Introduction
Syllabus design entails the selection, progression, and explaining the content of the curriculum. Conventional approaches to syllabus revolved around the selection of such linguistic elements as pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar, in addition to experiential content like themes and topics. Such integrated and sequenced lists would then be presented to methodologists, who were in turn charged with the responsibility of developing learning activities to aid in the learning of pre-determined content (Broadbridge, 2003). Over the past few decades, various syllabus models have emerged as an alternative to the traditional approaches to syllabus design, one of which is a task-based approach. TBLT (Task Based Language Teaching) refers to an approach in language teaching that allows students to take an active role in communication to complete a task or attain a goal (Ellis, 2003). TBLT thus endeavors to enhance students' inter-language competency by offering them a task and solving that same task using language (Harmer, 2001).
Task-based syllabuses are indicative of a growing realization of the importance of communicative language teaching. Whereas previously the design process began with a listing of the functional-notional and grammatical items, in task-based syllabuses, the designers undertake a needs analysis to produce a list of target activities that learners require conducting outside the classroom setting. Some of these target tasks might include, for example, participating in a job interview, or checking into an hotel. In language pedagogy, any approach adopted should essentially take into account three essential elements: information; language data, and practice opportunities. The premise of this essay is to undertake an in-depth exploration of these elements of TBLT, along with its focus on meaning and learner-centeredness.
TBLT
TBLT hinges on the premise that a task remains the basic unit for developing a language program and planning individual lessons (Nunan, 2004). In TBLT, tasks take center stage as far as the learning activity is concerned. This is because TBLT hinges on the belief that when students' minds are mainly focused on the task, they tend to be more effective, as opposed to when they are more focused on the language being used (Harmer, 2001). Through TBLT, teachers enjoy the freedom to utilize the language of their choice. Nonetheless, there is a need to ensure that the activity reflects learners' focus on meaning and real-life examples. In this case, sharing information, playing games, or even solving problems are authentic and relevant tasks.
In her book, A Framework for Task-Based Learning, Willis (1996) has provided a useful model for the application of TBLT in the classroom. It entails three crucial stages. The pre-task activity involves introducing the topic and task to students. The teacher thus engages his/her learners in activities that will enable them to recall phrases and words that are essential in learning new words or phrases or performing the main task. In the task cycle phase, the learner performs such tasks as listening, problem-solving, or reading exercises in small groups or pairs. The learners are then expected to prepare a report for the entire class detailing how they went about executing the task, and the conclusions arrived at. Learners present the findings of the task that they performed in written or spoken form. The third and final stage involves language focus and feedback. Here, specific language elements as they relate to the task at hand and identified and worked on. It may also be necessary at this point for the teacher to give feedback on learners' performance.
Aspects of TBLT
Nunan is of the view that "any approach to language pedagogy will need to concern itself with three essential elements: language data, information, and opportunities for practice" (2004).
Language data
It is important to have access to data both in written and spoken form while learning a language. Language teaching entails drawing a contrast between “non-authentic” and “authentic” data. Whereas “non-authentic” data are described as reading passages and dialogues that are specially written, in contrast, authentic data are described as samples of written or spoken language that are not specially written to facilitate language teaching. Advocates of task-based language teaching emphasize the value of integrating authentic data into the classroom setting. Nonetheless, arguments have emerged to the effect that authenticity, is, by and large, a relative issue, and that removing a piece of language from the communicative setting and situating it in the classroom setting, results in its “de-authentication” to a certain level. Nonetheless, Nunan (1999) opines that if learners are only subjected to listening texts and contrived dialogues, this adds to the complexity of language learning. According to Nunan (1999), authentic materials could be defined as written or spoken language data developed through a genuine communication process, as opposed to the one written specifically to aid in language teaching. Gebhard (1996) has provided examples of various authentic materials as used by ESL/EFL teachers. They include viewing authentic listening materials like quiz shows, comedy shows, and sales pitches; and authentic visual materials like paintings, wordless picture books, and photographs.
Authentic materials are likely to contain incomplete sentences and false starts, but are however essential in improving the communicative elements of language (Miller, 2003). In contrast, non-authentic materials are specially designed to facilitate the learning process. Therefore, they use artificial language, are valuable in teaching grammar, and contain complete sentences (Adams, 1995). Some examples of authentic materials include radio, internet, magazines, and newspapers (Miller, 2003). Lee (1995) has identified crucial considerations while selecting authentic materials. They include ensuring the suitability of context; exploitability; authenticity of text; and how compatible the material is with the course objectives (Nunan, 2004).
The use of authentic materials in the classroom has several benefits. Brinton (1991) argues that authentic media and materials could enable students to reinforce the direct association between the outside world and the language classroom setting. Elsewhere, Gebhard (1996) is of the view that authentic materials aid in contextualizing language learning. For instance, when lessons revolve around understanding a TV weather report or a menu, for example, students are more likely to focus more on meaning and content as opposed to language. Consequently, students benefit from valuable language input other than being exposed to the language offered by the teacher and the text. Authentic materials are also associated with increased students' interest in the subject matter and an enchained motivation to learn (Miller, 2003) Although Nunan (1999) acknowledges that teachers may not rely on authentic materials alone in the classroom setting, he, nonetheless, contends that there is need to ensure that learners have access to as much authentic data as possible, since exposing them to listening texts and contrived dialogues alone will make their learning tasks much more difficult. In EFL contexts, learners require both non-authentic and authentic data as both offer learners diverse elements of the language.
Information:
Besides data, learners also require information. They require linguistic information on the target language systems, experiential information regarding the target culture, and process information regarding the process of learning the language. There are various sources of such information available to learners, including the deductive approach (for example, getting an explicit explanation from a textbook or a teacher; or via an inductive approach whereby learners study various language examples and then proceed to develop the rule. In a deductive approach, the instructor gives learners a general rule that they are expected to apply to definite language examples. Learners then engage in various practice exercises in a bid to hone their skills. In an inductive approach, the learner is expected to identify patterns in addition to developing their own 'rule' before practicing the language. Soler (2008) notes that an inductive approach to language teaching involves allowing learners to discover for themselves the rules from different experiences and examples in the use of language, as opposed to being taught directly. In learning language through deductive approaches, learners are first introduced to the generalizations or rules about language, with the teacher demonstrating and explaining these prior to being practiced (Hall, 2011). Based on the above information, it appears that both inductive and deductive approaches are characterized by various pros and cons when used in teaching language. Their choice will thus be reliant on various factors, including the preferences of learners and the teacher, as well as the nature of the language under study (Brown, 2007). Nonetheless, integrating the two approaches is usually recommended, especially when dealing with an EFL class (Haight, Herron, and Cole, 2007).
Practice
The other vital aspect of TBLT is practice. Extensive practice is a desirable trait for any language teacher. such teachers must learn to differentiate between exercises, activities, and tasks while designing practice opportunities. Ellis (2003) has defined a task as an action or activity often executed in response to understanding or processing of language. For instance, listening to instructions a performing a certain command (Leaver and Willis, 2004). Ellis (2009) contends that for a language learning activity to qualify as a task, it ought to fulfill some criteria. First, the main focus of learning should be on processing the pragmatic and semantic meaning of utterances. Secondly, there ought to be a need to express an opinion, convey information, or infer meaning. Thirdly, learners should mainly depend on non-linguistic and linguistic resources so that they can complete the activity. Finally, language should only act as a means for realizing the results, as opposed to an end to a means (Ellis, 2009). Teachers can also undertake task evaluation by posing for themselves questions that Willis and Willis (2007) argue will act as guidelines for developing “activities which are task-like in that they involve real language use" (p. 13). This checklist entails asking whether the activity engages the interests of learners; whether an outcome is expected; if the focus is mainly on meaning; and if the activity in question relates to other activities in the real world (East, 2012).
Conversely, an exercise is distinguishable by its restrictive focus on only one element of language, as well as by its linguistic outcome. Whereas an activity is also characterized by a restrictive focus on language elements, this is usually directed at one or two language elements. Unlike an exercise which is distinguishable by its linguistic outcome, an exercise can be differentiated based on its communicative outcome (Ellis, 2003). As such, tasks share something in common with activities and exercises. The basic difference between an exercise and a task therefore is that unlike an exercise is characterized by a non-linguistic outcome. Some of the tasks that language teachers may be involved in include target or real-world tasks, which a communicative act realized via language spoken outside the classroom setting (Ellis, 2003).
This differs from pedagogical tasks, which can be described as classroom work that involves students in comprehending, producing, manipulating, or interacting with language even as their main focus is on meaning and not form. Pedagogical tasks are distinguishable by their non-linguistic outcome, and they can also be categorized into activation tasks or rehearsal tasks. Activation task refers to classroom work where communicative interaction is evident (Nunan, 2004). Activation tasks are geared towards activating the learners' acquisition process, as opposed to practicing for out-of-class communication. On the other hand, activation tasks encompass communicative interaction involving students rehearsing a communicative act in class to practice it outside the class.
Learner-centered
TBLT tends to be learner-centered. In other words, the technique involves the use of student-focused tasks to realize communicative competence. Once the teacher has allocated the various tasks to learners, he/she withdrawals to allow learners to manage the interaction on their own (Seedhouse, 1999). Immediately after the task starts, the teacher allows the students to decide what language to use and how to go about completing the task. In this case, the teacher acts as more of an observer, thereby giving "students’ opportunities to naturally use the language throughout the task: (Dailey, 2009, p. 6). Therefore, students encounter "real world" situations without the input of their teacher and this appears to encourage them to draw on the language taught to complete the task at hand. According to Swan (2005), this is likely to afford learners the opportunity they require to generate and practice the language learned. Tasks do away with teacher domination, thus granting learners the opportunity to interact naturally, open and close conversations, challenge and interrupt and ask questions (Swan, 2005). This affords learners a natural and comfortable environment to practice the target language amongst themselves.
Focus on meaning
TBLT also tends to focus on meaning as the task is being carried out. Acar (2006) identifies focus on meaning as the most vital aspect of a task. According to Swan, (2005) instructed language learning ought to mainly entail 'naturalistic' or 'natural' language use, with an emphasis on activities involved with meaning, as opposed to language. Focus on meaning allows students to utilize the language learned in a natural environment. Jeon and Hahn (2006) describe language learning as a developmental process that entails promoting social and communication interaction. Jeon and Hanh (2006) further note that learners have been shown to demonstrate effectiveness in learning the target language "when they are naturally exposed to meaningful task-based activities" (Jeon and Hanhn, 2006, p. 125). This could be beneficial to students, in that they might apply the language learned while completing communicative tasks with other learners. This gives learners the chance to summon language from memory that would otherwise not have been utilized. Besides, students are in a position to communicate with each other with minimum interruptions, and this could improve their natural speaking and fluency. Students with increased student proficiency in English vocabulary and grammar would also benefit from open communication as this facilitates activating the language learned. However, there is the risk of students utilizing minimal language as they endeavor to complete the task. Consequently, learners could end up losing focus on the language taught and instead dwell more on the meaning they intend to communicate as they seek to complete the task. In addition, in case students lack the skills needed to complete or communicate the task, this is likely to reduce their inspiration to continue learning the target language in the future.
Conclusion
The emergence of the TBLT approach in the past few decades has truly revolutionized language teaching. Its focus on student’s communication ensures they have access to both authentic and non-authentic data which is vital especially for EFL learners as it provides them with different aspects of the language. It also avails information to learners through inductive and deductive approaches, while also subjecting the language teacher to extensive practice which allows them to differentiate between tasks, activities, and exercises. TBLT also utilizes student-focused tasks to enable learners to attain communicative competence. Its focus on meaning allows learners to apply language learned in a natural setting.
