Introduction and overview
The purpose of this chapter is to take a more detailed look at the place of gram-mar instruction within task-based language teaching. The issue of whether or not a focus on form has a place in task-based language teaching is controversial.
In the first section of the chapter, I will review several theoretical and empiri-cal aspects of form-focused instruction that are of significance to TBLT. I will then expand on two of these: form-focused versus unfocused tasks, and con-sciousness-raising. The section that follows then focuses on an issue of central importance to syllabus designers and materials writers: the question of where form-focused work should come in any task-based instructional cycle.
Theoretical and empirical issues
As I have indicated, the place of a focus on form in TBLT is controversial. Some theorists adopt a ‘strong’ interpretation, arguing that communicative interac-tion in the language is necessary and sufficient for language acquisiinterac-tion, and that a focus on form is unnecessary. Krashen (1981, 1982) is one of the main propo-nents of this ‘strong’ approach. He argues that there are two processes operating in language development, subconscious acquisition and conscious learning, and that form-focused instruction is aimed at conscious learning which does not feed in to subconscious acquisition.
One of the first, if not the first, single-authored, book-length treatments of task-based language teaching was my 1989 book Designing Tasks for the Communi-cative Classroom. In the book, I stressed the importance of grammar and a focus on form in TBLT. Despite this, I was criticized at various times for advocating a
‘grammar-free’ pedagogy. Thus, when asked by the publisher to complete a sub-stantially revised second edition of the book, I took the opportunity to make my position clear by devoting an entire chapter to the place of grammar within TBLT.
Reprinted with permission from Task-Based Language Teaching, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Another major issue for TBLT concerns the relationship between the task and the language that supports it, or through which it is realized. Here the question is whether a particular grammatical structure is required in order for a task to be com-pleted successfully, or whether it is possible to complete a task successfully using whatever linguistic tasks are at one’s disposal. Proponents of a ‘strong’ interpreta-tion of TBLT believe very firmly in the latter view, that learners should be able to use whatever linguistic means they can muster, and that an approach which imposes linguistic constraints cannot be called ‘task based’. As this is such an important issue it is taken up in detail in the section on focused and unfocused tasks.
A relatively new approach to the study of language acquisition in instructional contexts is ‘sociocultural theory’ (Lantolf, 2000). This approach has challenged the prevailing psycholinguistic tradition, which has dominated research into the place of a focus on form in the language classroom. It is based on the theories of the Russian psychologist Vygotsky, who viewed language as a social as well as a cognitive tool through which humans are able to act upon and change the world in which they live. Researchers using this approach study the interac-tions between two or more language learners as they complete a task to see how their collaborative interactions provide opportunities for second language learning. This typically occurs when one of the participants has a piece of lin-guistic knowledge that the other does not, or when the learners collaboratively co-construct a piece of knowledge inductively. The ultimate aim of researchers working in this area is to demonstrate how collaborative conversations provide opportunities for second language learning.
Focused versus unfocused tasks
A key issue for TBLT is whether the tasks themselves should be focused or unfo-cused. A focused task is one in which a particular structure is required in order for a task to be completed. An unfocused task is one in which the learners are able to use any linguistic resources at their disposal in order to complete the task.
Consider the following discussion task that occurs in a unit of work on the topic of ‘Inventions’.
What are the five most helpful inventions and the five most annoying inventions?
Make a list. Then explain your opinion.
[Illustrations of alarm clock, light bulb, microwave oven, braces]
Helpful inventions Annoying inventions Example: telephone Example: alarm clock 1 1
2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
(Source: Nunan, 2005)
It might reasonably be predicted that learners would need to use the superlatives
‘most helpful’ and ‘most annoying’, as well as clauses of reason with ‘because’, coming up with statements such as ‘I think the most helpful invention is the light bulb, because it gives people more time to work and play every day.’ However, there are numerous other ways in which the task might be completed without the use of these particular forms. (‘I hate alarm clocks. They drive me nuts. I go to bed late and I like to sleep in.’) In fact, the number of tasks in which it is pos-sible to predict, with a high degree of certainty, the exact grammatical structures the learners will use is relatively small.
In discussing the issue of whether a task can or should predetermine a particu-lar grammatical form, Loschky and Bley-Vroman (1993) make a number of use-ful comments. They point out that, while a particular form may not be essential for the successful completion of a task, certain forms (such as the ones in the task above) could be expected to arise quite naturally in the course of the task.
They also point out that, while linguistic forms targeted by the curriculum, the textbook or the teacher might not be essential, the use of such forms will greatly facilitate the completion of the task.
Willis and Willis (2001: 173–174) reject the notion of ‘focused’ (or, as they call them, ‘metacommunicative’) tasks:
The use of the word ‘task’ is sometimes extended to include ‘metacom-municative tasks’, or exercises with a focus on linguistic form, in which learners manipulate language or formulate generalizations about form. But a definition of task which includes an explicit focus on form seems to be so all-embracing as to cover almost anything that might happen in a class-room. We therefore restrict our use of the term task to communicative tasks and exclude metacommunicative tasks from our definition. One feature of TBL, therefore, is that learners carrying out a task are free to use any lan-guage they can to achieve the outcomes: lanlan-guage forms are not prescribed in advance.
However, this does not mean that an instructional sequence should not include form-focused exercise – merely that they should not be called tasks.
Consciousness-raising tasks
Ellis (2001) argues for a particular variant of focused tasks that he calls con-sciousness-raising (CR) tasks. Concon-sciousness-raising tasks are designed to draw learners’ attention to a particular linguistic feature through a range of inductive and deductive procedure. The assumption here is not that a feature once raised to consciousness will be immediately incorporated into the learner’s interlan-guage, but that it is a first step in that direction.
Ellis states that consciousness-raising tasks differ from other focused tasks in two essential ways.
First, whereas structure-based production tasks, enriched input tasks and interpretation tasks are intended to cater primarily to implicit learning, CR tasks are designed to cater primarily to explicit learning – that is, they are intended to develop awareness at the level of ‘understanding’ rather than awareness at the level of ‘noticing’ (see Schmidt 1994). Thus, the desired
outcome of a CR task is awareness of how some linguistic feature works.
Second, whereas the previous types of task were built around content of a general nature (e.g. stories, pictures of objects, opinions about the kind of person you like), CR tasks make language itself the content. In this respect, it can be asked whether CR tasks are indeed tasks. They are in the sense that learners are required to talk meaningfully about a language point using their own linguistic resources. That is, although there is some linguistic fea-ture that is the focus of the task learners are not required to use this feafea-ture, only think about it and discuss it. The ‘taskness’ of a CR task lies not in the linguistic point that is the focus of the task but rather in the talk learners must engage in order to achieve an outcome to the task.
(Ellis, 2001: 162–163) In designing CR tasks, the first step is to isolate a specific feature for atten-tion. The learners are provided with input data illustrating the feature, and may also be given a rule to explain the feature. They are then required to either understand or (if they have not been given the rule) to describe the grammatical structure in question.
The following example of a CR task is provided by Fotos and Ellis (1991).
A What is the difference between verbs like ‘give’ and ‘explain’?
She gave a book to her father (= grammatical) She gave her father a book (= grammatical)
The policeman explained the law to Mary (= grammatical) The policeman explained Mary the law (= ungrammatical)
B Indicate whether the following sentences are grammatical or ungrammatical.
They saved Mark a seat.
His father read Kim a story.
She donated the hospital some money.
They suggested Mary a trip on the river.
They reported the police the accident.
They threw Mary a party.
The bank lent Mr Thatcher some money.
He indicated Mary the right turning.
The festival generated the college a lot of money.
He cooked his girlfriend a cake.
C Work out a rule for verbs like ‘give’ and ‘explain’.
List the verbs in B that are like ‘give’ (i.e. permit both sentence patterns) and those that are like ‘explain’ (i.e. allow only one sentence pattern).
What is the difference between the verbs in your two lists?
This example is interesting because the grammatical structure does not appear in any standard grammar reference books. Despite this, advanced learners of English are able to identify several ‘rules’ or principles (Ellis, personal commu-nication). One of these is that the verbs permitting both patterns are from Old English, whereas the others are from Greek or Latin. Number of syllables is also a factor.
The place of a focus on form in an instructional sequence For those who accept the value in having a focus on form at some point in the instructional cycle, there is an ongoing question as to where such a focus should come in the cycle. In early versions of task-based language teaching, the tendency was to introduce the focus on form first, at what was called the
‘pre-communicative stage’ of a lesson or unit of work. This was intended to provide a basis for later communicative work, the argument being that it was unrealistic to expect learners to be able to use language that they had not been explicitly taught. In practice, this approach was very little different from the 3Ps (presentation, practice, production) instructional cycle that it was designed to replace.
Elsewhere (Nunan, 2004), I presented a six step pedagogical sequence which shows where I believe that a focus on form should come, that is, at step four in the sequence. There are several reasons for placing it here, rather than at the beginning of the sequence. Firstly, the sequence begins with a focus on the communicative ends rather than the linguistic means. In the steps prior to this, learners get to see, hear and use the target language from a communicative or pseudo-communicative perspective. They get to see and hear the language being used communicatively by native speakers or competent second language speak-ers. Hopefully, this will make it easier for the learners to establish links between the linguistic forms and the communicative functions.
Consider the following task and exercise types from the Interchange series.
Which types provide an opportunity for a focus on form? How would you sequence these types into an instructional sequence? What is the rationale for your sequencing?
Table 6.1
Task/exercise Description type
Snapshot The snapshots graphically present interesting real-world information that introduces the topic of a unit or cycle, and also develop vocabulary. Follow-up questions encourage discussion of the Snapshot material and personalize the topic.
Conversation The Conversations introduce the new grammar of each cycle in a communicative context and present functional and conversational expressions.
Grammar focus The new grammar of each unit is presented in colour boxes and is followed by controlled and freer communicative practice activities.
These freer activities often have students use the grammar in a
personal context.
Focus on form in the communicative classroom
In this section, I would like to demonstrate some of the ways in which a focus on form can be integrated into task work in the classroom. In the lesson extract that follows, the students are completing an information gap task. The pedagogical objectives are asking about likes and dislikes using ‘Wh-questions with “do” as well as “like” “like +Ving”’. The task illustrates the principle that tasks should show the relationship between form and function. In the teaching sequence, the grammar is presented within a context that makes clear to the learners one communicative use for the structure. It also illustrates the way that both declara-tive knowledge and procedural knowledge can be worked in to a pedagogical sequence.
T: Right, now are you ready to do the info gap task? Yes? We’ve done lots of these, now, haven’t we?
Ss: (nod)
T: The purpose of this task is to give you more practice in the language we’re learning in this unit. What are we practising? Remember? Johnny?
S: Talk about what people like.
T: Talking about what people like – good. And?
S: Talking about gift giving.
Fluency exercise These pair, group, whole class or role-play activities provide more personal practice of the new teaching points and increase the opportunity for individual student practice.
Pronunciation These exercises focus on important features of spoken English, including stress, rhythm, intonation, reductions and blending.
Listening The Listening activities develop a wide variety of listening skills, including listening for gist, listening for details, and inferring meaning from context. Charts or graphics often accompany these task-based exercises to lend support to students.
Word Power The Word Power activities develop students’ vocabulary through a variety of interesting tasks, such as word maps and collocation exercises. Word Power activities are usually followed by oral and written practice that helps students understand how to use the vocabulary in context.
Writing The Writing exercises include practical writing tasks that extend and reinforce the teaching points in the unit and help develop students’
compositional skills. The Teacher’s Edition demonstrates how to use the models and exercises to focus on the process of writing.
Reading The reading passages use various types of texts adapted from authentic sources. The readings develop a variety of reading skills, including reading for details, skimming, scanning, and making inferences. Also included are pre-reading, and post-reading questions that use the topic of the reading as a springboard to discussion.
Interchange The Interchange Activities are pair work, group work or whole class Activities activities involving information sharing and role playing to
encourage real communication. These exercises are a central part of the course and allow students to extend and personalize what they have practised and learned in each unit.
Source: Adapted from Richards, Hull and Proctor (1997: iv–v).
T: Talking about gift giving. Right. These are our communication goals. And what structures do we use to do these things? . . . Anyone? . . . Yes, Mary?
S: What do you like? And What do you like doing?
T: Great! And we use like to talk about things, right? And like doing to talk about activities. What about making gift giving suggestions?
S: Let’s.
T: OK, good, Let’s get him a CD, or Let’s get Tom a golf club. OK, now when do we give people gifts? When? Yes, Monica?
S: Birthday.
T: Birthdays are good. (Writes birthdays on the board.) Johnny?
S: New . . . new baby.
T: That’s a good suggestion. (Writes new baby on the board and continues eliciting until there are a number of events on the board.) OK, now get into your pairs and I want Student A to look at page 107, and Student B to look at page 108. . . . (Peers over students’ shoulder.) Johnny, you’re the B student, aren’t you? You’re looking at the wrong page – 108, please.
Good. Now, Bill likes the things the A students can see in the picture, but he already has these things. OK? Understand, Monica? Right. So, tell your partner what Bill likes, and your partner will suggest gifts. Write the sug-gestion in the space, and then decide on the best idea. Oh, Student A – start off by suggesting a reason for buying a gift – look at the board – it’s his birthday, he’s going away and so on. Right, off you go.
(The students complete the task. As they do so, the teacher circulates and monitors. When she hears a mistake, she writes it in a notebook, but doesn’t interrupt the students.)
OK, I think everybody’s finished now. Are you two finished? Right, good.
So, now I want you to do the same thing for Connie. B, tell A what Connie likes. A will make suggestions. Write them down; then decide, decide on the best one, OK?
(Again, the teacher circulates and monitors. At one point she is stopped by one pair, listens to their question and says ‘It’s called a subscription – a subscription.’)
OK, time’s up. Let’s hear what each pair decided. (Teacher elicits responses from the students and writes them on the board.) Well, that’s great – look at all these interesting gifts. Which of these gifts would you like to receive, Johnny? . . . Sorry?
S: The California Fitness Subscription.
T: Yeah, I like that one too. How about you, Sophie? (She continues, eliciting students’ preferences, and writing their names next to the gift.) OK. Now, you all did very well, but I noticed a few mistakes creeping in here and there. Look. (She writes the mistakes from her notebook on the board, and gets students to self-correct.)
I like this piece of classroom interaction for a number of reasons. In the first place, it demonstrates an effective teacher in action. At the beginning of the sequence, the teacher sets out the pedagogical agenda for the students. While the overall focus of the sequence is on the communicative task, she skilfully links the communicative goal of the lesson with the grammatical exponents that will assist the students as they complete the task. In addition, she demonstrates excel-lent elicitation skills, drawing information from the students rather than simply
telling them. As the students complete the task, she actively monitors them, providing models when necessary, and helps one pair out when they encounter a difficulty. In the post-task debriefing, she personalizes the task, and provides form-focused feedback on errors she noted as the students completed the task.
Samuda (2001) suggests that, in setting up a task, the teacher can provide either an implicit or an explicit focus on target language structures. She
Samuda (2001) suggests that, in setting up a task, the teacher can provide either an implicit or an explicit focus on target language structures. She