Definition of task
The concept of ‘task’ has become an important element in syllabus design, classroom teaching and learner assessment. It underpins several significant research agendas, and it has influenced educational policy- making in both ESL and EFL settings.
Tasks hold a central place both in current second language acquisition research and in language pedagogy [Ellis, 2003]. This is evident in the large number of recent publications relating to task-based learning and teaching [e.g., Willis 1996; Skehan 1998; Ellis, 2003]. Then, what exactly is a ‘task’? It should be acknowledged from the start that in neither research nor language pedagogy is there complete agreement as to what constitutes a task, which makes the definition problematic. Ellis [2003] lists a number of definitions of task in his book, which address the following dimensions: (1) the scope of a task; (2) the perspective from which a task is viewed;
(3) the authenticity of a task; (4) the linguistic skills required to perform a task; (5) the psychological processes involved in task performance, and (6) the outcome of a
task. In this article, I’d like to adopt Littlewood’s [2004] viewpoint on the definitions of task and clarify it further with those definitions listed by Ellis.
According to Littlewood [2004:320], ‘definitions of task range along a continuum according to the extent to which they insist on communicative purpose as an essential criterion.’ There are three points along the continuum, from the least emphasis on focus on meaning to the most:
For some researchers, communicative purpose is not an essential criterion at all. Breen [1987, in Ellis, 2003:4], for example, defines a task as ‘a structured plan
for the provision of opportunities for the refinement of knowledge and capabilities entailed in a new language and its use during communication’. He specifically states that a ‘task’ can be ‘a brief practice exercise’ or ‘a more complex work plan that requires spontaneous communication of meaning’. Estaire and Zanon [1994: 13] work with this broad definition but distinguish two main categories of task within it: ‘communicative tasks’, in which the ‘learner’s attention is focused on meaning rather than form’, and ‘enabling tasks’, in which the ‘main focus is on linguistic aspects (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, functions, and discourse).’
Moving along the continuum, some researchers do not go so far as to define tasks purely in communicative terms but clearly think of them primarily as
involving communication. Thus Stern [1992:195] associates tasks with
‘realistic language use’ when he writes that ‘communicative exercises…provide opportunities for relatively realistic language use, focusing the learner’s attention on a task, problem, activity, or topic, and not on a particular language point’.
Moving still further along the continuum, some researchers wish to restrict the use of the term to activities where meaning is primary. Take Nunan’s [1989]
definition for example, in his opinion, ‘a task is a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing, or
interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focus on meaning rather than form. The task should have a sense of completeness, being able to stand alone as a communicative act in its own right’. Besides, Skehan
[1996] also points that ‘a task is an activity in which meaning is primary; there is some sort of relationship to the real world; task completion has some priority; and the assessment of task performance is in terms of outcome’.
What is a task?
A task involves a primary focus on (pragmatic) meaning.
A task has some kind of ‘gap’.
The participants choose the linguistic resources needed to complete the task.
A task has a clearly defined outcome.
My definition of ‘task’ (which is more specific than that used by Andrew Littlejohn in ETpIssue One) is:
… a goal-oriented activity in which learners use language to achieve a real outcome. In other words, learners use whatever target language resources they have in order to solve a problem, make a list, do a puzzle, play a game, or share and compare experiences.
Long [1985: 89] frames his approach to task-based language teaching in terms of target tasks, arguing that a target task is:
‘a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some reward. Thus examples of tasks include painting a fence, dressing a child, filling out a form, buying a pair of shoes, making an airline reservation, borrowing a library book, taking a driving test, typing a letter, weighing a patient, sorting letters, making a hotel reservation, writing a cheque, finding a street destination and helping someone
across a road’.
In other words, by ‘task’ is meant the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play and in between. The first thing to notice about this definition is that it is non-technical and non-linguistic. It describes the sorts of things that the person in the street would say if asked what they were doing. (In the same way as learners, if asked why they are attending a Spanish course, are more likely to say,
‘So I can make hotel reservations and buy food when I’m in Mexico,’ than ‘So I can master the subjunctive.’) Related to this is the notion that, in contrast with most classroom language exercises, tasks have a non-linguistic outcome.
Non-linguistic outcomes from Long’s list above might include a painted fence, possession – however temporary – of a book, a driver’s license, a room in a hotel, etc. Another thing to notice is that some of the examples provided may not involve language use at all (it is possible to paint a fence without talking). Finally, individual tasks may be part of a larger sequence of tasks; for example the task of weighing a patient may be a sub-component of the task ‘giving a medical examination’. When they are transformed from the real world to the classroom, tasks become pedagogical in nature. Here is a definition of a pedagogical task:
. . . an activity or action which is carried out as the result of processing or understanding language (i.e. as a response). For example, drawing a map while listening to a tape, listening to an instruction and performing a command may be referred to as tasks. Tasks may or may not involve the production of language.
A task usually requires the teacher to specify what will be regarded as successful completion of the task. The use of a variety of different kinds of tasks in language teaching is said to make language teaching more communicative . . . since it provides a purpose for a classroom activity which goes beyond the practice of language for its own sake. [Richards, et al. 1986: 289] In this definition, we can see that the authors take a pedagogical perspective. Tasks are defined in terms of what the learners will do in class rather than in the world outside the classroom. They also
emphasize the importance of having a non-linguistic outcome. Breen [1987: 23] offers another definition of a pedagogical task: . . . any structured language learning endeavor which has a particular objective, appropriate content, a specified working procedure, and a range of outcomes for those who undertake the task.
‘Task’ is therefore assumed to refer to a range of work plans which have the overall purposes of facilitating language learning – from the simple and brief exercise type, to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem-solving or simulations and decision-making.
This definition is very broad; implying as it does that just about anything the learner does in the classroom qualifies as a task. It could, in fact, be used to justify any procedure at all as ‘task-based’ and, as such, is not particularly helpful. More circumscribed is the following from Willis [1996], cited in Willis and Willis [2001]: a classroom undertaking ‘. . . where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome’. Here the notion of meaning is subsumed in ‘outcome’. Language in a communicative task is seen as bringing about an outcome through the exchange of meanings. [p. 173].
Skehan [1998], drawing on a number of other writers, puts forward five key characteristics of a task:
Meaning is primary
Learners are not given other people’s meaning to regurgitate
There is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities
Task completion has some priority
The assessment of the task is in terms of outcome.
(See also Bygate, Skehan and Swain 2001, who argue that the way we define a task will depend to a certain extent on the purposes to which the task is used.)
Finally, Ellis [2003: 16] defines a pedagogical task in the following way:
A task is a work plan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose them to choose particular forms.
A task is intended to result in language use that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or receptive, and oral or written skills and also various cognitive processes.
My own definition is that a pedagogical task is a piece of classroom work that involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to express meaning, and in which the intention is to convey meaning rather than to manipulate form. The task should also have a sense of completeness, being able to stand alone as a communicative act in its own right with a beginning, middle and an end. While these definitions vary somewhat, they all emphasize the fact that pedagogical tasks involve communicative language use in which the user’s attention is focused on meaning rather than grammatical form.
This does not mean that form is not important.
My own definition refers to the deployment of grammatical knowledge to express meaning, highlighting the fact that meaning and form are highly interrelated, and that grammar exists to enable the language user to express different communicative meanings. However, as Willis and Willis [2001] point out, tasks differ from grammatical exercises in that learners are free to use a range of language structures to achieve task outcomes – the forms are not specified in advance.
The problem with PPP ‘Presentation Practice Production’
Some criticisms of PPP: ‘…the underlying theory for a PPP approach has now been discredited. The belief that a precise focus on a particular form leads to learning and automatization no longer carries much credibility in linguistics or psychology…’ - Dave Willis
There is, it seems, little evidence to suggest that the PPP paradigm works in the way it is supposed to work. It does not, as it is claimed, lead in easy stages from presentation to mastery. At the same time, as a paradigm which focuses throughout on conformity it leaves little room for communicative language use.
Finally, because it “presents” language and requires little intellectual involvement on the part of the learner it does not provide for a critical focus on language form - Dave Willis.
‘…the PPP paradigm was a travesty, for philosophical, psychological, ideological and methodological reasons. It suggested that languages were best learned by limiting the language to which learners were exposed and practicing it intensely. In fact, the direct opposite is probably the truth…’ - Michael Lewis
Many teachers believe in PPP because they were trained to; the roots of their faith are in the initial training courses they took. A trusting trainee might suppose that they had been initiated into a methodology their tutors used themselves. The paradox is that many tutors who use PPP as a training paradigm don’t actually use PPP much in their own language teaching - Jim Scrivener .
During an initial teacher training course, most teachers become familiar with the PPP paradigm. A PPP lesson would proceed in the following manner.
First, the teacher presents an item of language in a clear context to get across its meaning. This could be done in a variety of ways: through a text, a situation builds a dialogue etc.
Students are then asked to complete a controlled practice stage, where they may have to repeat target items through choral and individual drilling, fill gaps
or match halves of sentences. All of this practice demands that the student uses the language correctly and helps them to become more comfortable with it.
Finally, they move on to the production stage, sometimes called the 'free practice' stage. Students are given a communication task such as a role play and are expected to produce the target language and use any other language
that has already been learnt and is suitable for completing it.
It all sounds quite logical but teachers who use this method will soon identify problems with it:
Students can give the impression that they are comfortable with the new language as they are producing it accurately in the class. Often though a few lessons later, students will either not is able to produce the language correctly or even won't produce it at all.
Students will often produce the language but overuse the target structure so that it sounds completely unnatural.
Students may not produce the target language during the free practice stage because they find they are able to use existing language resources to complete the task.
The main advantages of TBL are that language is used for a genuine purpose meaning that real communication should take place, and that at the stage where the learners are preparing their report for the whole class, they are forced to consider language form in general rather than concentrating on a single form (as in the PPP model). Whereas the aim of the PPP model is to lead from accuracy to fluency, the aim of TBL is to integrate all four skills and to move from fluency to accuracy plus fluency. The range of tasks available (reading texts, listening texts, problem-solving, role-plays, questionnaires, etc.) offers a great deal of flexibility in this model and should lead to more motivating activities for the learners.
Learners who are used to a more traditional approach based on a grammatical syllabus may find it difficult to come to terms with the apparent randomness of TBL, but if TBL is integrated with a systematic approach to grammar and lexis, the
outcome can be a comprehensive, all-round approach that can be adapted to meet the
needs of all learners.
Presentation stage: The teacher begins the lesson by setting up a situation, either eliciting or modeling some language that the situation calls for.
Presentation may consist of model sentences, short dialogues illustrating target items, either read from the textbook, heard on the tape or acted out by the teacher.
Practice stage: Students practice the new language in a controlled way. They drill sentences or dialogues by repeating after the teacher or the tape, in chorus
and individually, until they can say them correctly. Other practice activities are matching parts of sentences, completing sentences or dialogues and asking and answering questions using the target language.
Production stage: Students are encouraged to use the new language in a freer way both for their own purposes and meanings or in a similar context
introduced by the teacher. It can be a role play, a simulation activity or a communication task.