Tanzila Afrin

Ellis Rob (2003). Designing a task-based syllabus (electronic version).RELC Journal,34(1),6481.from http://rel.sagepub.com
Designing a Task-Based Syllabus
In the last two decades second and foreign language has become more and more characterized by
the communicative approach to language teaching and learning, whose main objective is to
develop the learners ability to take part in spontaneous and meaningful communication in
different contexts, with different people, on different topics, for different purposes (CelceMurcia, Drnyei, and Thurrell, 1997, p. 149). Task-based instruction is a new approach within
this framework, which calls for language teaching to be organized around different tasks (Long,
and Crookes, 1992; Skehan, 1998; Willis, and Willis, 2001). In this paper I summarize the
article, identifying some relevant critical view that have occurred and offer comments about
selected aspects; suggested some recommendations.
Journal Article Summary
Author describes the outline for designing a task based course. A task is work plan that requires
learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated
in terms of content. (p.64). A task based course has a distinction between unfocused and
focused task. The unfocused task has no effort to design a task to setup learners into using a
specific linguistic feature. But focused task aims to tempt learners to process receptively into a
predetermined linguistic feature.
In language pedagogy tasks have been used in two different ways. One is task-supported
language teaching where focused tasks have incorporated into traditional language-based
approaches to teaching. For example: PPP (present-practice-product) makes use of focused
tasks in the final stage of a sequence of learning activities that begins with the presentation of a
pre-selected linguistic form follow by controlled practice. (p.65). Another is task-based
language teaching whether of the focused or unfocused are treated as units of teaching in their
own right and serve as the basis for designing complete courses. The article is startled with the
design of task-based syllabus for task-based teaching.
1

The article explores two aspects of task-based course design: (1) the sequencing of the tasks and
(2) how to incorporate a focus on form into a task-based syllabus.
The sequencing of the tasks: Author says, The design of task-based syllabus requires that the
tasks be sequenced so as to facilitate maximum learning. In effect, this requires determining the
complexity of individual tasks so that the tasks can be matched to the learners level of
development and so that each task can scaffold the task that follows. (p.67). Author has
examined the proposal of Robinsons task complexity.
Now he identifies the various criteria that account for task complexity in term of input,
conditions, processes and outcomes. Firstly regarding input related factors, he has reflected
factors like medium, code complexity, cognitive complexity, context dependency and familiarity
of information. Secondly slight consideration is given by the task designers for factors related to
task conditions. He has consider three factors, conditions relating to the negotiation of meaning,
task demands and the discourse mode required by the task. Thirdly the factor relating to the
process of performing a task is much important but Ellis provides detailed discussion in ch. 8. He
has mentions Prabhus(1987) the reasoning needed to understand this. Finally factors like
medium, scope, discourse domain and complexity are related to the task outcomes.
How to incorporate a focus on form into a task-based syllabus: Considerations also need to give
emphasis on how to incorporate a linguistic focus into the syllabus. Here two different proposals
are examined. The first proposal originates in work on content-based instruction in school
contexts with ESL learners. The second proposal involves a modular syllabus and is broadly
applicable to all teaching situation.(p.74)
The article also ponders two approaches to incorporating a focus on form into a task-based
syllabus. In an integrated approach, content-obligatory and content-compatible language forms
are recognized for each topic area in the curriculum. It reflects the importance of teaching form
and meaning conjointly. It is demanding for syllabus designers. In modular approach, the
syllabus is apprehended of as two separate modules, one consisting of unfocused task and
another utilizing a traditional structural syllabus taught through a focus-on-forms approach and
through focused tasks for the process of L2 acquisition. It gives primacy to the kind of task-

based syllabus proposed by Prabhu but also provides opportunities for form-focused work as
learners develop and reach a stage where attention to form is likely to be 2 to them.
Critical review:
Task-based approaches to syllabus design, which focuses on the ability to perform a task or
activity, and not on explicit teaching of grammatical rules, have attracted the attention of many
researchers, language instructors and syllabus designers (Prabhu, 1987; Nunan, 1989). Taskbased teaching has the goal of teaching students to draw on resources to complete some pieces of
work (e.g., a process). In order to complete the tasks, the students draw on a variety of language
favors, function, and skills, often in an unpredictable way.
Task-based approaches recognize that learning is controlled by internal processes (Skehan
1996a:18), and that learners do not move from being unable to use a syntactic form to mastery in
one step, but pass through developmental stages of non-target like use (Long & Crookes
1992:31). Therefore, drawing on a wide variety of research from SLA such as work by Krashen
(1985), task-based approaches aim not to pre-select and teach language in a pre-specified order,
but to best create the conditions necessary for acquisition to take place (Prabhu 1987:1; Richards
& Rodgers 2001:223). Tasks provide exposure to rich input, as well as opportunities for creative
output and negotiation of meaning, believed to be key factors in second language acquisition
(ibid.:228).

Strong criticism of task-based instruction comes from Swan (2005:379-381), who casts doubt on
the theories that underlie TBLT. Firstly, in criticizing dependence on the on-line hypothesis that
learning only takes place during communication, Swan gives the example of adding the particle
(ka) to form questions in Japanese, claiming that with this knowledge one should be able to
form questions without acquiring it naturalistically. However, explicit knowledge does not
necessarily translate to the ability to use language. He further criticizes the noticing hypothesis
for being controversial and originating from informal analysis, and teach ability hypothesis for
lacking empirical evidence. Task-based interaction is further criticized by Seedhouse (1999),
claiming that it only produces a restricted kind of communication. It is unclear however, if he
includes focus on form in TBLT as part of his analysis.

Opponents to task-based syllabuses also criticize claims made regarding the benefits of focus on
form. Sheen (2003) proposes that focus on form is a myth perpetuated by proponents of TBLT to
support new teaching methods. Swan makes further claim that focus on forms is necessary, as
skill-building and practice of discrete items leads to automatized knowledge, stating one would
not wish to travel on a plane whose pilot had been left to acquire the skill of landing
naturalistically (2005:383). This analogy would thus suggest it reasonable to refuse to converse
with a non-native speaker on the grounds that they had not yet practiced, for example, English
past tense. Finally, Swan criticizes TBLT for being excessively concerned with acquisition of
syntax.

While naturalistic, task-based approaches may excel at developing increasing fluency, they do
this, Swan argues, at the expense of teaching new language (2005:378). While this may lead to
more efficient use of pre-existing knowledge, it does not sufficiently stretch learners interlanguage or encourage processing new forms of language. However, this criticism is also
recognized by proponents of task-based learning. Skehan proposes three goals for task-based
approaches: accuracy, complexity and fluency. Through careful structuring and the inclusion of
pre- and post-task stages he argues teachers can improve not only fluency but also encourage
accuracy and experimentation with new language. Likewise, Willis (1996b) includes language
focus and practice in the post-task stage to facilitate acquisition of new language.

Many proponents of TBLT recognize the increased demands it places on teachers. Skehan
(1996a:30) recognizes that teachers will need to command a significantly wider range of skills
than in more structural approaches, while Willis (1996b) states that teachers may feel
uncomfortable stepping away and allowing learners more control of their learning. Furthermore,
Shehadeh (2005:27-28) argues that one reason traditional approaches remain popular is that
teachers can predict language that will occur in lessons. This is perhaps especially valid for nonnative-speaker teachers who may not possess the confidence or linguistic knowledge to cope
with unexpected language.

Task-based learning relies on learners utilizing existing knowledge to complete tasks. It seems
likely therefore that task-based learning would pose a difficulty for absolute beginners whose
4

language resources are severely limited. Brown (2007:243), for example draws attention to the
fact that: In order to complete a task, a learner needs to have sufficient organizational
competence, illocutionary competence to convey intended meaning, strategic competence to
compensate for unforeseen difficulties, and then all the tools of discourse, pragmatics, and even
nonverbal communicative ability This is particularly the case for learners in the early stages of
general education, who may be better served by a product syllabus (Hedge 2000:361). Further to
these difficulties, a task based approach may not be in line with learner expectations of L2
instruction, which can make transition to TBLT difficult (Willis 1996a:137). However, Willis
and Willis (2007:217) suggest that by explaining the benefits of a task-based approach and the
principles behind it this challenge can be overcome as demonstrated by Loumpourdis (2005)
successful implementation of a transition from PPP to TBL in a grammar module.
A final problem for the task-based syllabus lies with the design and implementation, or how to
put together a series of tasks to form a coherent programme (Hedge 2000:360). Numerous
proposals have been suggested for the selection and grading of tasks into a course of study. For
example, Nunan, (2004:113-25) identifies three factors that affect task difficulty a) Factors of
input, b) Learner factors and c) Procedural factors. Careful consideration of these factors can
help teachers assess task difficulty and produce an appropriate sequence of tasks. It is also worth
noting that the problem of sequencing is not exclusive to TBLT and presents difficulty for all
kinds of language instruction (Long & Crookes 1992:42). Finally, task-based syllabuses are often
claimed to be incompatible with traditional testing methods. While it is true that synthetic
syllabuses lend themselves easily to testing, Nunan suggests that performance can be measured
via criterion-referenced testing (2004:146-147).

Task-based syllabuses offer a principled approach to language teaching and provide a

linguistically rich environment of communicative interaction to foster language learning.
Reflecting on my own language learning experience with a grammatical syllabus, I often felt the
content had little relation to the real world, and felt little motivation to learn the pre-specified
grammatical forms it offered. However, through communicating in a L2 with peers and friends,
outside the classroom I felt I made great improvements to my L2 ability. From my own language
learning experience it would seem that learning by doing is in fact greatly beneficial.
5

Furthermore, by basing pedagogical tasks on real-life target tasks learning can be made
interesting and relevant, therefore more beneficial and intrinsically motivating for learners.

References
Beglar, D. & Hunt, A., 2002. Implementing Task-Based Language Teaching. In: J. C. Richards
& W. A. Renandya, eds. Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 96-106.
Brown, H. D., 2007. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. 5th ed. White Plains:
Pearson Education.
Careless, D., 2002. Implementing Task-Based Learning with Young Learners. ELT Journal,
56(4), pp. 389-396.
Coulson, D., 2005. Collaborative Tasks for Cross Cultural Communication. In: C. Edwards & J.
Willis, (eds) (2005).
Crookes, G. & Long, M. H., 1993. Units of Analysis in Syllabus Design: The Case for Task. In:
G. Crookes & S. M. Gass, eds. Tasks in a Pedagogical Context: Integrating Theory and
Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 9-54.
Duran, G. & Ramaut, G., 2006. Tasks for Absolute Beginners and Beyond: Developing and
Sequencing Tasks at Basic Proficiency Levels. In: K. Van den Branden, ed. Task-Based
Language Education: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4775.
Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (., 2005. Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching. 1st
ed. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Evans, S., 2013. Designing Tasks for the Business English Classroom. ELT Journal, 67(3), pp.
281-293.
Foster, P., 1999. Task-Based Learning and Pedagogy. ELT Journal, 53(1), pp. 69-70.
Harumi, S., 2010. Classroom Silence: Voices from Japanese EFL Learners. ELT Journal, 65(3),
pp. 260-269.