Gound Work - DR
Gound Work - DR
Gound Work - DR
Teaching (TBLT), the speaking lesson included different activities. This paper aims to
indicate principles of SLA and TBLT in these sessions and discuss the effectiveness of these
principles in lesson.
What principles of second language acquisition (SLA) and Task-based Language Teaching
(TBLT) have been put into practice in the lesson you participated in?
What were the sections of the lesson and what were the SLA and TBLT principles that were in
operation in each of those sections? Were they effectively implemented in the lesson? Do include
the analysis of Focus on Forms (FoFs), Focus on Form (FoF) and Focus on Meaning (FoM), and
corrective feedback episodes (if they exist) in your analysis, too.
General in4
We will consider these options in terms of the three stages of a task cycle: pre-task, main task
and post-task (Ellis, 2003).
https://hud.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/openurl?
institution=44HUD_INST&vid=44HUD_INST:Services&%3Fgenre=book&btitle=Task-Based
%20Language%20Learning%20and%20Teaching&title=Task-Based%20Language%20Learning
%20and%20Teaching&pub=Oxford%20University%20Press&date=2003&sid=https:%2F
%2Fwww.cambridge.org
Activity 2:
Contextualization:
Task characteristics:
According to Ellis (2009: 223) a task has to satisfy 4 criteria to qualify as a task in this context:
1. The primary focus should be on ‘meaning’ (by which is meant that learners should be mainly
concerned with processing the semantic and pragmatic meaning of utterances).
2. There should be some kind of ‘gap’ (i.e. a need to convey information, to express an opinion
or to infer meaning).
3. Learners should largely have to rely on their own resources (linguistic and non-linguistic) in
order to complete the activity.
4. There is a clearly defined outcome other than the use of language (i.e. the language serves
as the means for achieving the outcome, not as an end in its own right).
1. 2. 3. 4. Meaning focus: g
Gap: there is a requirement to express information, give an opinion or
deduce meaning. In the role-play case, some level of information needs to
be conveyed, but it is purely formulaic. No meanings need to be deduced
and no opinions expressed.
Own resources: learners are not speci fi cally taught or directed to the
language they need to complete the task (i.e., they are free to use any
language they wish to complete the task, although they may be able to
take some language directly from any provided input to help them
complete it). In this case, the interlocutors are taught the language they
need. They are not just borrowing; they are essentially replicating.
Outcome: the language is the means to reach the outcome, but not an end
in itself (i.e., learners undertaking the task are not primarily focused on
having to use language correctly but, rather, on reaching the goal
anticipated in the task). In this case, there is a greater focus on accuracy.
The goal of the activity, as previously stated, is linguistic.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching ,
Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-17 14:32:08.
Perhaps in evaluating this activity as a task we need to go a little deeper. What if
we considered this activity against Ellis and Shintani ’ s more elaborated de fi
nitions of task characteristics (see Chapter 3 and Ellis and Shintani, 2014, pp.
135 – 136)? 1. 2. 3. 4.
Own resources: learners are not speci fi cally taught or directed to the language
they need to complete the task (i.e., they are free to use any language they wish
to complete the task, although they may be able to take some language directly
from any provided input to help them complete it). In this case, the interlocutors
are taught the language they need. They are not just borrowing; they are
essentially replicating.
Outcome: the language is the means to reach the outcome, but not an end in
itself (i.e., learners undertaking the task are not primarily focused on having to
use language correctly but, rather, on reaching the goal anticipated in the task).
In this case, there is a greater focus on accuracy. The goal of the activity, as
previously stated, is linguistic.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 20:05:30.
Task sequencing
At the operational level, Prabhu (1987), for example, suggested that, when
sequencing the three types of task he had proposed, learners might move from
information gap to reasoning gap to opinion gap as they progressed in their
language pro fi ciency. He went on to suggest that genuine opinion gap tasks
might only be possible at the highest levels of pro fi ciency. In reality, the
sequencing of tasks in the Bangalore project was e ff ectively intuitive, with
later tasks building on earlier ones, but perhaps involving greater amounts of
information or extending the reasoning required to complete the task.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 20:13:08.
Task complexity
Robinson (2001) suggested that there are three sets of variables to take into
consideration when designing and sequencing tasks, which he referred to as the
triadic componential framework. Within the framework, a range of questions
might be asked (some examples are given below):
1. complexity – e.g., how many steps are involved in completing the task? How
high are the reasoning demands placed on the learners?
2. difficulty – e.g., how able or pr ficient are the learners undertaking the task?
How do they perceive the task? How do they feel about doing the task?
Goh, 2017
Like task repetition, the rationale for pre-task planning is based on a cognitive
approach to language learning (Skehan 1998) and L2 speaking development
(Segalowitz 2010). Giving learners time to plan before a task to think of what to
say and how to say it helps to free up attentional space during speaking for
articulation of ideas, speech monitoring and self-repairs. Skehan (1998)
summarized the main benefits of pre-task planning as follows: improved
complexity in selected tasks, more complex content as a result of deeper
interpretation of task demands, more experimentation with forms to express
complex ideas, better self-monitoring during task performance and all round
improved fluency
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/
BD848E326F7761ABC789E6692B9BB6D1/S0261444816000483a.pdf/research-
into-practice-scaffolding-learning-processes-to-improve-speaking-
performance.pdf
GRAMMAR:
I repeat Samuda and Bygate ’ s (2008) argument that a “ key criterial element ”
of TBLT is that the language focus is positioned as a post -task activity arising
from task performance. From this perspective, the use of pre-task direct
instruction raises important issues for TBLT for which Ellis et al. (2019)
suggested that more research is needed.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 21:40:43.
Task modality:
(ATESL, 2011b, p. 10). From this perspective, the framework suggests that task
modality might progress from the receptive to the productive, thereby moving
learners towards increasingly autonomous language use, and sequenced in a
way that deliberately builds on learners ’ skills, knowledge and experience.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 20:50:26.
Focus on meaning:
In meaning-focused contexts, learners are required to process whole or
complete comprehensible samples of language input in contexts where they can
e ff ectively be immersed in the language. Hence focus on meaning (FonM) can
be mapped historically onto an innatist theory of learning, fi nding expression, for
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 20:53:52.
Speking + writing:
Learners undertaking speaking tasks could also be required to complete some
kind of co-constructed written response. This could, for example, take the form
of summarising or reporting in written form on the outcomes of the spoken task.
This enables learners to pay attention to di ff erent components of language use.
GarcíaMayo and Imaz Agirre (2019), for example, have pointed out that some
studies have indicated that tasks that elicit speaking cause learners to pay more
attention to meaning, whereas tasks that include a written element present
learners with more opportunities to focus on accuracy and grammatical form. In
comparison with speaking tasks alone, collaborative tasks that include a written
component will likely elicit more language related episodes (LREs) which (as I
pointed out in Chapter 5) constitute learners ’ discussions on and modi fi cations
of the language they are producing (Swain, 1998), with potential learning bene fi
ts in terms of accuracy. However, opportunities for collaborative (pair or group)
writing do not necessarily need to have been preceded by a speaking task (i.e., a
task could involve input processing, e.g., reading a newspaper article or
watching a televised news report on a topical theme and then co-constructing a
written position piece on its content that presents one or several perspectives).
Tasks that require some kind of written output also lend themselves to individual
work, where learners may have more time to process output and focus on
accuracy, and can be integrated with other skills. This may include, for example,
reading and responding (replying to an email or letter; opinion piece; book
review), or listening/watching and responding (listing key information from a
phone message; summarising key points from a podcast or lecture; fi lm review).
Individual writing tasks may be conducted as part of whole class work (e.g., the
class listens to or reads the same input and provides some kind of individual
written response). This could lead to pair, group or whole class work where
outcomes are shared (and feedback opportunities provided), and could be
developed into a monologic speaking task in the form of individual presentations.
Such tasks could also be completed, in whole or in part, outside class. A key
issue that underpins drawing on di ff erent task types and modalities, alongside
di ff erent structures of participation, is that they enable learners to pay
attention to di ff erent dimensions of the L2 and also to recycle language. They
also enable learner di ff erence variables to be managed in ways that will ideally
cater to the needs and learning styles of all learners in the class.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 21:19:48.
Focus on form:
Long (2000) de fi ned FonF as a procedure that entails “ brie fl y drawing
students ’ attention to linguistic elements (words, collocations, grammatical
structures, pragmatic patterns, etc.) in context , as they arise incidentally in
lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning, or communication ” (p. 185).
These brief moments where learners shift their focus of attention are prompted
by occasions when learners come up against a comprehension or production
problem during interaction. The shift in attention is designed to stimulate “
noticing ” (Schmidt, 1990, 1993, 2001), thereby raising students ’ awareness of
particular forms and their uses (see Chapter 2).
Types of FFI
Lyster (2016) offers a lesson flow that starts with a focus on content.
This content provides a context for target language features to be
noticed while it is focused on through meaning-based activities. The
context is created usually by means of some input material such as
reading or listening texts, videos, etc. coupled with input enhancement
and input flood features. Therefore, there is no direct explicit teaching
of form at the beginning, unlike PPP, but opportunities are created
through noticing and awareness activities for inducing the ‘form and
meaning’ relationship with regards to target language features. At the
awareness stage, learners ‘play with’ the target forms to discover ‘rules’
and ‘usages’ and see the repeating patterns. The guided practice stage
is more explicit with metalinguistic exercises that push the learners to
use the target features in a meaningful but controlled context. When
the learners have confidence with the forms, they are returned to
content/meaning focused activities in which the target language forms
are needed for more accurate expression. At this stage, the learners
focus on the subject-matter to learn and discuss it at higher levels
(comparison, analysis, evaluation). This corresponds to the
autonomous practice stage. Ranta and Lyster (2017) underline the
importance of establishing a balance between content and language
objectives. Throughout the third phase, reactive FoF can be
implemented in the form of explicit or implicit corrective feedback and
requests for elaboration (the integration of the target form) providing
strong scaffolding to the learners.
Interaction
Social hypothesis
PDZ ( ...zone)
Role of teacher
Usage-based theory
https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/SCHMIDT%20Attention,%20awareness,%20and%20individual
%20differences.pdf
Structual and semantic simplification could help leaners use L2 in the early stages of learning (Ellis,
2015)- p70