The topic for this week was task design and evaluation. It makes sense to begin with a definition of task. In Materials Development in language teaching, Ellis (2011) offers the following definition:

• The focus of a task is on ‘meaning’.
• A task exploits ‘a gap’ (either an information-gap or an opinion-gap)
• Learners have to rely on their own resources, which can be linguistic or non-linguistic.
• There is a clearly defined outcome other than the use of language.

Ellis proceeds to distinguish between a task and a ‘situational grammar exercise’, which in turn characterises the difference between task-based teaching and task-supported teaching. Task-supported teaching follows a structural syllabus. Lesson are often divided into PPP (presentation, practice, and production) stages, with the activity in the final stage being referred to as a task. However, Ellis points out that the task, in this case, is probably more likely to a situational grammar exercise.  A situational grammar exercise refers to activities that practice a particular target feature in a contrived way: The students are aware of the target feature and will consciously try to produce it.

Ellis highlights the characteristics of a task as follows:

• Tasks can be unfocused or focused. Unfocused tasks encourage learners to communicate without focusing on a specific feature. Focused tasks encourage learners to use a specific feature but this feature is ‘hidden’ in the task so that it doesn’t become a situational grammar exercise.
• Tasks can be connected to any of the four skills and often involve two or more skills.
• Tasks can be ‘closed’ (with a limited number of outcomes) or ‘open’ (with many possible outcomes). Information-gap activities often have closed outcomes and opinion-gap activities have open outcomes.

What are authentic tasks?

Before reading about this topic, I thought ‘tasks’ in TBL had to relate to real-life tasks such as writing CVs or arranging a party, however as we have already seen, this is not necessarily the case.  These two examples of a task refer to authentic tasks and are a type of TBL activity, however, there are other types of authentic tasks. Guariento and Morley (2001) identify four different types of authentic tasks:

• Tasks which include a genuine reason of communication. This type of task is similar to the one Ellis describes where the emphasis is on meaning and not a specific linguistic item.
• Tasks which relate to ‘real world’ target tasks like the two I just mentioned. Other examples include; buying a train ticket, ordering food in a restaurant, renting a flat and so on.
• Tasks which involve students selecting the tasks that will be incorporated into their lessons.
• Any task where the students are engaged.

I think that while it is useful to have a broader definition of an authentic task, including any task where the learner is engaged has the potential to render the definition of task meaningless as it could be possible for a diligent student to engage with a grammar gap-fill.

In Doing Task-based Teaching, Dave and Jane Willis (2007) classify tasks into seven broad areas based on cognitive processes. They include:

• Listing (including brainstorming, fact-finding, quizzes, memory games and guessing games)
• Ordering and sorting (including sequencing, rank ordering, and classifying activities)
• Matching
• Comparing
• Problem-solving (including puzzles, logic problems, and prediction)
• Sharing personal experience
• Projects and creative tasks

Malay (2011) also lists ten different task types:

• Brainstorming
• Predicting
• Classifying
• Evaluating
• Summarising
• Revising/editing
• Researching
• Problem-solving
• Performing
• Constructing objects

Task

The task for this week involved developing our own taxonomy of tasks and then identifying the types of tasks contained in a coursebook. In our group, we chose to analyse unit 2A and 2B from the new edition of New English File Upper-intermediate and used three different taxonomies. Anna used Bloom’s taxonomy, Jane used Malay’s and I focused on skills. Anna found that the majority of tasks (75%) reflected what Bloom described as the lower-order skills of remembering (17%) and understanding (58%). The higher order skills in the unit include application (2%), analysis (13%) synthesis (4%) and evaluation (6%). Jane found that the tasks could be categorised in the following way:

Classifying:  27%

Summarising: 26%

Evaluating: 19%

Predicting:  15%

Problem-solving: 11.5%

Revising/editing: 7.7%

I was asked to see if there was a good balance of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and skills, which is the claim made on the back cover of the book.

I found that this was the case with roughly 50% of the unit dedicated to grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation and 50% of the unit covering skills. I labelled the activities in the following way and have attempted to categorise them according to the Willises classification of tasks (shown in brackets):

Discussing/ giving opinions x6 (Sharing personal experience)/ Summarising x1 (Problem-solving)/ Matching x3/ Inferencing x2 (listing)/ Answering questions (Multiple choice comprehension questions, Gist questions, Specific info questions) x5 (Listing)/ Categorising x1 (ordering and sorting)/ Predicting x3 (problem-solving)/ Checking predictions x2 (Listing)/ Scanning x2 (listing)/ Gap-filling x1 (Listing)/ Note-taking x1 (listing)/ Composing x2 (Creative tasks)/ Selecting vocab x1 (Listing)

As fact-finding is an example of a listing task, many of the tasks in this unit fell into this category. Here is a chart showing the percentage of task types:

The benefit of carrying out a task taxonomy is that it provides another way of evaluating a coursebook and seeing where there may be deficiencies in the material. This can then guide the process of supplementing. Also, having a repertoire of tasks can help ensure variety in the materials we design. However, for me, the best part of this weeks’ task was finding Doing task-based teaching and using the ideas from the book to plan my final assessed lesson.

For my final lesson, I chose an article from the Independent online about a cat sanctuary in America. First, I showed the following headline with the last word missing for students to predict:

I then asked students to try and guess information about Lynea Lattanzio such as how old she is, where she lives and characteristics to describe her. Prediction tasks help learners engage with the text as they give a real purpose for reading (students will want to know if their predictions are correct). I then handed out a corrupted text that had all the numerical information missing. First students had to scan the texts to see if their predictions about the women were correct, then they had to work together and put the numbers back into the text. This was followed by two post-reading activities: First, students selected ten words to help them retell the story from memory. Then, working together, they had to summarize the text in exactly fifty words. The three different tasks provided a meaning-based framework to the lesson and a genuine reason to communicate. Here is the worksheet:

If I were to use the materials again I could carry out a micro-evaluation as suggested by Ellis (2011). For example, I could give students a questionnaire after they had completed the task, asking them how they found it or I could record the students performing the task, to transcribe and then analyse if I wanted to do a more in-depth analysis of the activities.

Bibliography:

Ellis, R. (2011) Macro-and micro-evaluation of task-based teaching. In: Tomlinson, B. (ed). Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Guariento, W & J, Morley (2001) Text and task authenticity in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal (55) 4.

Malay, A. (2011) Squaring the circle- reconciling materials as constraint with materials as empowerment. In: Tomlinson, B. (ed) Materials Development in Language Teaching. (2^nd ed) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dave and Jane Willis (2007) Doing Task-Based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.