Statement of the Problem

3.3.1. Issues in the PPP Approach

The PPP approach has been criticized on several grounds. First, second language acquisition research has indicated that language acquisition is not just a mere mastering of a set of accurate products in a cumulative fashion, but involves interlanguage development through which language learners gradually move towards accuracy in the process of using language for communication. Second, Ellis (2003) holds that language learning is a process with developmental sequences, some universal. Language learners must go through these developmental stages, following their own “internal syllabus,” as opposed to PPP’s product view of language. Third, it is very difficult, as well as unnatural, to make sure that language learners use the target form in the production phase (De la Fuente, 2006). Finally, the production phase of PPP is very controlled with an exclusive focus on formS and leaves

little leeway for learners to use their own devices, or make their own meaning (De la Fuente, 2006).

Skehan (1996) argues that linguistic achievement rate in the PPP approach is relatively low and most of the students leaving the PPP programs have serious trouble in using the target language. The major outcome of the PPP approach, except for the gifted learners, is relative failure. Moreover, and more importantly, the theory behind the PPP approach has been criticized on several grounds. In essence, the theories advocating focus on form and automatization have lost credibility both in the fields of linguistics and psychology. The most recent theories of language learning contend that the field of language teaching is more than just converting input to output. These theories of language learning accentuate the role of the language learner as the builder of language knowledge, as well as, that of the authentic meaning-based activities where learners have a choice in approaching them. The student-centered and meaning-based class activities are the areas in the literature that has attracted a lot of attention and prompted a good deal of research (e.g., De la Fuente, 2006; De ridder et al., 2007; Gonzalez-Lloret & Nielson, 2015; Li, Ellis & Zhu, 2016; Lai, Zhao, & Wang, 2011; Shintani, 2011, 2013) by delving more into the PPP approach and TBLT via juxtaposing their effects on the quality and quantity of learners’ learning resulting from each of these major approaches. That is, the pros and cons of PPP versus TBLT in helping the learners master a language have been the center of attention in a body of research in the field of SLA.

3.3.2. The Importance of TBLA

Long and Norris (2000) contend that in a genuinely TBLA, tasks have a pivotal role of being the fundamental unit of analysis, motivating item selection, test instrument

construction and the rating of task performance. According to Long and Norris, the goal of TBLA is more than just using the real-world task in order to elicit a certain component of the language system which are then measured or evaluated; TBLA, rather, evaluates the performance of the task as the most important construct. In fact, language performance such as fluency, accuracy and complexity can only be considered in the evaluation of task- based performance conditioning that they are inherently related to accomplishment of an assessment task.

The development and implementation of TBLA for TBLT programs follows six steps (Long and Norris, 2000). First and foremost, the intended uses of TBLA within the TBLT program should be precisely specified. As such, four important issues should be taken into account including: who is going to use the information from TBLA, what information the assessment purports to assess, what the objectives of the assessment are, and finally, what the consequences of the assessment would be—that is, what and who is going to be affected by the assessment. Second, target tasks which have been chosen or designed after the needs analysis are examined and grouped according to different task features such as setting, type and amount of L2 used, and number of steps involved in completing the task, so as these features may be replicated in different assessment conditions. Third, test tasks, their formats, as well as their performance evaluation are determined in accordance with the analysis of the task features. Fourth, Long and Norris believe that this is the most important stage where the rating criteria for the task assessment is determined. These criteria include the real-world critical elements which relate to the aspect of task performance, and levels of success in task completion. Fifth, the test task, testing procedure and instrument, and testing criteria must be evaluated in order to ensure

their effectiveness and match with the intended assessment objectives. Finally, the validation of the intended use of TBLA must be evaluated. In other words, this validation process must be ongoing as well as systematic and determine whether the test instruments are providing the reliable and useful information (Long & Norris, 2000).

Task-based Language Assessment consists of tasks working as achievement tests that assess what students have gained from the course. Long (2015) contends that TBLA has two features. First, it involves task performance tests. The focus of these tests is on gauging students’ ability to do real tasks rather than on the language itself. Second, these tests are criterion-referenced; that is, the students’ abilities are not compared with other students, but the students’ performance on that task is evaluated solely based upon whether or not they accomplish the task. In the present study, TBLA will be given a special role in examining students’ mastering of the related language knowledge. In essence, the tasks utilized in TBLA will measure communicative competence of language learners rather than just their mere knowledge of the form of the language. In this study, an important point of bifurcation between the PPP and TBLT was the different approaches they adopt in examining students’ learning gains and achievement, since TBLA is a relatively newer area in assessment than assessment in PPP, it will be give more emphasis in this study.

3.3.3. Teacher’s Role in TBLT

Teachers can assume different roles depending on what teaching methodology they follow. Throughout language teaching history, role of teachers have evolved from being a sole speaker to a facilitator. Ellis (2009) deems a very important role for TBLT teachers despite the fact that TBLT promotes student-centered instruction. In reaction to

Swan’s (2005) criticism that TBLT teachers have more of a passive role where they only assume the role of a facilitator of communication rather than a source of information, Ellis (2009) holds that Swan’s assumption that TBLT teachers are only bound to be a manager and facilitator of task and communicative activities is wrong. Ellis goes on to state that the role of teacher in providing form-focused feedback during the task performance necessitates a more active role than just a facilitator or manager of tasks. In fact, teachers might at times be prompted to intervene and explicitly teach some problematic language items. Undoubtedly, this requires the teachers to be equipped with both implicit and explicit strategies of providing feedback. Ellis concludes that TBLT has the privilege of having both a student-centered and teacher-centered instruction. Van den Branden (2006) contends that tasks are subject to different interpretations depending on the educational goals, learning needs, and the style of interaction. He argues that despite the fact that in SLA research, tasks have been deemed as a fixed variable where learners are supposedly working on the same task which have rather the same effect on language learning, in fact, tasks are absolutely flexible and can have different effects according to different teachers and students who use it. Therefore, the role of teacher in making the best use of tasks used in classroom becomes more salient. Van den Branden further argues that teachers need to take two important points into account in their practice of tasks in classroom so as the task could provide the opportunity for high quality activities and raise the chances of eliciting actual learning out of these activities. These two actions include a) stimulating learners to put as much mental energy as possible into completing the tasks, b) providing confidence- boosting interaction which would encourage learner’s task performance, focus on form, negotiation of meaning, and input comprehension, all of which play a pivotal role in SLA.

According to Van den Branden (2006), teachers should make sure to provide students with not only high quantity input but also high quality input in TBLT. Hence, it goes without saying that great care and exactness must be taken into account in choosing the qualified teachers in task-based instruction and research. Fulfilling these goals through teachers necessitate well-organized task-based teacher-training programs. Nevertheless, despite the importance of teachers’ training in TBLT, the previous body of research on task-based research took teachers’ roles for granted in that either the background and specialty of teachers delivering the task-based treatment have not been mentioned (e.g., De la Fuentes, 2006; De ridder et al., 2007), the researchers themselves carried out the task-based treatment (e.g, Shintani, 2011, 2013), or a teacher was chosen who had some years of experience in teaching but these researchers did not specify if the teachers had experience specifically in the area of TBLT (e.g., Gonzalez-Lloret & Nielson, 2015; Li, Ellis, & Zhu, 2016).