Goals as task specification

Nunan (2004: 41-42) holds the view that goals are general targets of any learning task. Nunan argues that goals provide a direct linkage between tasks and the general/broader curriculum

Goals Input Procedures TASK Teacher role Learner role Settings

considerations. According to Nunan, task goals can either be specific or general. Nunan states that language teachers can, for example, provide a range of goal statements for teaching language to L2 learners. According to Nunan, an example of such statements includes, as a teacher, I want to develop learners’ interactional skills so that learners can use such skills for information negotiation with each other. Given a range of statements regarding task specifications, Nunan provides features that can best describe goals as task specifications. According to Nunan, such features include, (i) relationship to different general outcomes (for example, communicative, affective or cognitive), (ii) tasks also act as points of inferences for goals, (iii) there is an indirect relationship between goals and tasks. Lastly, (iv) a number of tasks and goals are embedded in complex tasks.

In relation to the task goals and goal features above, with reference to Nunan (2004: 42), Richards (2001: 113) is of the view that the choice of goals whether cognitive, affective or communicative, reflects the ideology and beliefs of syllabus designers about the nature of language learning, and the purpose, functions of education in general and syllabus in particulars. Furthermore, as regards to the reflection of ideology and belief of the designers, Nunan provides the early version of a task-based curriculum, the Australian Language Levels (ALL) project. According to Nunan, the ALL applied Halliday’s macro skills (aesthetic, interpersonal and personal) aspects as a point of reference for curriculum design and developments. Nunan maintains that the primary communicative goal for this project is the emphasis on language use and functions.

With reference to Nunan (2004: 42), Clark (1987: 226) maintains that such functions and language uses include, (i) the establishment and maintenance of interpersonal relationships. Through such relationships, information exchange, opinions, attitudes and so on, get done. (ii) Acquisition and use of information from a range of sources in the target language. Such sources include books, radios, public announcements and documents, tapes, slides and so on. (iii) Creation or reading, listening to or enjoying and responding to creative and imaginative uses of the target language. These include stories, songs, drama, poems and so forth. In addition, Nunan (2004: 43) reminds us that the goals may relate to both the language and other language learning processes and aspects. To illustrate the views on goals, Table 3:2 below, represents the ALL project on how its goals are sociocultural, process-oriented, cultural or communicatively clustered.

Table 3:2: Australian Language Level project task goal classification

Goal type Descriptions

Communicative establish and maintain interpersonal relations and through this to exchange information, ideas, opinions, attitudes, and feeling and to get things done

Sociocultural have some understanding of the everyday life patterns of their contemporary age group in the target language speech community; this will cover their life at home, at school, and at leisure

Learning -how-to-learn to negotiate and plan their work over a certain time span, and learn how to set themselves realistic objectives and how to devise the means to attain them

Language and cultural awareness to have some understanding of the systematic nature of language and the way it works

Source: Modified from Nunan (2004: 43)

From Table 3:2 above, Nunan (2004: 43) distinguishes between language purposes. Nunan clusters language purposes in three major categories. These include, (i) social and transactional, (ii) general and specific, lastly, (iii) academic and non-academic purposes. In expounding on his categories in a respective basis, Nunan provides examples of each of the above categories. For instance, according to Nunan category (i) involves language purposes, such as the purchase of goods and services. Nunan argues that the two purposes are sometimes intertwined in terms of authentic communication. In relation to category (ii), Nunan is of the view that general language use is the daily language that people use to communicate. However, Nunan argues that specific language is the opposite of the former. In addition, Nunan states that the purposes of specific language are further divided into the (iii) category, which involves academic and non-academic purposes.

According to Nunan, academic language course can focus on either specific subject area, such as science and technology or law. In addition, Nunan is of the view that academic language course can also focus on more general skills for tertiary studies, such as academic writing. On the other hand, according to Nunan, non-academic courses can also include courses, such as language for tourism and so on. In addition, Nunan (2004: 43-44) is of the view that the above distinctions can be applied to integrated or specific (for example, listening, writing and speaking) skills courses. Similarly, Nunan maintains that a programme might be designed to develop the specialised skills needed to undertake a study, for example, in an English-speaking country.

Accordingly, Nunan (2004: 44) argues that the most useful goal statements are those that are rather directly related to L2 learners than to their language teachers. Nunan states that such statements could be in term of observable performance. In this instance, Nunan provides an example of the

statement, such as “learner will give a five-minute presentation on a familiar topic, speaking without notes.” Such statements introduce us to the notion of learners’ performances as explained in detail below.

According to Nunan (2004: 44), focus on learner performance has been of importance since the advent of CLT. Nunan stresses that the advocates for CLT, such as linguists initiated the development of the conceptual framework for the Council of Europe. According to Nunan, early documentation of such linguists under the auspice of Council of Europe put more emphasis on performance-based curriculum. In a similar way, Nunan maintains that up to date, the Council of Europe still adheres to the performance-based approaches to L2 teaching. This is clearly expressed in the introduction section of the CEF that states that,

It describes in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn to do to use a language for communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively. The description also covers the cultural context in which the language is set. Council of Europe (Council of Europe 2001: 1)

Similarly, the CEF provides a range of domains/levels at which the above language use can be facilitated and applied by language users. The CEF categorises language users in three basic levels. These include, (i) basic users, (ii) independent users and (iii) proficient users. The three levels are further subdivided into other three level as illustrated in Table 3:3, on page 136. The table is the reflection of the global, behaviour descriptors for L2 learners at each specific level.

Table 3:3: An illustration of global/general scales of language users

Basic users [A1] Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed

at the satisfaction of needs of concrete types. Can introduce her/himself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details, such as where she/he lives, people she/he knows and things she/he has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly as is prepared to help.

[A2] Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of her/his background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.

Independent users [B1] Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly

encountered in work, school, leisure, et cetera. can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on a topic which is familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explains for opinions and plans.

[B2] Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topic, including technical discussion in her/his field of specialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.

Proficient users [C1] Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit

meaning. Can express her/himself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing the controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors, and cohesive devices.

[C2] Can understand with ease virtually heard or read. Can summarise information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations. Source: Modified from Council of Europe (2001: 24)

In relation to the Council of Europe as regards to performance-based approaches to L2 teaching. See, for example, Nunan (2004: 46-47), for similar orientations as experienced in the United States of America. Otherwise, the subsequent section discusses input as another task specification.