CC BY
23
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TASK-BASED APPROACH IN
ASSESSMENT Normuminova H.A.
Normuminova Hulkar Abduvasiyevna - Teacher, DEPARTMENT OF METHODOLOGY OF TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE, ENGLISH LANGUAGES FACULTY 2, UZBEKISTAN STATE WORLD LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY, KASHKADARYA REGION, REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
Abstract: it is informed about Task-Based Learning in this article.There is clear evidencethat intake does not equal input. Effective learning is constrained by natural developmentalprocesses. What is consciously learned is not necessarily incorporated into spontaneous language production. Language in a communicative task is seen as bringing about an outcome through the exchange of meanings.
Keywords: TBL, CLT, EFL, form-based teaching, semantic and pragmatic needs, assessment.
One obvious outcome is the exchange of information in spoken or written form. But there are other possible outcomes to which the exchange of information may be contributory but subsidiary.
One feature of TBL, therefore, is that learners carrying out a task are free to use any languagethey can to achieve the outcome: language forms are not prescribed in advance. As language users, human beings have an innate capacity to work out ways of expressing meanings. Learners do notsimply take note of new language input and attempt to reproduce it. As soon as they put language to use by attempting purposeful communication, they begin to adjust and adapt input to enablethem to create new meanings. They are not aiming to reproduce a series of language forms inconformity with target norms.
TBL grows out of the more general notion of communicative language teaching (CLT). Hymes' notion of communicative competence encouraged a more critical look atlanguage and sharpened awareness of the need to make language relevant to students' needs andto provide opportunities for language use in the classroom. There were two strands to CLT. Thefirst was to do with syllabus specification. Instead of specifying a syllabus in terms of grammar and lexis, the 'communicative syllabus'specified an inventory of notions and tasks, identifying the semantic and pragmatic needs of the learners and proposing ways of meeting these needs as efficiently as possible. Instead ofspecifying items like 'the present perfect' or 'the definite article' syllabuses began by specifyingitems like 'making requests' and 'talking about the future'. However, although the communicativesyllabus claimed to specify notions and functions, it in fact specified linguistic realizations of thosenotions and functions. The syllabus was still a series of language patterns, albeit patterns linked to semantic and pragmatic values [2, 24].
The second strand in CLT was methodological. There was an emphasis on language use in theclassroom, and this was seen as a rehearsal for language use in the real world. But in general thecommunicative approach adopted in the classroom was a 'weak form' of theapproach. There was still a powerful tendency to see the study of language form as prior tolanguage use. Tasks were used to assist 'free' production at the end of a controlled form-based teaching cycle. The stimulus to learning was still provided by the identification of a new structureor pattern. Language use was seen as subsidiary to the study of language form. TBL, on the other hand, sees language use as the driving force in language learning, with the task itself central toboth syllabus planning and methodology. The study of language itself may enhance effective learning, but it is subsidiary to language use.
Researchers are now beginning to look at the nature and content of tasks themselves. A major problem, however, is that these andsimilar studies have been carried out under pseudo-laboratory conditions far removed from classrooms and using decontextualised tasks [1, 165].
There has been very little formal research into TBL in classrooms, where a host of different variables come into play. The 'same' task might be done quite differently according to where it comes in the teaching cycle, the role taken by the teacher, the learners' interpretations of what is expected, the learners' previous experience of the task type and the topic or content matter and other implementation variables, such as time limit, group size and participant roles.
Skehan exemplifies the effects of some of these factors when examining task use from a 'sociocultural perspective', arising out of the theories of Vygotsky and Lantolf. The focus here is on how participants 'co-construct the activity they engage in, in accordance with their own sociohistory and locally determined goals' [3, 94].
In one of the few classroom-based studies Skehan and Foster looked at the influence of affording learners time to plan a task before they carry it out, and also of the effect of teacher guidance upon that planning. Three classes were recorded doing three different types of task under varying conditions, and the resulting interactions were transcribed and compared. There were many interesting and sometimes unexpected findings, but generally learners who planning time had produced a richer and longer discourse than those with no planning time, as well as generally showing a stronger engagement with the task itself.
References
1. Corder S.P., 1997. The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5, 161-170.
2. Nunan D, 1992. Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Skehan P., 1996. Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis and D. Willis (eds.) Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. London: Heinemann.
