.
ó'(2).
1-26.
(RepriiitedinS.
Aiiivaii(ed.
).
LunguugeTeuchingMethodologyfortheNineties.
31-50,1990.
Singapore:SEAMEORegionalLanguageCeiiter.
)Long,M.
H.
,(1990).
Theleastasecoiidlanguageacquisitiontlieoryneedstoexplaiii.
TESOLQlrurterly.
24(4).
649-666.
Long,M.
H.
,(1991).
Focusonform,Adesignfeatureinlanguageteachinginethodology.
111K.
deBot,D.
Coste,R.
Giiisberg,andC.
Krainsch,(eds.
).
ForeignLunguugeReseurchiní'ross-CulturulPerspective.
39-52.
Ainsterdain:JoliiiBenjainiiis.
Long,M.
H.
andG.
Crookes,(1987).
Interventioiipointsiiisecondlanguageclassrooinprocesses.
IiiB.
K.
Das(ed.
).
PutternsinclussroominteructioninSoutheustAsiu.
177-203.
Siiigapore:SiiigaporeUiiiversityPressIRELC.
Loiig,M.
H.
andG.
Crookes,(1992).
'ThreeApproacliestoTask-BasedSyllabusDesign'.
TESOLOServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71TheTask-basedApproachinLanguageTeaching69Loiig,M.
H.
andG.
Crookes,(1993).
Unitsofanalysisinsyllabusdesign.
IiiG.
CrookesandS.
M.
Gass(eds.
).
Tusluinlunguugeleurning.
Clevedoii,England:MultilingualMatters.
Loiig,M.
H.
andP.
Robiiison,,(2002).
'Focusonforin.
Tlieory,researchaiidpractice.
InDoughtyG.
andJ.
Williams(eds.
).
FocusonfirminclussroornSLA.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
MartiiiPeris.
E.
,(1999).
Librosdetextoytareas.
InZanón,J.
,(ed.
)1999:25-52.
McLaughliii,B.
,(1990).
'Restructuring'.
AppliedLinguistics.
II:113-128.
Nunan,D.
,(1989).
DesigningTusksfirtheComrnunicutiveClussroorn.
Cambridge:CambridgeUiiiversityPress.
Parker,CecilL.
andRubin,L.
J.
,(1966).
ProcessasContent.
CurriculurnDesignundtheApplicutionoJ'Knowbdge.
Chicago:RaiidMcNallyandCoinpany.
Pica,T.
,(1983).
AdultacquisitionofEnglishasasecondlaiiguageuiiderdifferentcoiiditioiisofexposure.
LunguugeLeurning.
33(4):465-497.
Pica,T.
,L.
Holliday,N.
LewisaiidL.
Morgeiitlialer,(1989).
Coinprelieiisibleoutputasanoutcomeoflinguisticdemandsonthelearner.
SfudiesinSecondLunguugeAcqtrisition.
1I(1):63-90.
Pica,T.
,R.
KanagyaiidJ.
Faloduii,(1993).
'Clioosiiigaiidusiiigcommunicativetasksforsecoiidlaiiguageinstruction',iiiCrookes,G.
andM.
GassSusan(eds)(1993).
Pieiieinaiin,M.
,(1984).
Psycliologicalconstraiiitsoiitlieteacliabilityandleariiabilityoflaiiguages.
StudiesinSecondLunguugeAcquisifion.
6:186,214.
Pieiiemaiiii.
M.
,(1987).
Psycliologicalcoiistraiiitsontheteachabilityoflanguages.
IiiC.
Pfaff(ed.
).
Firstundsecondlunguugeucquistionprocesses.
143-168.
Rowley,Mass:NewburyHouse.
Pienemanii,M.
aiidM.
Johnstoii,(1987).
Factorsiiifluencingthedevelopmentoflanguageproficiency.
IiiD.
Nunaii(ed.
).
ApplyingSecondLunguugeAcquisitionReseurch.
45-141.
Adelaide,Australia:NatioiialCurriculuinResourceCentre.
Pienemaiin,M.
,Joliiistoii,M.
aiidBrindley,G.
,(1988).
Constructinganacquisition-basedprocedureforsecoiidlaiiguageassessinent.
StudiesinSecondLunguugeAcquisition.
1O(2):217-243.
Prahbu,N.
S.
,(1980).
'Reactioiisaiidpredictioiis'[Specialissue].
Bulletin4(1).
Bangalore:RegionalInstituteofEiiglish,SouthIndia.
Prabliu,N.
S.
,(1984).
Proceduralsyllabuses.
IiiT.
E.
Read(ed.
).
Trendsinlunguugesyllubusdesign.
272-280.
Siiigapore:SingaporeUniversityPress/RELC.
Prabliu,N.
S.
,(I987a).
'Languageeducatioii,equippingoreiiabling',enDas,B.
K.
(ed).
LunguugeEducutioninHumunResourceDevelopment.
AnthologySeries20.
Singapore:RELC.
Prabhu,N.
S.
,(1987b).
SecondLunguugePedugogy.
Oxford:OUP.
OServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004,pp.
39-71Robiiison,P.
,(1991).
Motivatingfheoriesof'taskcomplexi@.
Unpublishedmanuscript,UniversityofHawaiiatManoa:DepartinentofESL,Hoiiolulu.
Sanchez,A,,(1992).
Historiadelaenseanzadelespaolcomolenguaextranjera.
Madrid:SGEL.
Sánchez,A,,(1997).
LosmEfodosenlaenseanzadeidiomas.
Evoluciónhistdricayanúlisisdidúcrico.
Madrid:SGEL.
Sáiicliez,A.
,(2001).
Sequeiicingofactivitiesandmotivation',inV.
CodiiiaaiidE.
Alcón,(eds.
).
LanguugeLearningintheForeignLungtrageClassroom.
107-126.
CollecióEstudisFilologics/8,Castellóii:UniversidadJaume1,Sato,C.
J.
,(1990).
TheSyntaxof'ConversationinInterlangltageDevelopmenf.
Tübingen:GünterNarr.
Sclimidt,R.
W.
,(1990a).
Tlieroleofconsciousnessinsecondlanguagelearning.
AppliedLinguistics.
1l(2):17-46.
Sclimidt,R.
W.
,(1990b,July-August).
Input.
Inferaction.
Attention.
andAww-eness.
TheCu~ejOrConsciousness-RuisinginSecondLanguageTeaching.
Paperpresentedatthe1Oth'EncuentroNacionaldeProfesoresUniversitariosdeLinguaInglesa':RiodeJaneiro,Brazil.
Schmidt,R.
W.
,(1992).
'Psychologicalinechanismsuiiderlyingsecondlanguagefluency'.
StudiesinSecondLanguugeAcyuisition.
14:357-385.
Sheen,R.
,(1994).
'Acritica1analysisoftheadvocacyoftheTask-Basedsyllabus'.
iiiTESOLQuarterly,28(1):127-151.
Skehan,P.
,(1994).
'Secondlanguageacquisitioiistrategies,interlanguagedevelopmentandTask-basedleariiiiig',iilBygate,M,A.
TonkyiiaiidE.
Williams(1994).
Grammurand[heLanguageTeucher.
NewYork:PrenticeHallIiiternational.
Skehan.
P.
,(1996).
'AfraineworkfortheimplementationofTask-basedinstruction',AppliedLingiristics.
1996,1711:38-62.
Skehan,P.
,(1998).
'Task-basedinstruction'.
AnnltulReviewoj'AppliedLin,qwistics.
1998,18:268-286.
Skeliaii,P.
,(2001).
'TheroleofafocusoiiformduringTask-Basedinstruction'IiiCelaya,M"L.
andAl.
,(eds).
Trabajosenlingüisticaaplicada.
11-24.
Barcelona:AESLA.
Stenhouse,M.
,(1975).
Aninfroductionfocurriculumresearchanddeialopment.
London:Heineinaii.
VanPatteii,B.
,(1990).
'Attendiiigtocoiitentandformintlieinput.
Anexperimentiiiconsciousiiess'.
StudiesinSecondLan~wageAcyuisition.
12:287-301.
VanPatten,B.
,(1994).
'EvaluatingtheroleofconsciousnessinSLA.
Terms,linguisticfeaturesandresearcliinethodology'.
AILAReview.
11:26-37.
VanPatteii,B.
andT.
Cadierno,(1993).
'Explicitinstructionandinputprocessiiig'.
StzrdiesinSecondLanl.
tageAcyitisition.
15:225-243.
Vygotsky,L.
S.
,(1962).
ThoughtandLangirage.
Cambridge,Mass.
:MITPress.
OServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(l),2004.
pp.
39-71TheTusk-busedApproachinLunguugeTeuching71Vygotsky,L.
S.
.
(1978).
MindinSociew.
TheDevelopmentofHigherPs.
vchologica1Processes.
Carnbridge,Mass.
:HarvardUniversityPress.
Wells,G.
,(1981).
LearningthroughInteraction.
Carnbridge:CUP.
Wliite,L.
,(1987).
Againstcompreliensibleinput.
TheinputhypothesisandtliedevelopinentofL2coinpeteiice.
AppliedLinguistics.
H(I):95-110.
Wliite,R.
V.
,(1988).
TheELTCurriculum.
Design.
InnovationandManagement.
Oxford:BasilBlackwell.
Wilkiiis,D.
A,,(1976).
NotionulSyllabtrses.
Oxford:OUP.
Willis,Jane(1996).
AFrumeworkforTusk-BasedLearning.
London:Loiigman.
Willis,D.
aiidJ.
Willis,(2001).
'Applyinglinguisticstotask-basedlearning,sixpropositionsinsearcliforainetliodology',inDelaCruz,I.
&Al.
,(2001).
Lalin~qisticaaplicadaafinalesdelS.
XYEnsayosypropuestas.
16I-168.
Alcalá:UniversidaddeAlcalá.
Zanóii,Javier(ed.
)1999.
Laenseanzadelespaolmediantetareas.
Madrid:EdinurnenYalden,J.
,(1987).
PrincipiesqfCourseDesignforLanguageTeuching.
Carnbridge:CarnbridgeUniversityPresYule,G.
,Powers,M.
aiidD.
McDonald,(1992).
'ThevariableeffectsofsoineTask-Basedlearningprocedureso11L2cornmuiiicativeeffectiveness'.
LanguagcLearning.
42-2:249-277.
OServiciodePublicaciones.
UniversidaddeMurcia.
Allrightsreserved.
IJES,vol.
4(1).
2004,pp.
39-71