Funtores de complejos

Section 2.3.3, on page 63, noted that there are basically four organisational principles for syllabus design. However, according to Breen (1987b: 83, 2001: 152), with developments in language teaching and learning approaches, materials, strategies and theories mainly in SLA research and pedagogical practices, the four basic principles of syllabus design, are interpreted differently depending on the syllabus designers’ specific field and background knowledge on language, which contrasts with Robinson’s (2009: 294) observations on the rationale for syllabus designers. According to Robinson, the overall rationale for syllabus designers is to consider syllabus decisions, such as how language is acquired, internalised, accessed and performed. In this regard, however, process syllabuses in general and TBS designers in particular also vary in the treatment of the four attested principles, see, for example, Samuda and Bygate (2008: 192-205). For instance, Long (1985: 89) proposes four stages which are less similar to Breen’s general principles of syllabus design as listed in section 2.3.3, on page 63.

According to Long, the four stages include (i) identification of learners’ needs, (ii) definition of learning content, (iii) organisation of language learning opportunities, and lastly, (iv) measuring of learners’ acquisition. Similarly, Nunan (1991: 13, 1994: 58) agrees with Long and Crookes (1993: 40) on the view that TBS designers take into account and considers other aspects, such as the identification of L2 learners’ needs, as the first step in syllabus design, and also the considerations of assessment decisions, such as criterion-referenced tests for L2 learners (Long & Crookes 1993: 41).

In stressing Robinson’s (2009: 294) observations above, Breen (1987a: 160) points out the view that TBSs organise the learning content and goals in terms of the process through which L2 learners actively engage in communicative activities of performing language tasks. According to Breen, L2 learners develop language competencies by learning how to learn, as well as, learning how to communicate using the target language. In support of Breen’s views, Larsen-Freeman (2011: 160) argues that the main goal of TBLT approaches is to complete a goal (task) or solve a problem(s) through interaction in a language, in this context, the target language. Thus, Larsen-Freeman is of the view that through language interaction in the target language, there are sufficient processes in learning the target language. Similarly, Breen (1987a: 161) suggests that TBSs designers consider the learning process as a crucial aspect of appropriate content during L2 learning. Breen argues that such considerations are different from the traditional conventions and assumptions of isolating learning content from the learning processes, teaching methods and techniques (methodology). Thus, based on the above, the subsequent sections discuss the organisational principles regarding TBS design decisions.

According to Breen (1987a: 161), such principles are posted in form of questions. Breen maintains that ideally, there are four primary questions that TBS designers advance in order to address both challenges as well as opportunities regarding TBS design decisions. The questions include, (i) what knowledge does the TBS focus upon? (ii) What capabilities does the TBS focus upon? (iii) On what basis does the TBS select and divide? Lastly, (iv) how is the TBS content sequenced? In addition to the above questions, Breen maintains that TBS designers provide a rationale for the adoption of the TBSs. Thus, the subsequent sub-sections discuss in detail the above questions in their respective order.

Nevertheless, it should be recalled that section 2.4.7, on page 104, notes and considers the identification of learners’ needs as a crucial aspect in syllabus design decisions, specifically in the process paradigm. Therefore, before attempting to address Breen’s (1987b: 161) questions above in relation to principles of syllabus design in TBSs, there is a need to address the needs analysis issues as the first step in TBS design decisions as will be discussed below.

3.3.1. Needs analysis in task-based syllabus design

TBLT largely supports the philosophy of learning by doing. In TBLT, learning by doing has its genesis from the needs analysis (NA) survey. In this survey, L2 learners provide what Long (2015a: 223) refers to raw information/input from which selection of syllabus tasks is made after grouping together information with common features which constitute real-world task types or target task

types (TTTs). According to Long (2015a: 223-224), due to time constraints to consider all learners needs in the syllabus, the TTTs are categorised further to specifically suit L2 learners’ general interests, hence composing learning tasks/pedagogical tasks (PTs) based on complexity (as will be discussed in section 3.8.3.1, on page 171). Thereafter, the sequencing of PTs is considered to constitute TBSs, a result of rational processes (cf. section 3.8, on page 164).

In light of the above, Van den Branden et al. (2009: 6) and Willis and Willis (2007: 179-182) stress the view that within the framework of TBLT, needs analysis presumes the varying degrees of learners’ needs and interests in language learning intended for different purposes and situations. Similarly, Candlin (2009: 23) holds the view that in the language learning classrooms, learners differ in a range of ways. According to Candlin such differences impose considerable demands on task design and subsequent implementation of tasks in the classrooms. Candlin lists some of the differences including,

[Their] intelligence and language learning ability; their interests, needs wants and lacks; their strategies in communicating and interpreting what others say and write; their styles and modes of learning and the rate at which they learn; their desire to participate in the management of their own learning; their need for monitoring and supervision; in their socio-cultural background and educational histories; in their attitudes to the language in question and their motivation for learning it. (2009: 23)

Accordingly, in light of the learners’ differences above, Candlin adds on teacher’s differences in practical experiences that are likely to inhibit language learning as well as imposing demands on task designs and so forth. That in mind, according to Long (2005a: 23, 2015: 11), needs analysis (NA) is the initial step as far as decisions with regard TBSs are concerned. NA is the process of identifying L2 learners’ needs and reasons for learning a given L2. According to scholars, the NA survey collects and collates as many as possible real-world (target) tasks that learners are ought to/or use in their daily communication agenda mainly outside the language classrooms. In this context, the real-world task also known as communication goals are equated to what in section 2.4.7, on page 104, refers to objective needs, or what Long (2005a: 20) relates to arranging of discourse in the target language. That in mind, Long (2005a: 22) advises syllabus designers to use of task as a unit of analysis in determining learners target language needs (see also, Lambert 2010:100). Similarly, as far as TBSs are concerned, with reference to Ellis (2000: 194), Pica (1997) points out that task is considered crucial as an organisational unit in pedagogical practices as well as in the SLA processes.

Robinson (2010: 245) asserts that in designing TBSs for L2 learning, analysis of real-world needs is considered first for learners to perform while in the classroom for use on existing language

instruction programme. For Robinson (2010: 245) tasks are analysed from simple to gradually approximate complex real-world or target needs (demands). For instance, Robinson (2010: 243, 2015:87) agrees with Malicka (2014: 71) on the view that in different courses of learning institutions, such as musical or mathematical institutes, what is considered as simple theories (tasks) are extended to novice learners, then same learners are given more (increasingly) complex tasks in manageable ways with time. In order to address the above views, Robinson (2010: 245) maintains that there is a need to specify and cluster (taxonomy) characteristics of such pedagogical tasks. A taxonomy should select tasks that, (i) are most effective in promoting learning and performance based on theoretical views of SLA, such as motivation, (ii) have utility of a coherent demands between classroom tasks and real-world tasks, and (iii) operationally visible which involves its applicability and adaptability in any institutional settings, material development and so forth. In brief, Robinson (2010: 245) states that a taxonomy of learning task requires satisfying what he refers to as “…three-way mapping constraint of task characteristics to learning processes, target task analyses and operational consistency” for its optional use for task use and syllabus design purposes. This taxonomy (Triadic Componential Framework [TCF]) is discussed at length in section 3.9.2, on page 193. pose

Therefore, in order to understand task as a notion, section 3.4, on page 121, I defined and discussed task at length. Thus, the subsequent sections address the Breen’s (1987b: 161) questions that were raised in section 3.3, on page 117. In other words, the subsequent section is a continuation of an attempt to address the guiding principles as far as TBS designs decisions are concerned.

3.3.2. Knowledge of language that task-based syllabuses focus upon

In relation to the kind of knowledge that TBSs provide, Breen argues that L2 learners need to know how meaning is coded in both written and spoken discourses. Breen maintains that such knowledge helps L2 learners to share and exchange meaning in a range of social contexts. Therefore, according to Breen, TBS designers address the question (i) in section 3.3, on page 117, by focusing on the knowledge of linguistic forms and their related functions. According to Breen, such focus partly and at the surface, value constitutes what L2 learners are to learn.

Similarly, Breen stresses that TBS designers consider the language systems in the preceding paragraph as a merge which leads to the development of communicative knowledge of the L2 learners. Breen maintains that communicative knowledge is the ability to know the language rules and conventions that govern the language codes, behaviours as well as meaning. The above rules and language conventions motivate what Breen refers to the systematic relationship between three

types of knowledge that constitute communicative knowledge. Breen lists the knowledge types as, (i) textual knowledge (ii) interpersonal knowledge and (iii) ideational knowledge, as discusses below.

Breen relates textual knowledge to the linguistic inventories of the L2 learners. According to Breen, the use of the target language grammatical forms necessitates the L2 learners to make choices from their own linguistic inventories. In addition, Breen states that L2 learners use their choices and relate such choices to the socially acceptable norms, requirements and expectations that govern communicative behaviours. Breen refers to such expectations and requirements as interpersonal knowledge. Furthermore, Breen suggests that L2 learners use both the interpersonal as well as their textual knowledge to express ideas and meaning the L2 learners wish to share with others. Breen refers to the above knowledge of idea sharing as ideational knowledge. Finally, Breen contends that communicative knowledge is the integration of all the three knowledge types above. According to Breen, the attainment of communicative knowledge by L2 learners is the primary focus of TBS designers.

Other than focusing on the communicative knowledge as discussed above, Breen (1987a: 161) advances the view that TBSs also focus upon L2 learners’ own experiences on language awareness, specifically, language learning. Breen contends that knowledge about language learning, in terms of ‘what’ language learning involves, and ‘how’ language learning is carried out, are important aspects that TBSs focus upon. In this context, Breen argues that knowledge about language learning is a prerequisite for facilitating the development of the target language.

According to Breen once the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ language learning aspects are all integrated and addressed during task planning times, such aspects, form a primary characteristic of the TBSs. Breen argues that it is through tasks that TBSs plan what is to be achieved. Such tasks according to Breen include communication tasks as well as learning tasks. Before Breen elaborates and draws a distinction between learning and communicative tasks. It is paramount to define and understand the language task as a notion. After discussing the language task, the subsequent sections will continue attempting to address the Breen’s (1987a: 161) questions above.