This seminar (Week 7) looked at what a task is. At the start of this course a material was defined as anything that aids the learning or acquisition of language. Therefore, what is a task? Ur (1988) describes a task as something that activates engagement with the materials being used. It should have a clear objective, language system or skill usage. To stimulate engagement the task must demand the student to actively participate receptively or productively (or both).

Ellis (1998) describes the different components of a task:

• An activity of some kind
• It has specified outcomes
• Language comprehension or production or both
• Learners focus their attention principally on meaning rather than form

There is clear overlap here with Ur’s description. However, Ellis excludes the ‘typical’ grammar exercises found in course books taking a Present, Practice, Produce (P.P.P) approach to language learning. This is due to their requirement for a focus on form. However, it could be argued that language awareness activities, in general, could also fall under this descriptor and may not be ‘seen’ as a task if the learners are attempting to discover linguistic phenomena.
Shalvelson & Stern (1981) as cited in Nunan (1989:47) offer another theory of what a task is composed of:

1. Content – subject matter to be taught
2. Materials – the things that the learners observe or manipulate
3. Activities – the things which the learners and teachers will be doing in the lesson
4. Goals – the teacher’s general aim of the task
5. Students – their abilities, need and interests
6. Social community – the class as a whole and its sense of ‘groupness’

This may seem more comprehensive but it does appear to cover a lot of the same themes. If a material is anything that aids the acquisition and knowledge of language, then a task is the specific description of how and who will be interacting with the material and what they are expected to do with it. In some ways a material is a stick and task is a fishing rod (as the old analogy goes).

Another dimension that Ellis (2012) has added to a task descriptor is the idea of them being focused or unfocused. The former affords ‘discrete’ or ‘controlled’ language features to be practiced through communication, while the latter aims to have communication as the foundation for language to be acquired at the point of need. This notion brings into focus two different approaches to material design and teaching. Task-supported Language Teaching (TSLT) is traditionally found in the pages of course books, ones with a structural syllabus using PPP. Materials are divided into units that are sub-divided into skills, language, and functional tasks, as a means of scaffolding knowledge in preparation for a final activity. Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) supports the idea of communication with unfocused activities and tasks that create a ‘need’ for certain language functions.

The TBLT supports a socio-cultural perspective that aligns itself more with my own beliefs of ELT. However, this is may not be as simple as it first appears. The courses that I teach on are academic in content and are judged on coursework receptive and productive tasks that are scored using a uniformed marking description. This means that pressures are put on both students and staff to try and reach certain targets. With that in mind more rigid and focused approaches need to be taken in order to meet deadlines. Having observed the teachers that I work with and by reflecting on my own practice we find ourselves in a situation of a more eclectic and mixed method approach using both TSLT and TBLT. This suggests to me that the needs of the students and situation come first and leaves less room for rigidity of approach. The coursework tasks are uniformed and are marked with marking descriptors. Yet it is still the teacher who has control (in my situation) prior to the assessment and they can create and adapt tasks accordingly. Therefore, teachers can set the purpose and scope for their task evaluations as means of development and reflection.

Task types and taxonomies

There are various types of tasks that an ELT teacher encounters through published materials and peer created tasks. Different task types lend themselves to more focused or unfocused approaches and this is quite apparent when flicking through any published course book. Loosely speaking they could be set along a Kline (see below). There are of course more task types to consider. As mentioned above several tasks will make up a single lesson and this may require a mixed approach of focused and unfocused activities.

Gap-fill – Matching – Compare and Contrast – Reformulate – Project work

Focused Unfocused

Over the years I have encountered Bloom’s taxonomy of learning and teaching. During an in-house training session at Bellerbys College I was given this helpful description of applying Bloom’s Taxonomy to task design.

Blooms taxonomy and task design HO

Each level/stage moves from the more focused mastery tasks to the more open and unfocused developmental ones. For me it perfectly sums up the process and the type of tasks I create and adapt for my students throughout a term. It also makes it clear that the tasks are not more communicative or more difficult problems to solve. It is describing how learner becomes more autonomous by using the skills they have mastered and applying them to the unfocused and more cognitively demanding tasks. This is, in many respects, similar to the Zone of Proximal Development [put forward by Vykotsky) that asks learners to push themselves beyond their current level to acquire new knowledge.

Now having looked at what a task is, it is important to address the issues and considerations of evaluating a task.

References

Ellis, R. (1998) The evaluation of communicative tasks. In: Tomlinson, B. (ed). Materials development in language Teaching. (2nd ed) Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press. Pp212-235.

Ellis, R. (2011) The evaluation of communicative tasks. In: Tomlinson, B. (ed). Materials development in language Teaching. (2nd ed) Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press. Pp217-238.

Nunan, D. (1989) Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Ur, P. (2009) Grammar Practice Activities: A practical guide for teachers. (2nd ed) Cambridge: Cambrdige University Press. (See section 3 – Activties pp. 11-26)