[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

increasing attention was given to the use of tasks in the classroom. The
realisation that many so-called communicative language courses were still
largely based upon a sequence of language forms in turn generated interest in
task-based, rather than task-supported, syllabuses. Published experimentation
with task-based syllabuses largely began with the work of Prabhu (1987), and
the interest in this type of syllabus may be a result of the links that teachers
and curriculum designers see between this approach and their own teaching
and planning activity. All the same, the use of task-based syllabuses remains
the exception rather than the rule, although tasks themselves are widely used.
One of the questions that arises is: what is a task? Many different definitions
have been proposed. Ellis (2003b: 4 5) provides nine different definitions,
one of which is especially succinct and useful for teachers:  A task is an
activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning,
to attain an objective (Bygate et al., 2001). Here is a sample task from
Prabhu (1987) which demonstrates how the learner needs to focus on and
understand the meaning of the language in order to complete the task
successfully.
1 Name the top corners of the square: B on the left and C on the right.
2 Name the corners at the bottom: D on the right and A on the left.
3 Continue AB and call the end of the line E.
4 Continue CD and write F at the end of the line.
5 Join EC.
6 What should be joined next?
In the on-going debate about the nature of a task, Willis and Willis (2007: 13)
have provided six questions that can help the teacher and the curriculum
designer determine the extent to which an activity is task-like.
Goals, Content and Sequencing 81
" Does the activity engage learners interest?
" Is there a primary focus on meaning?
" Is there an outcome?
" Is success judged in terms of outcome?
" Is completion a priority?
" Does the activity relate to real world activities?
These questions could be used in both task-based and task-supported
syllabuses.
Advocates of a task-based syllabus, particularly Long and Crookes (1992),
argue that pedagogic tasks provide a vehicle for presentation of appropriate
language samples to learners and allow negotiation of difficulty (p. 43). They
suggest that the most appropriate tasks are those that a needs analysis
determines are most useful for the learners. The order of tasks should be
determined by the difficulty and complexity of the tasks. Ellis (2003b:
220 229) draws together earlier suggestions relating to task complexity
and suggests criteria that could be used for determining the sequencing of
tasks. These criteria relate to the nature of the input, the conditions under
which the task is performed, the cognitive operations required, and the task
outcomes. Applying these criteria, a task using written input employing
high-frequency vocabulary about a familiar topic and requiring a pictorial
output would be easier (and therefore more likely to occur before) than a
similar task requiring written output.
The adoption of a task-based syllabus is usually argued on the basis of the
inadequacy of other types of syllabus (see Sheen, 1994, and the Bruton
Skehan exchange in ELT Journal 2002 vol. 56 no. 3 for discussion of the
quality of the arguments). One of the concerns about task-based syllabuses,
however, is that they focus on fluency at the expense of accuracy. This
concern has been addressed by advocates of task-based learning. Ellis (2003a)
suggests that tasks can either be focused or unfocused on form. A focused
task would target a particular language feature in meaning-based communi-
cation. Willis and Willis (2007) point out that opportunities to focus on
language arise naturally during a task cycle. The teacher may highlight neces-
sary vocabulary at the outset, learners may focus on the language used to
convey their meaning during the task, and the teacher may close the cycle
with a focus on form. All the same, if a task-based syllabus is used it is
particularly important that there are other ways of checking the coverage of
content, particularly vocabulary, grammatical items and types of discourse.
Good curriculum design involves the checking of courses against a range of
types of content.
The choice of units of progression in a course is very important for
curriculum design and the decisions regarding the selection and sequencing
of these units must be guided by well-justified principles and the best possible
research information  there is plenty of it available. Once the units of
82 Goals, Content and Sequencing
progression have been chosen and applied, it is important that the course
material is checked against other units of analysis to ensure that a sensible
coverage is made of the other aspects that go to make up knowledge of a
language.
Sequencing the Content in a Course
The lessons or units of a course can fit together in a variety of ways. The two
major divisions are whether the material in one lesson depends on the learn-
ing that has occurred in previous lessons (a linear development) or whether
each lesson is separate from the others so that the lessons can be done in any
order and need not all be done (a modular arrangement).
Linear Approaches to Sequencing
Most language courses involve linear development, beginning with simple
frequent items that prepare for later more complex items. Such a develop-
ment has the disadvantages of not easily taking account of absenteeism, learn-
ers with different styles and speeds of learning, and the need for recycling
material. The worst kind of linear development assumes that once an item has
been presented in a lesson, it has been learned and does not need focused
revision. This view does not agree with the findings of research on memory
(Baddeley, 1990) and there are variations of linear progressions which try to
take account of the need for repetition. These include a spiral curriculum,
matrix models, revision units and field approaches to sequencing.
1 The best known advocate of a spiral curriculum is Bruner (1962).
Developing a spiral curriculum involves deciding on the major items to
cover, and then covering them several times over a period of time at
increasing levels of detail. In the following diagram, the spiral line repre-
sents the progression of the curriculum and the radial blocks represent
the material to be learned, with the starting point at the centre of the
spiral (Figure 5.1).
If we apply this model to a language curriculum, the blocks of
material could be:
(a) lexical sets or areas of vocabulary with less frequent members
occurring later in the spiral; [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]