This week we had to work in groups again and analyse a unit from a coursebook. We had to develop a taxonomy of task types and see what type of tasks are used in the unit. We chose English File third edition Upper-Intermediate as 2 teachers in our group of three have been currently using it.

It makes sense to start by asking what a ‘task’ is.  How does it differ from, let’s say, ‘an activity’ or ‘an exercise’? Ellis (2003) provides a good summary of task definitions, drawn from both research and pedagogic literature.  A broad definition, such as provided by Long (1985), includes tasks that require language, e.g. booking a table and tasks that can be performed without using language, for example, painting a fence. However, more narrow definitions, such as those of Richards, Platt, and Webber(1985) and Nunan (1989) define task as an activity that necessarily involves language.

Personally, I believe in our context we should be concerned with tasks that involve use of language. However, this poses another  question: should the term ‘task’ be restricted to activities where students’ attention is focused on conveying a message or should it include any kind of language activity that gets learners to demonstrate their knowledge?

Ellis (2003) adopts a narrower definition and defines a task as ‘an activity that calls for primarily meaning-focused language use’ as opposed to an exercise that is ‘an activity that calls for primarily form-focused language use’.  Johnson (2003), however, argues that the definition of a task is much broader and calls it everything ‘we give students to do in classrooms” (Johnson, 2003: 4).  Ur (1988)  supports  this idea by saying that  “the function of the task is simply to activate the learners in such a way as to actually get them to engage with the material to be practiced”( Ur, 1988: 17).

I tend to agree with the last two definitions as I believe that the overall purpose of tasks is the same as exercises – learning a language. Therefore for the pre- seminar  task I am going to use a broader definition of  task than merely meaning-focused language use.

When it came to evaluating the unit from the coursebook we decided to do so according to different systems. Jane was working with the task taxonomy suggested by Maley (2011), Victoria focused on language skills and I used Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive objectives.

Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues designed this model to provide a way to describe levels of thinking. The taxonomy essentially is a hierarchy with Lower Order Thinking skills (remember, understand and apply) at the bottom and Higher Order Thinking Skills (analyze, evaluate and create) at the top. I decided to use this model as I remembered the talk by Steph Dimond-Bayier I attended a while ago. She was using Bloom’s taxonomy of thinking skills to illustrate how very often in the classroom we focus on Lower order thinking skills (LOTS) and not much on Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS).  I totally agree with Steph Dimond-Bayier. I find it particularly difficult when teaching EAP classes where students are required to think critically but many learners are lacking such skills.  Many EAP coursebooks approach critical thinking in a superficial way: while ‘think about it and discuss’ sections usually involve critical thinking, such an exercise on its own does not  really help learners to develop their skills.

Evaluation results

My evaluation of the unit showed that most of the tasks require Lower order thinking skills, ‘understand’ and ‘remember’ in particular. This is perhaps not surprising for a general English book, however, I wish that coursebooks  would include a broader range of tasks that develop not only basic language skills, but also life skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, prioritising, decision making that our learners need in order to be effective  learners, effective professionals and effective citizens.

Jane was analysing the unit using  the task taxonomy suggested by Maley (2011). This is her conclusion.

Classifying  27%

Summarising 26%

Evaluating 19%

Predicting  15%

Problem-solving 11.5%

Revising/editing 7.7%

‘As there was very little room for learner interpretation in the answers to most of the exercises, I thought that most of the material was used in an inauthentic way. There are some examples of opinion-gap tasks, but these are typically discussions as an introduction to the text and not a main feature. There is not much opportunity for learners to respond to the text in a personalised way before answering closed questions’.

Victoria was focusing on language skills and found a  good balance of grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation and skills. This is very interesting, as it is exactly what the book claims to have.

Here is Victoria’s findings.

Ellis, R (2003) Task-based language learning  and teaching. Oxford:OUP

Johnson, K. (2003) Designing Language Teaching Tasks. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Maley, A. (2011) Squaring the circle – reconciling materials as constraint with materials as empowerment. In: Tomlinson, B. (ed). Materials Development in Language Teaching. (2nd edn) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.379-402.

Ur, P. (2009) Grammar Practice Activities: A practical guide for teachers. (2nd ed) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.