Practice Activities FP-011

Língua Inglesa
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
7 pag.

Document shared on www.docsity.com

Downloaded by: teacher-elias-vaz (eliasvazdossantos2019@gmail.com)
 FP011 – TASKS AND PROJECTS

PRACTICE ACTIVITIES
GENERAL INFORMATION:

The practice activities consist on four questions you must answer following the
instructions. Your submission must fulfil the following conditions:

 Length: 4 pages (without including cover, index or appendices –if there are any-).
 Font type: Arial or Times New Roman.
 Font size: 11.
 Spacing: 1.5.
 Alignment: Justified.

The activities have to be included in this Word document: keep the activities’
statements/questions and answer below them. In order to make the correction process
easier, please, do not write the answers in bold, so it will then be easier to distinguish
between questions and answers. Remember that the document must still fulfil the rules
of presentation and edition, and follow the rubric for quoting and making bibliographical
references as detailed in the Study Guide.

Also, it has to be submitted following the procedure specified in the “Subject

Evaluation” document. You must not send it to the teacher’s e-mail.

Do not forget to read the assessment criteria, which can be found in the document
“Subject Evaluation”.

Document shared on www.docsity.com

Downloaded by: teacher-elias-vaz (eliasvazdossantos2019@gmail.com)
Name and surname(s): Paula Almeida Ribeiro, Rodrigo Fraga dos Santos,

Group: FP_TEFL_2020-06

Date: October 31st, 2021

Practice Activities
Read the materials and watch the video “Prof. Ellis on task-based pedagogy: the what,
why and how”, available on campus.

Task 1.

Does the following proposal fit the definition of “tasks” according to Ellis?
Justify your answer.

Retrieved from Counihan, G. (1998). The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IV, No. 11,
November 1998. http://iteslj.org/Lessons/Counihan-Activities/Rejoinders.html

Document shared on www.docsity.com

Downloaded by: teacher-elias-vaz (eliasvazdossantos2019@gmail.com)
 The proposed task can be considered part of a TBLT task according to Ellis (as
cited in TESOLAcademic, 2014). The teacher, on the other hand, aims to meet a
communicative result, giving students an activity, in which each one of them has a
specific function; students can present an assumption of the objective of the activity
and allow themselves an easy and natural participation in the communication process
proposed in this type of task.

First, and based on Ellis' explanation of the types of tasks that the teacher can
use to develop the implicit knowledge that allows them to create the right conditions for
students to communicate using the target language, we have an activity in which it is
perceived It is primarily an unfocused-task type in which students receive language
input that appears to be based on intentional language delivery, and as the activity
progresses, students would be able to learn more from the participation of others by
providing incidental acquisition of the language.

On the other hand, in relation to the notes section, it can be stated how the
teacher expects that with the language input and the established context, students can
come with their own conversation resources, language exchange based on the input
contexts and, furthermore, engaging in the creation and achievement of a new
language in a collaborative way; focusing primarily on meaning, encouraging realistic
forms of language. (Ellis as quoted in TESOLAcademic, 2014; 7:05)

Finally, it is possible to notice that the activity also appears to be based on an

information gap approach task. Due to the fact that each student is assigned a certain
role and phrase to elicit communication in advance. As a student has information and
complements it with that of another, the need to share this information and vice versa is
established. Thus, students are able to replicate this same information exchange
scenario outside the classroom context.

Document shared on www.docsity.com

Downloaded by: teacher-elias-vaz (eliasvazdossantos2019@gmail.com)
Task 2.

Define “implicit” and “explicit” knowledge and provide an example (Robinson’s

article in the library might complement Ellis’ video).

According to Ellis (1994), implicit knowledge emerges as "the underestimated

structure of a complex stimulus environment by a process that occurs naturally, simply
and without conscious operations" (p.1). In the same line of reasoning we have Berry
(1994) who asserted a similar distinction by expressing learning as an outcome that
occurs without a combined awareness of it, which takes place through inferences and
instances. Therefore, implicit knowledge is one that serves as a means to help
students communicate, transfer knowledge and ideas, which allows them to increase
their L2 incidentally. (Ellis as quoted in TESOLAcademic, 2014; 7:05).

On the other hand, explicit knowledge is intentional. It is acquired through a

more aware notion of the topic's rules and not its instances. The student is more aware
of the structures that can arise in learning process theories; involving a direct problem-
solving approach based on hypothesis formation or testing. The delivery of knowledge
is intentional and based on an organized structural syllabus, which can create a
problem of meaning transference due to its lack of relationship and extension to the
real world context. (Ellis as quoted in TESOL Academic, 2014; 10:15).

From Robinson's (2011) point of view, both types of knowledge need to be

developed in the process of learning a second language. In fact, the kind of knowledge
that is initially implicit can become explicit, since the unintended forms of language
learned in previous lessons are now well known and perceptible (p.16). Of course, this
depends on the number of attempts made in trying to complete the task and how
controlled the language and forms of meaning are, which does not depend on the type
of knowledge that may emerge in future classes, and even if the context is a
vocabulary or grammar instruction supports the idea of using focused and unfocused
type tasks based on language forms previously selected and sequenced by the
teacher; allowing the elicitation process, motivational cognitive construction and L2
vocabulary acquisition to occur. Consequently, the main objective and foundation of
TBLT is to work on the kind of meaning content of activities that can confidently
promote incidental learning and interlanguage development. (Robinson, 2001; p.24)

Document shared on www.docsity.com

Downloaded by: teacher-elias-vaz (eliasvazdossantos2019@gmail.com)
 Regarding this type of meaning content activities, Ellis, Loewen, Elder, Erlam,
Philp & Reinders (2009) proposed the elicited oral imitation activities as a good
example for developing and measuring implicit knowledge created with focused tasks.
Discover two important elements in memory and even internalized grammatical factors,
in which students are able to manipulate grammatical structures by relating them to
their own internal grammar. Because of this, implicit knowledge is understood by
learning how students learned to control complex grammatical structures because of
the stimulus received from a positive correction and the student's own interlanguage
reconstructions (p.66).

Task 3.

What are the main wrong assumptions done about task-based learning? Can you
provide examples that support Ellis complaints, i.e. that show task-based
activities that do not fit the prototypical assumptions?

A task is an “activity in which there is a focus on meaning”. This was Prabhu's

view of the use of tasks. However, the concept has evolved to the point where
negotiation is necessary “to effectively drive language acquisition forward”. That's why
teachers should provide students with as many meaningful assignments as possible.
Research has shed light on this particular point, suggesting that the many opportunities
a student has to negotiate meaning may not be as effective as initially thought.

Foster, for example, argues that negotiation can be hampered by the

dominance of a few “class members who do all the negotiation, while the majority of
students in the class can remain passive” (Foster, 1998). Another author who
questions the benefits of negotiation is Skehan, who after analyzing Foster's research
states that, “...Unless negotiation initiated by a small number of individuals generates
interactions that are really useful to the silent majority, the value of such interaction
activities for interlanguage modification and readiness for change is debatable.

Another objection to task-based is the limited processing capacity of human

beings, which is the fact that we cannot process many stimuli simultaneously; in other
words, it's difficult for us to do two tasks efficiently at the same time. Regarding
language learning, when faced with the task of producing an L2 utterance, the student
can access his rule-based system or his example-based system, but he cannot access
both simultaneously. In other words, “students will look at the general meaning of a

Document shared on www.docsity.com

Downloaded by: teacher-elias-vaz (eliasvazdossantos2019@gmail.com)
message before focusing on the discrete items of grammar used to convey the
message”.

Task 4.

Can an online course be fully task-based? What inconveniences might it

encounter? You might want to read Lee 2016 before answering.

We believe it is possible that an online course can be completely task-based.

The advent of the digital age has opened up a number of possibilities for teachers to
create “ideal tasks”. In Lee's words, these possibilities are “interaction,
contextualization and authenticity”. Lee also mentions a variety of studies commenting
on the effectiveness of a task-based methodology such as student collaboration,
awareness raising, and interlanguage enhancement. Furthermore, these studies also
demonstrated that task-based “encourages active student participation” (Lee 2016).

We think that TBI encourages individuality and collaboration. However, we also

think that an online course cannot surpass the benefits that a face-to-face methodology
can offer. This is the conclusion reached by the author: “the study concludes that
teachers need to invest an enormous amount of time and energy to create and develop
online courses that meet the needs of students in a similar way to face-to-face
teaching”.

Document shared on www.docsity.com

Downloaded by: teacher-elias-vaz (eliasvazdossantos2019@gmail.com)
 References

Foster, P (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied

linguistics, 19 (1), 1-23

Robinson. P. (1997a). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit

and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47. 45-99.

Robinson, P. (1997b). Generalizability and automaticity of second language leaming

under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition. 19, 223- 247.

Lee, Lina. Autonomous learning through task-based instruction in fully online language
courses. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 81-97, 2016.
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2016/lee.html

Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford

University.

Document shared on www.docsity.com

Downloaded by: teacher-elias-vaz (eliasvazdossantos2019@gmail.com)