|
Part One, this volume) in a coherent fashion. Second, a method should be
able to guide and sustain various aspects of language learning and teaching
operations, particularly in terms of curricular content (e.g., grammar and
vocabulary), language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), and
proficiency levels (beginning, intermediate, and advanced).
None of the designer methods satisfies the just-cited criteria. In spite of
their limitations, they have been wrongly treated as new methods, a treat-
ment that really requires a stretch of interpretation, as seen in the case of
Richards and Rodgers (1986) who attempted, rather laboriously, to fit the
new methods into their tripartite framework of approach, design, and pro-
cedure. In fact, a reputed Canadian scholar expressed surprise at “the toler-
ant and positive reception the new methods were given by sophisticated
methodologists and applied linguistics in North America. One could have
expected them to be slaughtered one by one under the searing light of the-
ory and research” (Stern, 1985, p. 249).
4.4. A SPECIAL TASK
Before concluding this section on categories of language teaching meth-
ods, a brief note on the status of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is
in order. As the novelty of communicative language teaching is gradually
94
CHAPTER 4
wearing thin (see chap. 6, this volume, for details), TBLT is gaining
ground. The word, “communicative,” which was ubiquitously present in the
titles of scholarly books and student textbooks published during the 1980s
is being replaced by yet another word, “task.” Since the late 1980s, we have
been witnessing a steady stream of books on TBLT, in addition to numer-
ous journal articles. There are research-based scholarly books on the nature
and scope of pedagogic tasks (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Crookes &
Gass, 1993; Skehan, 1998). There are books about task-based language
learning and teaching in general (Ellis, 2003; Long, in press; Nunan, 2004;
Prabhu, 1987). There are also specifically targeted books that provide tasks
for language learning (Gardner & Miller, 1996; Willis, 1996), tasks for lan-
guage teaching ( Johnson, 2003; Nunan, 1989; Parrott, 1993), tasks for
teacher education (Tanner & Green, 1998), tasks for classroom observation
(Wajnryb, 1992), and tasks for language awareness (Thornbury, 1997).
In spite of the vast quantity of the published materials on TBLT, there is
no consensus definition of what a
task
is. For instance, more than 15 years
ago, Breen (1987) defined task as “a range of workplans which have the over-
all purpose of facilitating language learning—from the simple and brief ex-
ercise type to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem-
solving or simulations and decision-making” (p. 23). In a recent work on
TBLT, Ellis (2003), after carefully considering various definitions available in
the literature, synthesized them to derive a composite, lengthy definition:
A task is a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically
in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the
correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end,
it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of
their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose
them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use
that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the
real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or re-
ceptive, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes. (p. 16)
The definitions given not only bring out the complex nature of a task but
it also signifies a simple fact. That is, as I pointed out more than a decade
ago (Kumaravadivelu, 1993b), a language learning and teaching task is not
inextricably linked to any one particular language teaching method. Task is
not a methodological construct; it is a curricular content. In other words, in
relation to the three categories of method outlined in this section, there
can very well be
language-centered tasks
,
learner-centered tasks
, and
learning-
centered tasks
. To put it simply, language-centered tasks are those that draw
the learner’s attention primarily and explicitly to the formal properties of
the language. For instance, tasks presented in Fotos and Ellis (1991) and
also in Fotos (1993), which they appropriately call
grammar tasks
, come un-
CONSTITUENTS AND CATEGORIES OF METHODS
95
der this category. Learner-centered tasks are those that direct the learner’s
attention to formal as well as functional properties of the language. Tasks
for the communicative classroom suggested by Nunan (1989) illustrate this
type. And, learning-centered tasks are those that engage the learner mainly
in the negotiation, interpretation, and expression of meaning, without any
explicit focus on form and/or function. Problem-solving tasks suggested by
Prabhu (1987) are learning centered.
In light of the present discussion, I do not, in this book, treat the de-
signer methods and TBLT as independent language teaching methods. I
do, however, refer to them for illustrative purposes as and when appropri-
ate.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
