Tasks, activities, and exercises

Tasks can be distinguished from other types of classroom work (activities, exercises) using different perspectives. Kumaravadivelu (1993), for instance, interprets these from the perspective of how pedagogical procedures are viewed.

54

From this perspective, tasks are used in learning-centred procedures, communicative activities in learner-centred procedures and structural exercises in language-centred procedures. According to this point of view, tasks have a broader and more comprehensive scope than activities, which again are broader and more comprehensive than exercises. Like Kumaravadivelu, Ellis (2003b) distinguishes tasks from exercises from the perspective of the focus of the classroom work. According to Ellis, tasks require learners to “function primarily as ‘language users’ in the sense that they must employ the same kinds of communicative processes as those involved in real-world activities” (p. 3). Learning by this sense is thus incidental, in that learners ‘pick up’ language features implicitly through the process of task completion. Exercises, in contrast, require learners to function primarily as ‘language learners’, that is, they see particular language features as the objects of the learning. In this sense, learning is intentional.

Nunan (2004) offers a similar distinction by arguing that communicative activities are a ‘half-way house’ between tasks and exercises, because in communicative activities, learners are required to practise restricted language items, which is similar to language exercises; and they include characteristics of meaningful communication, which resembles characteristics of pedagogical tasks. Samuda and Bygate (2008) distinguish tasks and analytical activities, considering the former as holistic where learners firstly make a choice in meaning, which results in making choices in wording and grammarisation, which in turn results in choices of pronunciation. Analytical activities, according to Samuda and Bygate, start with a focus on “pre-selected language item or items, as in a drill involving the production of a particular vowel sound or a minimal pair contrast without attention to meaning” (p. 8).

For the purpose of this study, the distinction is established based on a number of criteria which are useful to see the differences between tasks and other types of language work (see Table 3.1).

55 Table 3.1: Exercise, activity, and task

Language exercise Activity Task

Description Language work that focuses on analysis (e.g., choose the correct form) or intentional practice of particular language features (e.g., drills) Meaningful language work where learners attend to meaning while bearing in mind to use some pre- determined language features directed by the teachers or materials A goal directed activity in which learners use any language available to them to reach a non-linguistic outcome

Focus Linguistic Meaning Meaning

Outcome Linguistic N/A Non-linguistic

Language used Predetermined Predetermined Not predetermined Completion

required?

Required Not required Required

Littlewood (2004) offers a useful continuum for task evaluation (reproduced in Figure 3.2) which comprises five degrees of focus: in one extreme there is non- communicative learning (focus on forms), which is aligned with ‘exercises’ by Ellis (2003b), or ‘enabling tasks’ by Estaire and Zanon (1994); at the other extreme there is authentic communication, which is similar to tasks (Ellis), or ‘communicative tasks’ (Estaire & Zanon). This continuum will be useful for analysing teaching practices in this study.

Focus on forms Focus on meaning

Non- communicative learning Pre- communicative learning Communicative language practice Structured communication Authentic communication Focusing on the structures of language, how they are formed and what they mean, e.g., substitution exercises, ‘discovery’ and awareness-raising activities Practising language with some attention to meaning but not communicating new messages to others, e.g., ‘question-and- answer’ practice Practising pre- taught language in a context where it communicates new information, e.g., information-gap activities or ‘personalized’ questions Using language to communicate in situations which elicit pre- learnt language, but with some unpredictability, e.g., structured role-play and simple problem- solving Using language to communicate in situations where the meanings are unpredictable, e.g., creative role-play, more complex problem-solving and discussion

‘Exercises’ (Ellis) ‘Tasks’

‘Enabling tasks’ (Estaire and Zanon) ‘Communicative tasks’ Figure 3.2: The continuum from focus on forms to focus on meaning

56

The distinction implies two versions of TBLT in the literature (Skehan, 1996). The ‘strong’ form of TBLT argues against a place for explicit attention to form in a task-based lesson. Tasks, according to this version, are used to engage learners through transactional activities in which language use is contextualised, where language is regarded as a medium of transaction for task completion. A ‘weak’ version of TBLT, or ‘task-supported teaching’ (Ellis, 2003b), sees tasks as an integral part of language teaching, but tasks are integrated into a complex sequence of instruction, where they are preceded and/or followed by focused instruction of language features. In this sense, this approach is “clearly very close to the general communicative language teaching” (Skehan, 1996, p. 39), in that it is compatible with a conventional version of CLT with PPP sequences, with tasks integrated only in the production stage. Ellis (2003b) states:

The distinction between a weak and a strong version of CLT parallels the distinction between task-supported language teaching and task-based language teaching. The weak version views tasks as a way of providing communicative practice for language items that have been introduced in a more traditional way… The strong version sees tasks as a means of enabling learners to learn a language by experiencing how it is used in communication. In the strong version, tasks are both necessary and sufficient for learning. (p.28)

Task-supported language teaching, therefore, is not very different from the weak version of CLT mentioned earlier, because in such a method “a language item is first presented to the learners by means of examples without or without explanation, [which] is then practised in a controlled manner” (Ellis, 2003b, p. 29). Even if there is no presentation of language items, the focus on particular language features that are believed as essential for subsequent tasks (e.g., through an awareness-raising activity) is present in task-supported language teaching.

The distinction between the two versions of TBLT is of relevance to the present study, a fundamental aspect of which is concerned with how the teachers implement tasks in their language classrooms. For example, analysis of classroom practices may result in where the participant teachers are situated in the continuum of meaning/form-focused outlined in these two versions.

57

The next section will further discuss task characteristics that encompass the underlying principles of TBLT presented above, with the purpose of outlining dimensions necessary for the analysis of textbook tasks and teachers’ practices in the present study.