In investigating teachers’ orientation to TBLT implementation, both in terms of beliefs and practices, it is important to identify a representative set of task characteristics in the principles of TBLT in order to gauge such orientation. Definitions of tasks (see Figure 3.1), TBLT principles and discussions of task characteristics in the literature show diverse characteristics as to what a task constitutes. Table 3.2 presents fundamental dimensions of a number of task characteristics in the literature, which are used for this study.
Table 3.2: Dimensions of task characteristics
Dimension Characteristics
Focus Meaning (unfocused) Form (focused)
Focus on form Implicit Explicit
Language in Process Spontaneous Predictable
Authenticity Situational Interactional
Solution Closed Open
The first dimension concerns the focus of the task, that is, whether it focuses on
meaning or on form. This dimension represents the two types of tasks proposed by
Ellis (2003b) – unfocused and focused tasks. However, he notes that in second language learning, few tasks focus entirely on either meaning or form. Ellis (2003b) astutely points out that while a task may be regarded as focusing on meaning, there may be some occasions during the performance of the task when the learners have to pay peripheral attention to form, such as when they have to look for an appropriate structure or lexical item to express their ideas. However, as explicitly seen in Figure 3.1 and section 3.1.2.2, all TBLT advocates suggest that tasks should focus primarily on meaning.
Following the distinction made by Long (e.g, 1990) regarding ‘focus on form’ and ‘focus on forms’ (see 3.1.2.2), throughout the rest of the thesis, especially when
58
textbook analysis (Chapter Five) and data presentation and discussion (Chapters Six and Seven), the term ‘focus on form’ is used to refer to the standard TBLT situation where attention to language features arises incidentally within the context of on-going communication. In contrast, whenever the term ‘focus on forms’ is used, it refers to the teaching practice where attention to language features is made explicit to learners through, for example, pre-teaching, explanation, or correction. The term ‘form-focused’ and ‘forms-focused’ are also used to refer to focus-on-form and focus-on-forms practices, respectively.
The second dimension is closely associated with the meaning-form distinction. Following Ellis’ (2003b) argument that a meaningful task could sometimes involve a focus on form, there is a question of whether such a focus is implicit or explicit during the course of task completion. TBLT proponents generally favour implicit attention to form if there needs to be any at all (see, for example, the TIP task (Samuda, 2001; Samuda & Bygate, 2008)). Ellis (2003b) argues that even a language consciousness-raising task can become implicit because in such a task, language items become the subject of discussion, and learners, while talking about such features, may still focus on meaning, and do not necessarily use the items in their discussion. Explicitness refers to situations in which learners are aware of the targeted features which are made salient to them. Drawing on the distinction provided by Long (1991), explicit attention to grammar can be referred to as ‘focus on forms’, where task designers and/or the teacher make clear to learners what features they are supposed to learn. This could be followed by intensive explanation and drill of the targeted features, on the assumption that the features would move from declarative knowledge to proceduralised knowledge (Anderson, 1989). This way of achieving explicitness is in line with the PPP model of instruction (Thornbury, 1997), whereby language features are presented and drilled before production of such features is allowed.
Implicitness, on the other hand, is that ‘noticing’ is made to happen in the ‘focus on form’ manner (Long, 1990). In this way, learners ‘notice’ a language feature, such as a grammatical structure, incidentally in the process of task completion. Implicit focus on form still allows learners to focus on meaning, but they have opportunities to reflect on their interlanguage system to identify the ‘gap’ between
59
their current language repertoire and the new feature. In short, if learners are told to use particular language features for task completion, the process is explicit; on the other hand, if learners are not told what language items to use, but the task itself predetermines some form to be articulated, it can be regarded as implicit.
The next dimension of task characteristics concerns the process of language use during the process of task performance. Textbook tasks can to some extent predict task-in-process, in terms of, for example, whether it stimulates interaction or not (Ellis, 2003b). Tasks that are predictable specify language features that learners are likely to use during the course of task completion. Focused tasks (Ellis, 2003b) and the ‘Things in Pockets’ task (Samuda & Bygate, 2008) are examples of predictable tasks. There are two levels of predictability, however. Focused and ‘unscripted’ tasks can be predictable in terms language domain, but they are not ‘scripted’, that is, the language is not written for learners. Scripted tasks are, therefore, regarded as high in terms of predictability. Spontaneous tasks are those which do not restrict learners in using any grammatical structures or models, but rather allow them to mobilise any resources available to them for the purpose of task completion. In this way, unfocused tasks (Ellis, 2003b) are spontaneous. When it comes to teaching, however, a process-oriented task may turn out to be a linguistic practice activity if the teacher attempts to make it one, such as when the teacher provides learners with a language framework and asks them to use it for task completion. It is, then, the teacher’s intention and behaviour in the classroom that contributes much to whether a task is predictable or spontaneous.
Another dimension of task characteristics is in terms of its authenticity. Task authenticity refers to a crucial question of what drives learners to complete the task. According to Ellis (2003b), tasks achieve authenticity in either situational or
interactional correspondence. Situational authenticity refers to whether a task
corresponds with a real-world activity, such as those in Long’s (1985a) definition. As such, ‘dressing a child’, ‘weighing a patient’ and ‘reserving a hotel room’ are regarded as being situationally authentic. However, classroom tasks do not always have such a characteristic; rather, many language learning tasks are interactionally authentic. This characteristic partially reflects some relationship to the real world (Skehan, 1996). Examples of such tasks are telling a story based on a set of
60
pictures, and ‘spot the differences’. Although these do not correspond to activities learners are likely to do outside the classroom, the kind of language behaviour used in such tasks represents language behaviour resulting from performing real- world tasks.
Tasks can sometimes be distinguished in terms of task solution (Ellis, 2003b), i.e., the open/closed distinction. Open tasks allow learners to decide on a solution which is not intended to be judged as correct or incorrect. In other words, in completing open tasks learners are free to decide on the solution. Tasks that involve learners in making choices, debating, ranking etc. are open. Closed tasks, on the other hand, require learners to arrive at a single correct solution. Such tasks as ‘spot the differences’ are closed, because learners will reach a number of differences between two pictures. From the perspective of the Interaction Hypothesis, research has shown that closed tasks generally generate more negotiation than open tasks, reaching a conclusion that “closed tasks are more likely to promote acquisition” (Ellis, 2003b, p. 91).
Researchers and TBLT advocates have identified favourable characteristics of tasks. For example, in Table 3.2, characteristics listed in the first column (meaning, implicit, spontaneous, situational, closed) are claimed to be more positive than the ones listed on to the right. It is relevant for this study to consider these characteristics in relation to the Vietnamese teachers’ utilisation and perceptions of textbook tasks.
This section has covered a number of theoretical issues regarding the development of TBLT, task definitions, the principles of TBLT and some relevant characteristics of tasks in the literature. This review is fundamental in exploring the extent of orientation to TBLT in the teachers in the present study in terms of their beliefs and practices. The next section will shift attention to the other aspect of this study’s topic – teachers’ beliefs.
61