Task-based syllabus, merits, demerits, content selection, gradation

Dissatisfaction with conventional linguistically based syllabuses has led to a n

umber of proposals for various kinds of task-based alternatives. Task-based syll
abuses have interested some researchers and curriculum developers in English lan
guage teaching since the mid-1980s. Examples include the procedural syllabus pro
posed by Prabhu (1987), the process syllabus proposed by Breen (1984, as cited i
n Müller-Hartmann, 2000), and the task syllabus.
Most syllabuses and teaching methods before task based teaching were bas
ed on discrete point idea and thus small pieces were presented to students in an
additive way resulting in some sort of a grammatical syllabus. Syllabus content
was a series of linguistic forms. These are delivered through synthetic ‘method
s’. Grammar-translation, Audiolingual Method, the Silent way, Total Physical Re
sponse, etc are examples of teaching methods based on the tenets of grammatical
syllabuses. Therefore, to present the forms, different pedagogical devices such
as translation, explicit grammar rule explanation, pattern drills, error correc
tion, and linguistically simplified graded readings were used. The forms were th
e major focus of classroom lessons—so-called focus on forms. It was not importan
t whether learners were psycho-linguistically ready or not to learn each item s
eparately when it was presented. Learners should synthesize the parts when they
are needed for communication.
Such a grammatical based syllabus faced some problems including lack of
learners need analysis. The materials were not motivating but boring (Müller-Ha
rtmann, 2000). To provide a rationale for task-based teaching Müller-Hartmann (2
000, p. 598) says:
Most serious of all is the fact that synthetic syllabuses and synthetic language
teaching ‘methods’ assume a model —an accumulation of isolated linguistic entit
ies, each to near native levels, one at a time—which is controverted by everythi
ng known about how people learn first or second languages…Thirty years of second
language acquisition research has shown that naturalistic, instructed and mixed
learners all exhibit gradual approximation to target norms. Progress in a new l
anguage is non-linear, and rarely sudden and categorical. Learners pass through
common (possibly universal) stages of seemingly immutable developmental sequence
s. Studies have found instruction capable of speeding up progress through sequen
ces, among other things, but incapable of enabling learners to skip stages, e.g.
to jump straight from zero knowledge of a structure to native-like use (a level
very few learners ever attain). There is strong empirical evidence…for the idea
that teachers can only teach what learners are ready to learn, i.e. are capable
of processing. Acquisition sequences do not reflect the instructional sequences
embodied in externally imposed grammatical syllabuses.
Thus, considering the internal syllabus of the learners, we should try to recre
ate conditions that children learned their native languages so successfully in t
he adult classrooms. Holistic samples of target language use should be presented
and the teacher’s job is to make the input comprehensible. Students induce the
rules of the grammar through analyzing the input—hence, the term analytic syllab
uses (Müller-Hartmann, 2000).
The term “task” is a complex concept and has been defined in various way
s. Long, 1985, cited in Nunan, 1988) defined task as a piece of work which one d
oes for himself or for others freely or for reward. By task, he means what peopl
e do in their everyday life. Task, according to Richards, Platt, and Weber (1985
, cited in Nunan 1988), is defined as an activity which is done as a response wh
en one understands and processes the language. Teachers are required to specify
what is considered as successful completion of the task. Long s definition can b
e considered as real world tasks that the learner does in real life, and the def
inition provided by Richards et al. (1985) can be called pedagogic tasks that re
fer to the tasks that the learner is required to do in the classroom.
However, it should be born in mind that tasks are different from other a
ctivities because they have a "non-instructional purpose and a measurable outcom
e” (Krahnke, 1987, p. 57). Task-based learning is sometimes similar to situatio
nal learning; however, the students themselves provide the situations. In additi
on, tasks should not be considered as static because they involve manipulation o
f information and development. More importantly, tasks require learners to apply
“cognitive processes of evaluation, selection, combination, modification, or su
pplementation", or in other words, " higher-order thinking skills" (p. 57).
Tasks, according to Richard (2001, p. 161) refer to the activities or goals carr
ied out through using language. Tasks are of various types or alternatives that
can be used in all teachings. However, in task based syllabus, the main focus is
on those tasks which have been "specifically designed to facilitate second lang
uage learning". Richard (2001) maintains that in carrying out these tasks, lear
ners should receive comprehensible input and modified output. Krahnke (1987) als
o adds that the primary theory of learning underlying task-based instruction is
Krashen s theory of acquisition. Acquisition involves the naturalistic developm
ent of language proficiency through understanding and through using language for
meaningful communication (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Thus, the ability to use a
language is gained through exposure, meaningful communication and participation
. Accordingly, Richard (2001) says that comprehensible input and modified output
are two central processes in second language acquisition which learners receive
when they carry out a task. Thus, a number of theorists like Long and Crookes (
1991, cited in Richard, 2001) proposed task as a basis for syllabus design. Long
and Crookes (1991, cited in Richard, 2001) claim that tasks are considered as a
vehicle to present appropriate target language samples or input to learners.
In task based syllabus, according to Richard (2001), the basic claims are: (1) t
asks drive the language acquisition process, (2) teaching grammar is not centra
l in this approach since students learn grammar indirectly, and (3) tasks being
motivating engage learners in meaningful communication. For syllabus design, t
wo types of tasks- pedagogical and real-world tasks- are basic. Pedagogical tas
ks, i.e. jigsaw tasks, information-gap tasks, problem solving tasks, decision-ma
king tasks, and opinion exchange tasks, are based on SLA theory and are used to
trigger second language learning process. Real-world tasks are designed based o
n needs analysis and what is important and useful in real life. Although the afo
rementioned activities have been a feature of communicative language teaching an
d have an incidental role, in task-based syllabus, they are considered as the ce
ntral feature of a syllabus (Richard, 2001).
Nunnan (1988) argues that the principles underlying procedural and tas
k-based syllabus are very similar. Prabhu (1987) introduced procedural syllabus.
He looked at language from different perspectives and said that language is a v
ehicle to cope with meaning. Teaching should create conditions to cope with mean
ing in the classrooms and direct teaching of grammar should be excluded. In othe
r words, grammar should be taught subconsciously. Prabhu s project, according t
o Nunnan (1988), was criticized because he only focused on the learning processe
s and did not attempt to these processes to outcomes; that is, he didn’t pay att
ention to product.
While Nunnan (1988) considered procedural and task-based syllabus diff
erent, Richards, Platt, and Webber (1985, cited in Nunnan, 1988) considered them
synonymous. Both task-based and procedural syllabuses are concerned with classr
oom processes which stimulate learning. Prabhu (1987) identifies three broad tas
k types of information gap, reasoning gap, and problem-solving to consider as ty
pologies of tasks as a starting point for task design.
To develop instructional sequences around tasks, Nunan (2004) proposed a six ste
p procedure. They are: (1) schema building which refers to the exercises that h
elp to introduce the topic, (2) controlled practice which should be provided in
using the target language vocabulary, structures, and functions , (3) authentic
listening practice that provides learners with intensive listening practice, (4)
focusing on linguistic elements , (5) providing freer practice, and (6) introdu
cing the pedagogical task. These are based on seven underlying principles of sc
affolding, task dependency, recycling, active learning, integration, reproductio
n to creation, and reflection.
The construction of a task based syllabus, according to Ellis (2003), requires t
he specification of tasks which are going to be included in the syllabus. They s
hould also be classified in terms of their type, so the thematic content can be
determined and sequenced according to their level of difficulty. This will be e
nough in preparing a task-based syllabus consisting entirely of linguistically u
nfocused tasks. An optional factor is to incorporate the forms and functions of
the language in syllabus design. Including such an option leads to a syllabus
consisting “entirely focused tasks or possibly of a mixture of focused and unfoc
used tasks. Such a syllabus introduces a focus on form into a meaning-centered
curriculum where sequencing of tasks and linguistic content is necessary.
Content selection and gradation
The selection of tasks can done according to the students cognitive or linguist
ic readiness, need for a specific discourse or interactional type, and availabil
ity of resources for doing the tasks. Sequencing tasks follow some of the same
criteria and also are based on their simplicity, familiarity, the type of cognit
ive processing (Krahnke, 1987). For example, shorter and simpler tasks should be
used before the longer and more complex ones; tasks that are familiar and known
to the learner should come before unfamiliar ones; and tasks that require the e
xisting ability of the learners to process information should be used before tho
se new types of cognitive processing (Krahnke, 1987).
Nunnan (1988) argues that difficulty is the key factor in determining the orderi
ng of tasks in a syllabus. However, the problem in task-based syllabus is that a
variety of factors contribute to the difficulty of the tasks. Moreover, some of
these factors depend on the characteristics of the learners. It means that what
is difficult for learner A may not be difficult for learner B.
Concerning the issue of difficulty, Nunnan (1988, p. 48) provided a list of fac
tors that influence the level of difficulty:
• The degree of contextual support provided to the learner,
• The cognitive difficulty of the task
• The amount of assistance provided to the learner,
• The complexity of the language with which the learner is required to pro
cess and produce,
• The psychological stress involves in carrying out the task, and
• The amount and type of background knowledge required.
Merits and demerits of task-based syllabus
This type of syllabus is "potentially powerful and widely applicable" and
is suitable for learners of all ages and backgrounds. Active and real tasks for
learning are used. Learners ability to perform instructional tasks shows that
they are able to use the language in real life. Moreover, tasks are effective w
hen learners are engaged in rather similar out of class activities. Tasks are v
aluable for those learners with clear and immediate needs, and the ones who need
to learn cognitive, cultural, and life skills in addition to language can be me
ntioned (Krahnke, 1987).
Nunan (2004) states that task-based syllabus provides a lot of naturalistic recy
cling; that is, the reappearance of grammatical and functional items for numerou
s times in a diverse range of contexts. This leads to restructuring and develop
ing an elaborate understanding of the items which is “consistent with an ‘organi
c’ view of acquisition in which numerous items are acquired simultaneously, albe
it imperfectly” (p. 30)
This syllabus has problems in its implementation and instruction. High le
vels of creativity and initiative on the part of the teacher is required. It re
quires resources beyond the textbooks. students object to this type of instruc
tion since they prefer teacher-centered classrooms (Krahnke, 1987).
Nunan (2004) also adds that in a task-based program, tasks are collected randoml
y with nothing to tie them together. To solve the problem, he suggests task chai
ning in terms of units of work or lessons, and topical/thematical ties through m
acro-functions, micro-functions and grammatical elements that they express to ov
ercome this problem.
REFERENCES