Task-Based Language Learning: Possible Inadequacies in its application

Possible Inadequacies in the application of the Task-Based Language Learning

by O. G. P.

Subject: Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Methodology I

In this essay, I will talk about some considerations (often overlooked) during the application of the Task-based language learning (TBLL) in English teaching.  On the things I like about the TBLL, is the principle that teacher will attend the mechanics of the language after a meaningful language interaction has taken place. (TBLSIG, 2014). This way, there will be some linguistic topic that will come to attention and the post-task activities will be very useful because Ss will be predetermined to pay attention to what they have just communicatively experienced. Ss then may learn from their errors and may correct themselves or remember the aspects of language with more significance. I understand that there are many more advantages in this approach, but this time I want focus more on the critiques against TBLL.

TBLL is supposed to promote student-centered learning, so that the teacher only be a facilitator, and the students work to solve a problem or perform a task. I cannot resist, however, recalling in my experience, and highlighting some of the possible problems which my acquaintances and I have faced while studying under this approach. In my humble opinion, one of these is that, very often, the student’s feelings are not really taken into account. Some tasks may increase the level of Ss’ frustration if these are very difficult. I have seen how SS with better proficiency, are the only ones who sometimes have more facility to perform the tasks, but not everybody is able to learn the same way. Sometimes the Ss with lower levels of proficiency, are the very ones who are left behind when the tasks demand more than what they can do. So tasks should also use the principle “i + 1”, not to ask Ss to solve things they are not yet ready to solve.

Another thing is that when tasks are just too many, they may overburden the SS. At times, Ss end up seeing the teacher as the one who only assigns tasks and leaves all the work to the students, and does not do almost anything. So the amount of work should also be reasonable. Many times I have known teachers who only assign a huge amount of tasks, projects, or presentations. Then they evaluate subjectively the task performance, but Ss end up seeing them as teachers who just assigned tasks and raised judgments of tasks that they never modeled or taught before. In addition, many times, when presentations or explanations about tasks are given by a group of Ss, I’ve seen that if they are too long, many of the other Ss are passive or uninterested because they are not having real interaction and production at that moment. 

Finally, the so-called “fossilization” may be a problem if we totally deviate the attention from language learning itself and instead focus only on the delivery of tasks. Some Ss’ may prepare “a short oral or written report to tell the class what happened during their task; then practice what they are going to say in their groups," but for experience, I have seen that many SS with just memorize what they are going to say in their short-term memory, or read it without caring about the language use. After that, some of them forget the use of that language because their focus was not on it, but only in the task.

In conclusion, I recognize that the TBLL might be very useful for students who want to communicate and have the chance to be assigned tasks they are prepared to achieve, but one should also see that the assignment of tasks by itself does not secure the language learning of the SS. As TBLL advocators propose, I believe that we “learn by doing” tasks when we want to learn to do them, but there are other factors that should be taken into account not to apply the approach in a wrong way.

Bibliography

• Council of Europe and European Commission, July 2000. Methodology  in language learning  T-Kit. Council of Europe publishing.  http://youth-partnership-eu.coe.int/youth-partnership/documents/Publications/T_kits/2/tkit2.pdf
• Task-based Learning Special Interest Group (2014). “What is TBL?” http://www.tblsig.org/what-is-tbl
• British Council BBC. 26 April, 2004. A Task-Based Approach. Teaching English. http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/a-task-based-approach

Audio-Lingual Method: Errors & Horrors

Errors and Horrors of the Audio-Lingual Method

by Omar García Pérez

Subject: Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Methodology I (with professor Lic. Elizabeth Sosa Piña)

In thus characterizing the title of this essay, I will talk about what I consider the worst mistakes of the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM). I specifically will discuss how both its theoretical and practical foundations must be reasonably put into question if one analyzes them, not superficially, but in a deep way.

First of all, I must dispute the idea that the ALM has “strong” theoretical base, as Larson and other authors claim. It is no secret that behaviorist theory (the one in which the ALM is mostly based) has been severely criticized for years, due to its neglect of basic aspects of human language learning. The same goes applies to structural linguistics which, in the words of Chomsky, comes to be an “inadequate conception of language" (1972:20). Though still widely held in countless classrooms today (Yun Du, 2011:32), it is time for contemporary teachers to understand that language learning is more than “just” a system of words and that learning is more than just repetition, imitation and memorization undergone by means of conditioning, reinforcement, and habit-formation.

A second problem must be found in the weakness of the “natural way”-argument, which retains the idea that the best way for someone to learn a language is "hearing before speaking, speaking before reading, and reading before writing” (Goldstein 2014:40). This is certainly true for the way in which a baby learns his L1. Nonetheless, it must be noticed that there are serious differences between the way that we learn an L1 and a L2. One of these is very obvious: a grown-up person, unlike a baby, already has the ability to speak, read or write; and thus, it may be slightly foolish for a teacher to prevent the learner to use an ability he already has, if this can help him to accelerate the learning process.

Once the theoretical basis of ALM is weakened, one just has to consider the practical implications with the dialogue-based lessons. One the one hand, it would be much more practical just to show a video of a well-planed prepared conversation, than to have the teacher to serve as an actor and make the SS’s to learn his dialogues. On the other hand, let us admit that the idea of memorization without understanding is a naïve principle for someone whose main purpose is to learn to express his or her own ideas, rather than the ideas of others or pre-fabricated paragraph. Otherwise, the only thing that SS’s would be exercising would be their memory, rather not real linguistic production.

In addition, the repetition of these dialogues throughout a prolonged period of time, not only makes me feel as if the teacher would be mistaking students with parrots, but also tells me that in such cases, the learning process would be taking much more time than what it should. Not to mention the lack of a wider exposure to language. Another mistake, in my opinion, is the principle of “no grammar rules” given. This is even unrealistic if one should try to follow the so-called natural way of learning, because even children are meant to be taught grammar at elementary school in order to improve the use of language. It may be true that a person could eventually figure out all these grammar rules and learn how to use them in a spoken way, but this would possibly require many years of practice. Just think about how much time it would take for someone to figure out all the grammatical tenses or the verb forms.

The ALM, I believe, may be interested for people whose only need is to communicate in the spoken form, in very basic terms, but, to be honest, I would never ever use it for anything else because of its imperative behaviorist tactics, who are tedious and repetitive, and the time it would take for learners to pass from one topic to another. 

References:

• Chomsky, Noam. (1972) Language and Mind. Enlarged Ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
• Larsen-Freeman, Diane (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Teaching Techniques in English as a Second Language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-435574-2.
• Goldstein, Irwin (2014). Language and ESOL Methodology- a unique perspective. Trafford Publishing
• Yun Du, Xiang (2011) Gender and Diversity in a Problem and Project Based Learning Environment, River Publishers