Even after discussing these topics, I still do not feel that I completely understand the definition of a task. Loosely defined, a task is an activity that requires meaningful language use (Skehan 3). However, I find that most activities in the language classroom are centered around meaningful language use, especially in light of CLT's dominance in the field. On a different but related topic, I wonder what it means to be "meaningful" the context of language learning. Certainly there are established notions of what this means, but I think it can be argued that, within the classroom setting, language use cannot be consider authentic the majority of the time. What we create in the classroom is psedo-authentic situations that paralel--but do not encapsulate--"real world" realities.
One thing I am still trying to figure out about Task-Based Teaching is whether or not it is teacher-dominant. In one section of the Skehan article, he references Long (1989) by stating "convergent tasks ... would produce more negotiation of meaning than divergent tasks" (4). This struck me as a statement that emphasizes the role of the teacher over that of the students. By forcing the students to come to an agreement, you are placing their conversation within boundaries and limiting their individual interpretations or conclusions from an activity. This, then, directly relates to the nature of student interaction and discussion. Later in the article, Skehan reviews another study by Van Lier and Matsuo (2000) that looks at interstudent relations and language learning through discussion. I found this section to be very interesting, because it highlights the challenge proposed by discussion-based classrooms--especially language classrooms--of maintaining balance and authenticity. As teachers, we want to ensure that every student finds their "voice" and invests themself into the classwork, but we also hope to create true discussions led by the students themself. We also have to know when, or if, to intervene to provide feedback. For example, another study concluded "a significant amount of teacher intervention was needed to wean learners away from simpler expressions" (7). These are difficult and controversial topics that impact a teacher's planning and implementation of lessons.
Hi Laura,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this insightful entry. Let me tell a few words about task-based instruction that may cast some light to your questions. As the readings pointed out, task-based instruction is really geard towards facilitating meaningful interaction where both teachers and students also focus on form. One of the differences between CLT and TB approaches is that usually task-based instruction and activities in class leads to an outcome (e.g. the information gap activity you guys worked on in your groups will, in real classroom context, end with a student product, whether it's spoken or written. While carrying out such tasks, learners are always engaged in negotiation of meaning by using various communication strategies. You are rightly questioning whether any tasks can be authentic and meaningful. Depending on the tasks that you are assigning to your class, your students can be engaged in real word writing/speaking/listening. Of course, this is the ideal case and does not represent the daily routine of a language class.
Your critique of the readings and attempts in unpacking what really a task is a good reflection of the tension between theory and practice. I really like what Paula Freire says on this tension: “Critical reflection on practice is a requirement of the relationship between theory and practice. Otherwise, theory becomes simply ‘blah, blah, blah,’ and practice, pure activism” (p. 30).--That's why we're going be working on an application project as a final assignment. Hopefully, by looking at your own practice you will see how such theories manifest themselves in your own classrooms. let's continue the discussion.
keep up the good work,
LS