Making good tasks better: Fundamental concerns

Esmaeel Abdollazade, Iran University of Science and Technology, Iran

Tasks are basic building blocks in any language learning activity from either a language acquisition or a communicative perspective. Essentially, task is viewed as an important construct by SLA researchers and language teachers. It is both a means of eliciting samples of learner language for research purposes and an instrument for organizing the content and methodology of language teaching (Prabhu 1987). To contextualize this paper, we discuss task design issues within the framework of task-based language teaching. The overall purpose of task is facilitating language learning and ultimately letting learners perform in a way which is in/directly similar to the target language use. Language learning tasks can be either target tasks (similar to the ones used in the real world the outcome of which maybe non-linguistic) or pedagogical which refer to language use transferred to the classroom context (Nunan, 2006). 1. Introduction 2. What is a task? There are many definitions of tasks in different disciplines, a clear-cut definition of which has turned into an issue in itself (Bruton 2002). Task definitions range along a cline of assumptions, which do not entail
Iranian Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 2(3), 2008 (pp. 345-358)

Key words: Task; Task design; EFL; Educational value

This paper deals with the fundamental issues to be considered in task design within a communicative framework. It starts with examining the definitions of task in order to come up with a more comprehensive one for tasks deign purposes. It is argued that making informed decisions in task analysis, selection, and design, in addition to merging of its psycholinguistic and communicative rationales, requires accounting for its pedagogical and educational values beyond the standardized language classroom. This issue has not been seriously considered in task design. Accordingly, aspects of the pedagogical and educational value of tasks as an important task design issue is discussed through two sample tasks and raising several key questions with regard to each. These questions relate to the extent to which a task has educational values beyond language learning, degree of learner involvement and personal contribution, the origin of the task-related ideas, teacher/learner roles, meaningful and purposeful language, task staging, and finally the extent to which task performance can create a unique rather than a standardized classroom.

346

communicative purpose to those that involve communicative purpose to only those activities that involve communication (Littlewood, 2004). For example, Williams and Burden (1997) define task as any activity learners engage to further the process of learning a language (p. 168). Similarly, Breen (1987) defines task as any range of learning activities from simple and brief exercises to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problemsolving or simulations and decision making (p. 23). Communicative purpose is not an essential criterion whatsoever in these broad definitions. Similarly, Long (1985), taking a non-technical perspective, defines task as the hundred and one things people do in everyday life for themselves or for others, freely or for some reward the completion of which may sometimes not involve language use whatsoever. Thus, painting a wall would be an instance of task here where no language is actually used. This definition is certainly not a pedagogical one. Other researchers definitions conceive of tasks as communicative exercises which provide opportunities for relatively realistic language use focusing the learners attention on a task, problem, activity or topic, and not on a particular language point (Stern, 1992, pp.195-196). This definition refers to task as an activity that involves some communication. Yet, other researchers argue tasks are always activities where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome (Willis, 1996, p. 23, my italics for emphasis). This statement defines task exclusively in terms of only activities that involve communication. If an activity does not have a communicative purpose, it is called exercise (Ellis, 2000). Nonetheless, task vs. exercise/non-task distinctions is limiting. That is, the status of the range of activities between task and exercise, like information-gap tasks which have proven very helpful for contextualizing language items (Pica, 2005), is yet unknown for many teachers and thus a source of ambiguity. Nonetheless, the definition proposed here shares some common features with the above definitions. That is, tasks are instances of communicative language use in which the users attention is focused on meaning rather than form. Tasks should have a sense of completeness, i.e. they need to stand alone as a communicative act, and thus have a coherent and unified beginning, core part, and ending. The learner should have an active role in task performance and even in task design. Finally, meaning and form are closely related. In fact the role of linguistic form in task-based pedagogy is another important issue. The more focus on form (e.g., in substitution drills, or so-called enabling exercises) increases, the more focus on meaning (e.g., creative discussion, called communicative task) decreases and vice versa (Littlewood 2004). Of course, we can have other less communicative or more communicative tasks alongside this formmeaning continuum. For instance, limited question and answer is more formbased, while creative role-play is more communicative and meaning-based.

Esmaeel Abdollazade

The purpose of communicative tasks is to bridge the gap between classroom practice and the outside classroom reality.

Iranian Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 2(3), 2008

347

We realize that task definitions vary depending on the extent to which they hold a communicative purpose and demand learner involvement. When we look at tasks along a continuum from non-communicative to precommunicative to authentically communicative, the compartments along this continuum shade into each other, and thus their degree of taskness vary depending on the degree of learner involvement with form and meaning. The more learner involvement with meaning negotiation, the more task-based and less form-focused it is. Contrarily, the less learner involvement with meaning, the less task-based and thus the more form-based it is.

Discussions of tasks mainly focus on some key features which distinguish an event as task from another as exercise, or activity. To be called a task, it should be meaning-based, goal-oriented, outcome-evaluated, and real-world related. For example, in a simple task about pupils likes and dislikes about food, the learners are trying to convey their tastes of food (meaning-based); they try to discover to what extent their tastes are similar or dissimilar to and from the others (goal-oriented); their success in conveying their tastes for food to others can be a valid outcome; and this discourse can be approximation of an instance in the natural world (real-world related). Other classroom events where there is less learner involvement and more removed from the real world instances (e.g., gap-filling) are instances of exercise than task. Task design also involves discussions on how to integrate form and content. This integration is done essentially in two ways (Ellis, 2003b). It can be done during the language learning process when learners are engaged in learning subject content (an integrated approach). Here, the focus is mainly on content and then form is incorporated into the content from the school curriculum. A second approach is similar to a proportional syllabus where we develop two entirely separate modules-a communicative module and a language-based module. The communicative-based module will occupy the most part of the syllabus using unfocused tasks during which no primary attention to form is paid. Later on, in the intermediate or upper-intermediate levels, more time could be allocated to focused tasks during which more attention could be paid to linguistic form (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, functions). In the shift from traditional to communicatively-oriented syllabi, communicative tasks gain primary focus. The communication task itself is central to the curriculum as both necessary and sufficient, i.e. task transaction is assumed adequate to drive forward language development. Accordingly, 3. Analyzing tasks

class time is mainly devoted to rehearsing communicative tasks which the learners wish or need to carry out in the outside world. Thus, an informed analysis of the components of tasks (Nunan, 1993) and the role they play in learners communicative practice or language acquisition process is warranted. These components are goals, input, activities, teacher roles, learner roles, and setting. Goals refer to cognitive and affective aspects of the learners development. They can be real-world or pedagogic. Teacher goals my be implicit or explicit and there may be a conflict between teachers and learners goals. For instance, when the task is asking a persons job and whether he likes it, the teachers goal may be to develop interpersonal skills, learner feedback, etc., but students may only think about a quick performance of the task to satisfy teachers requirements (Cameron, 1997).

348

Esmaeel Abdollazade

Learner factors refer to background knowledge, confidence, personality, motivation, learning pace, ability in language skills, cultural knowledge/awareness, and linguistic knowledge. Reda (2000) reports on the low motivation and attitude of the Korean university students. They were being Koreans by not speaking English (p. 25). He reports on how by taking the time to listen to students in a non-structured manner their class behavior became understandable and non-alien (p.49). Later on, the students moved from not trying to trying to use English to join their peer groups. Teacher roles refer to teacher function (e.g., as controller, director, counselor, etc.), his degree of control over learning tasks, teacher responsibility as to content and the interactional patterns between teacher and learners

Activities refer to what learners will actually do with the input. It can be a means of rehearsal for genuine communicative interaction, of skill-getting through controlled practice, and of gaining accuracy and fluency in language development.

Input refers to what learners work on which may be linguistic (e.g., a reading passage), non-linguistic (e.g., a set of pictures) or hybrid (e.g., road map). Input factors refer to the complexity of the text, grammatical complexity, interestingness, length of the text, prepositional density, text genre, text structure, topic familiarity, etc. For example, Nemeh and Kormos (2001) discovered that familiarizing learners with the structure of the argumentative task (claims, counterclaims, support) can enable them to communicate more successfully in terms of informational content because it frees learners attentional resources to pay more attention to informational content. Moreover, "Interestingness of the input, the ability to grab and hold student attention is assumed to be more important than the practice of specific language points.

(Richards & Rogers, 2001). Rogers and Freiberg (1994) report on how their role as a counselor changed the whole atmosphere of the learning: if I was truly myself with them, if I tried to understand them as they felt and perceived themselves from the inside, then a constructive process was initiated (p. 43).

Iranian Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 2(3), 2008

349

Setting refers to the classroom arrangements specified or implied on the task, whether the task is to be carried out wholly or partly outside the classroom (Nunan, 1993). Some conditions in the classroom setting need to be improved to allow for learning to take place so that learners cannot avoid trying to use the language. Initial selection of tasks is carried out with reference to learner goals and theories of learning. Grading and sequencing are carried out with reference to priority of learner needs and notions of difficulty. Determining difficulty, of course, is a major problem because of the host of factors involved in task design (task, learner, and methodology) as well as the interplay of these for which research seems not to have a definitive answer so far (Ellis, 2003b). Research into learners performance on tasks essentially identifies task complexity (attentional and reasoning demands imposed by task structure), task difficulty (learner-related factors), and methodological procedures (e.g., task planning/repetition) as determining factors on learners performance (Ellis, 2003a).Task characteristics involve: 4. Designing tasks

The other indices of difficulty are learner characteristics which we discussed above, as well as teaching methodology which refers to how the task is presented and worked on, i.e. pretask planning; core task performance, and follow-up. Furthermore, once we merge form into content, then considerations of form sequencing in addition to task sequencing come to the

1. Input: input medium (pictorial, written, oral); linguistic complexity (high-low frequency vocabulary, simple/complex structures); cognitive complexity (abstract/concrete information, number of the information elements and their structure, here and now /there and there reference, and the degree of topic un/familiarity). 2. Task conditions: participant interaction (one-way/two-way); task demand (single/dual task demand); and discourse mode (monologic/dialogic). 3. Processes: cognitive operations (exchanging opinions/information) and the number of stages to be followed to perform each (few/many steps); and the scope (closed/open) 4. Outcome type: Oral, written, open, and the discourse mode of it (argumentation, narration, description, etc.).

fore. Thus, it seems that grading tasks cannot follow a precise and clear-cut procedure but rather must proceed intuitively in accordance with an assessment of task complexity informed by the criteria considered above and by the designers experience of how particular groups of learners respond to different tasks. As Prabhu (1987) points out no syllabus of generalized tasks can identify or anticipate all the sources of challenge to particular learners(p. 89). Moreover, Skehans (1998) research on learners task performance in terms of accuracy, fluency, and complexity reveals that no single, general measure of task performance can be used to determine whether one task is more complex than another. A task may be difficult in terms of one aspect of language use (e.g. accuracy) but relatively easy in terms of another (e.g. fluency). Considerations of task design start from how well different task types support the enterprise of language learning, their fit with learner needs, and the learning outcomes they are likely to produce. The point is that the usefulness of a task is determined by its potential to contribute to learning processes and not by its relationship to the content of the curriculum because focus on content is based on being able to predict learning outcome, while focusing on process allows the learners to make their own interpretations of tasks. 4. The value and dimensions of good tasks

350

Esmaeel Abdollazade

To construct good tasks or make good tasks better, upgrading their educational value in an educational context gains major priority. Some attempts have been made to come up with the indices of good tasks. For example, Nunan (1993) tries to develop a questionaire to determine the goodness of tasks based on the judgments of the participants. Additionally, Candlin (1987) argues that good tasks should among other things: promote attention to meaning, purpose, and negotiation. draw objectives for the communicative needs of learners. allow for flexible approaches to the task, offering different routes, media, modes of participation, and procedures. allow for the co-evaluation by the learner and the teacher of the task. promote awareness about input and learning processes ensure cost-effectiveness and a high return on investment.

Nonetheless, for the present researcher what is missing from the discussions on features of good tasks is the extent to which task completion contributes to the learners cognitive and personality development, and has wider educational values beyond the language classroom. In task-based instruction, the accomplishment of the task is the focus rather than the language used (Willis, 1990). However, the actual purpose of the task performance is not really the outcome but enhancing the learners interlanguage, cognition, and

To delve into the value issue with tasks, I would like to refer to two tasks that can be appropriate for classroom practice. Then, I would try to compare the two tasks in terms of their contribution to cognitive and personality development and the extent to which they have educational value and thus create a unique learning experience. The first one is about new film releases to watch and the second one a question poster about weather condition. Task1. New releases to watch Students work with their partners. One has some information on a card about the new film releases published in the local tabloid. The other student asks about the information his partner has.

personality (Littlewood, 2007). Moreover, on many occasions task completion may not necessarily involve language use. Students are not in a language class to finish a task but rather to improve their language. Thus, proponents of task-based L2 instruction may need to reconsider completion as a criterion of a language task, since it may not be given high priority by teachers or students in the classroom (Springer & Collins, 2008, p.56).

Iranian Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 2(3), 2008

351

or

Task2. A weather map

Comparing the two tasks, we need to answer the following major questions about each: 4.1. What is the aim of the task?

The students look at the map of their country and learn about the names of the country provinces/states on it. Then, the teacher draws a sketch of the map on a blank poster in the middle of which he writes Whats the weather like in your city? in a circle, and draws straight lines out towards the different angles of the map. Then, he asks the students to raise their OWN questions about weather conditions in different provinces/states, and he writes them horizontally alongside the straight lines. He asks the students find the answers to the questions through asking their peers, their parents, checking the answers on the net, referring to encyclopedias, watching news, etc. Finally, he seeks the answers in later lessons in 10 minutes or so, and he or a student writes the answers in simple English on the board next to the questions raised.

The aim of the film release task seems to be to maximize the scope of the communication task rather than begin with integral pedagogical purposes like collaboration and communication. On closer inspection, we find the aim

In a communicative approach, we can have some information gap exercises (as in task one) which involve the use of meaningful language. Nonetheless, such exercises do not necessarily entail a purposeful language for a learner (e.g. an educational purpose of enjoyment which is personally significant and relevant to his world), and may not let him grow autonomous. The purposes may be non-linguistic (express opinion, study and research a topic, make a map, etc.). Educational purposes also involve empowering the learner. As Williams and Burden (1997) rightly argue activities need to empower learners to take control, to become autonomous, and to become better language learners (p. 180). Thus, the purpose needs to transcend beyond the here-and-now and learners need to be made aware of the way in which the task will have wider relevance beyond the immediate time and place. In addition to a language focus, the weather map task has also educational value since the students will be learning many other things at the same time: library skills, working with others, formulating hypotheses, and so on. These points are missing in the first task. Thus, in addition to creating meaningful language, tasks need to create purposeful language which is pedagogically more valuable. 4.2. Is the task meaningful and purposeful? 4.3. Where do the ideas and language come from?

of the first task as purely a language-based one, i.e. to provide practice in question forms. As for the second task, we notice that the answers will be different. We can see that the aim of the task goes far beyond language learning because while the students are practicing language, they are also developing wider educational abilities: drawing on their own knowledge, making questions and researching, collaborating and negotiating with others. So, rather than devising a task, and then attaching a purpose to it (the first task), it is more appropriate to start with a pedagogical purpose and then design a task (Bruton, 2002.). The poster task was actually produced by the learners with a specified purpose in their minds and then was reconstructed through various activities. That is, purpose precedes action. As Bruton argues purposes should be the precursor to the selection of particular input and classroom procedures (p. 281).

352

Esmaeel Abdollazade

The first task is quite tightly structured and all of the ideas in it are provided by the role cards given to the students. That is, all the learners have to do is simply apply the grammatical rules they have been learning in order to produce questions. The ideas and language are mainly given by the task (task-supported learning). However, in the poster task, the ideas and the language are mainly provided by the learner (task-based). Thus, they have value even if students are already proficient in question forms.

When the film task is over, the task impact and the precise details of it can be forgotten. It seems like a one-shot effort which is done and over when the practice ends. The poster task, however, completed through learner contributions, can serve as a valuable input for further practice in other courses. It is also an example of a collective educational effort on the part of all those who took part in constructing it. 4.5. What happens to what the students produce? 4.6. What is the role of the teacher and the learner?

In task one, the level of personal involvement is minimal, therefore quite low. We can say then that the task produces what Littlejohn (1997) calls a standardized classroom. In the latter task, the learners take control of the task rather than being controlled by it through constructing their own individual answers that may be different from others. So each learner will have their own particular language learning experience. Learners are also personally involved, since it is their questions which are the focus and their answers which are important. Thus, the question poster task is likely to produce a unique classroom in which the outcome of the task will change depending on who the students are. This is in contrast with the standardized classroom of the film release task which takes very little account of who the students are, their culture or their host country. 4. 4. How personally involving is the task?

Iranian Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 2(3), 2008

353

The teachers role in the film release task is like that of a language policeman or monitor checking that the students are producing correct language, while in the latter task, the teachers role changes to one of supporting the students and helping them to say what they want to say. This means that every time the class does the task, the outcome will be different; the task produces a unique classroom shaped by unique individuals who are in it (Littlejohn 1997, p. 4). A successful teacher understands the learning potential of every task. This is underpinned by his knowledge of English language learning and language use. If the teachers guide the learners and take account of their element of control over tasks and their insight into their learning, it could be a

We notice that in the film task the students hardly think at all since all the students have to do is apply a grammatical rule to make questions or read information from the cards, but in the weather-map task the students supply almost everything. Moreover, there is a lot of control over what the students say in what order, and how they work. In the weather map task, there is still some control in that the students must ask questions about weather conditions, and some control over how they produce questions and find the answers, but the task gives the students a lot more freedom.

354

To increase the language learning potential of a task, teachers need to break it down into manageable parts so that they can fully avail of its language learning potential in each stage. Each stages language focus may be different from the other stage. Lack of precision and clarity in stating the goals of the task may cause inadequate learner preparation, then minimal pupil participation in the core stage, and abandoning of a task and thus switching to a different activity (Cameron 1997). In the Weather map task we can have a prep stage where the focus is on vocabulary and concepts, a core activity stage with a focus on the task, and a follow-up stage of role-playing or fluency practice. 4.8. Is the task staged?

As for the value of tasks beyond language learning, we can place their value along the two sides of a continuum (Littlejohn 1997). On the one side are the language specific goals in which the students will mainly be learning the language. So, if these students are already proficient in the language area of the task, then the task will have little value. On the other hand, we have wider educational goals which means that even if the students are proficient in the language area of the task, the task will still have some value. Looking at tasks in this way, we can improve a task if we can give it educational value beyond language learning by using more educational content or by making students explore answers through different channels as in the weather map task. 4.7. To what extent does the task have educational value?

great step forward to empower teachers to undertake their own professional development in selecting tasks and guiding their pupils.

Esmaeel Abdollazade

The theory of task-based learning assumes that tasks stretch, challenge and put the linguistic knowledge of the learners to the test. To accomplish this objective, we believe that discussions of task design and implementation, in addition to psycholinguistic and socio-cultural considerations, would need to take the wider educational value of the tasks into account. This requires practitioners, researchers, and syllabus designers become more seriously concerned with the issues of accountability and empirical evaluation of different task design parameters. 5. Conclusion

In this paper, we tried to discuss some of the issues and concerns that need to be considered by those wishing to incorporate 'task' as a central element in their syllabus design and materials development endeavor. It is apparent that the psycholinguistic motivation for designing and sequencing tasks, which are based on theories and findings of SLA research needs to be supplemented with the communicative real-world rationale for selecting, grading, and

sequencing of tasks. Awareness of research from both perspectives can help practicing teachers understand the nature, the scope, and the value of the tasks. This necessitates incorporating a set of strategies into preservice and inservice teacher education programs in order to equip teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary to do task analysis. Teachers also need to familiarize themselves with the key components of tasks so that they can make informed decisions. More importantly, in choosing the most appropriate tasks, they need to consider the value of tasks beyond language learning, and promote the educational value of the tasks through greater learner involvement, students personal contribution, and creating a 'unique classroom'. Therefore, a successful pedagogically relevant program of taskbased design and teaching involves merging the findings of psycholinguistic research in planning for good tasks with a socio-cultural perspective that views learners, teachers, and setting as important as the task itself. The latter view also involves improvisation and creativity on the teachers part. This requires teachers eschew their temptation to adhere to their pre-selected agenda for task selection and design and adopting a more pluralistic view taking the multifaceted nature of tasks into account. Then, they need to spend time analyzing what is required, locate design problems and procedures, and explore various task types, genres, and scenarios (Johnson, 1996). Moreover, task designers need to develop what Johnson calls a concrete visualization capacity which both helps the designer to simulate what learners and teachers would say or think when using the task, and helps them to map out possibilities in a highly concrete way (p. 130). It may involve designing a questionnaire after the task, analysis of replies, discussing the replies with the class, recording the discussion in a diary and finally finding out what sorts of mismatch arises between teacher intention and learner interpretation. Author Biography: Esmaeel Abdollazade (s_abdolah@iust.ac.ir) has a PhD in Applied Linguistics and TEFL. He is an assistant professor at the English Dept. of Iran University of Science and Technology. He has presented and published nationally and internationally on issues in language teaching methodologies, ESP/EAP, intercultural pragmatics, reading-writing interface, and language learning strategies. The Author References Bruton, A. (2002). From Tasking purposes to purposing tasks. ELT Journal, 56,3, 280-288.

Iranian Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 2(3), 2008

355

Breen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin and D. Murphy (eds.) Language Learning Tasks. Englewood Cliffs NJ: PrenticeHall.

356

Cameron, L. (1997). The task as a unit for teacher development. ELT Journal, 51, 4, 345-351.

Esmaeel Abdollazade

Candlin, C. N. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. N. Candlin and D. F. Morphy (eds.). Language learning tasks. London: Prentice Hall International. Ellis, R. (2003b). Designing a task-based syllabus. RELC Journal, 34,1, 64-81 Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell. Ellis, R. (2003a). Task based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4, 3, 193220. Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58, 4, 319326.

Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (eds.), Modeling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon Avon: Multilingual Matters. Nemeth, N. and Kormos, J. (2001). Pragmatic aspects of task-performance: the case of argumentation. Language Teaching Research, 5, 3, 213-240. Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining task. Asian EFL Journal, 8,3, 1-6. Nunan, D. (1993). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243-249.

Pica, T. (2005). Classroom Learning, Teaching, and Research: A Task-Based Perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 89,3, 339-353.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reda, M. (2000). Order from chaos: Using tasks in an EFL classroom. Unpublished MA dissertation submitted to the School of Humanities of the University of Birmingham.

Rogers, C. and Freiberg, J. H. (1994). Freedom to Learn. Columbus: Macmillan College Press.

Richards, J. & Rodgers, J. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, M., and Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social-constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change (pp. 52-61). Oxford: Macmillan Publishers.

Springer, S., and Collins, L. (2008). Interacting inside and outside of the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 12, 1, 39-60.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stern, H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Iranian Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 2(3), 2008

357