1 / 32

Task Based Learning: The Role of Planning

Task Based Learning: The Role of Planning. Anne-Kathrin Miera Yacoub OStrR‘ i.H. Department of English University of Cologne. Questioning PPP (Present, Practice, Produce). individual learning needs ignored assumption of linear learning processes challenged real encounters missing

newton
Télécharger la présentation

Task Based Learning: The Role of Planning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Task Based Learning:The Role of Planning Anne-Kathrin Miera Yacoub OStrR‘ i.H. Department of English University of Cologne

  2. Questioning PPP (Present, Practice, Produce) • individual learning needs ignored • assumption of linear learning processes challenged • real encounters missing • need of authentic learning environment • idea of individual control of learning • cognition and social interaction (Little, 2003) • autonomous learner

  3. Learningatmosphere meta-cognitiveskills CONTENT FEEDBACK meta-linguisitc skills languageskills grammar lexis pronunciation PROGRESSION INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT T A S K S DIFFERENTIATION Constituents of the Second Language Classroom

  4. Legutke (2006): Aufgabe – Projekt - Szenario task fields: • classroom • curricula and teaching material • teacher training • task based research (window to psycholinguistic and social processes)

  5. TASK BASED LEARNING(concept favored in CALL research, stems from applied linguistics) • Series of tasks (pre- while- post-tasks) • Focus on meaning (FonM) • Focus on form (FonF)

  6. Bygate, Skehan, and Swain (2001) in Ellis (2003, 5)TASK – A Definition “A task is an activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective” (# exercise)

  7. Ellis (2003)Criterial features of a task A task… • …is a workplan. • …involves a primary focus on meaning. • …involves real-world processes of language use. • …can involve any of the four language skills. • …engages cognitive skills. • …has a clearly defined communicative outcome.

  8. Design features of unfocused and focused tasks (Ellis) • goal purpose (task-as-workplan, not output is described) • input verbal/non-verbal information supplied • conditions way information is presented (e.g. split vs shared information) • procedures methodological procedure (individual/group/pair work; planning time/no planning time) • predicted outcome: product (e.g. open/closed results) process linguistic/cognitive processes aimed at Not to be confused with exercises!

  9. (Legutke) Tasks in the classroom

  10. Ellis (2006) TBL Research Results • Results are inconsistent • maybe prediction impossible because tasks co-constructed every time • Rel. consistent results of research on task planning: • learners given time to plan tasks produce more complex and fluent output • Unpressured on-line planning can have positive effects on accuracy

  11. Models of Cognitive Processing • information processing models; computational model (Lantolf 1996) • Input • Temporary storage of material attended to • Long-term storage • Mechanisms for accessing material from long-term storage • 3 central constructs of language processing - Attention and noticing - Working memory capacity - Focus on form

  12. General Principles of cognitive processing • Limited capacity: bottlenecks in working memory that lead to prioritizing particular language aspects • Control mechanism: drawn from stored knowledge, taxes working memory • Top-down (encyclopedic knowledge/situational context) and bottom-up processes (signals in the input)

  13. Models of Speech Production Levelt (1989): 3 autonomousprocessingstages • conceptualizingthemessage - Communication goal - Developing sub-goals - Identificationofspeechactofeach • Formulatingthelanguagerepresentation/internalspeech - preverbalmessage (lemma (meaning/syntax) andlexeme (morphological/phonologicalinformation) • Articulatingthemessage - Self-monitoringprocess (check of original intention, internalspeech, overtspeech)

  14. Adaptation of Levelt for SLA De Bot (1992) for speaking in L2 • Conceptualising = Macro level (not language specific) • Formulating = Micro level (language specific)

  15. Models of Writing ProductionKellog (1996) • Formulation - Planning - Translation • Execution -Programming - Execution • Monitoring - Reading - Editing

  16. Skehan (1998) • Distinction between exemplar-based system/memory based (lexical in nature; single lexical items and chunks) and rule-based system (abstract representations) • Three dimensions of production: • Fluency (capacity to communicate in real time) • Accuracy (ability to perform to norms/learner controls) • Complexity (use of interlanguage that is elaborate and structured/learner takes risks)

  17. Questions • What effect does planning have on fluence, accuracy and complexity? • How do the findings relate to FonF, noticing and the working capacity?

  18. Ellis (2006) Planning Pre-task Planning: Access to actual task material # other types of pre-task activities (brainstorming content, studying model perform., dictionary search, etc.) Rehearsal:Performing the task before `main performance´ (task repetition) Strategic Planning: Preperation of performance (consideration of content and how to express the content) Further categorization possible: (un)guided (e.g. directed towards focus on meaning or form) or Participatory structure (only strategic planning)

  19. Findings of empicirical StudiesPre-task PlanningRehearsals • Positive effects on accuracy and fluency for retrail (recycling output ) - low proficiency: accuracy and phonology - higher proficiency: clarity/economy of speech • only for the same task; no evidence for new similar task e.g. poster carousel (Lynch/McLean 2000/01)

  20. Findings of empicirical Studies Pre-task PlanningStrategic Planning • learnerstendtoprioritizecontent(squencing, find logical order) • mixedfindingsofeffects on accuracy • enhancesfluency(fasterspeaking rate; fewerdysfluencies) • - strongereffectformoredifficult narrative tasksanddecisionmakingtasks (Skehan 1996) • - learners: greateramountofspeech/native speaker: less (Foster 2001) • - extendingplanning time did not havemajoreffect • - guidedplannersmorefluentthanunguidedplanners; but Foster/Skehan (1999) foundnoeffectofaskinglearnerstoFonF; SanguranfindscombinationofFonMcombinedwithFonFguidancehadeffect on fluency • - individual learnerplanningmoreeffectivethanteacher-ledandgroup- basedplanning (Skehan/Foster) • - specific form ofinstructionorgroupconstitutioninfluential

  21. Findings of empicirical Studies Pre-task PlanningStrategic Planning • enhancescomplexity(morecomplexsentences; wider rangeoflexis) • - increasingplanning time positive effect (Mehnert 1998) • - individual learnerplanningworksbest (Skehan/Foster) • - focuson F or M noeffect • - guidancehowandwhatto plan helps • The Studies suggestthatiflearnersaregivenenough time to plan stategicallytheyspendmore time on conceptualizing. Theyconsiderwhattheywanttosayratherthanplanningdetailedlinguisticplans. AskinglearnerstoFonFwhilestrategicallyplanningmay not makelearnersto do so. Ifstudentsattendto form theylaterhavedifficultiestousetheplannedforms in theperfomance. • Trade-off effectspresumed: fluencyandcomplexityatexpenceofaccuracy

  22. Findingsofempicirical Studies Within-Task PlanningUnpressured • Impact on accuracyiflearnersattendtotheirrule-basedsystemduring time given • moreprocessing time allowsstudentstomonitorlanguageproductionprocesses • Time-pressurehas negative effects on grammaticalstructuresthatareclearlyrule-based (word order) ratherthanlexicallydriven (e.g. irreg. Pasttenseforms)

  23. Consequences for SLTeaching Initiate interesting tasks of rehearsals/recycling output (e.g. write discussion in a forum, then rehearse it as stage peformance, act it out) Allow strategic planning time with challenging tasks Guide students in the planning process Allow students to plan individually (…before collaborative tasks – see Norm Green: Think , Pair, Share) Allow unpressured within-task planning Try to initiate structure trapping tasks (Skehan, 1998) in order to provoke a natural FonF without reducing FonM Be aware of the fact that the teacher‘s intention of a task completion might differ from the learner‘s actual task performance

  24. Discourse reconceptualization of planning ( Batstone:2006) • Learners‘ capacity to plan and to „push“ output are rooted in social context • Disposition of leaners influential, e.g. discourse spontaneity • Need for an approach to planning where social factors (learners preparedness to take linguistic risks and be assertive in their discourse) are congruent with cognitive factors

  25. Output pushing ( Batstone:2006) • So far in TBLresearch communicative discourse as aim for congruence between the social and the cognitve and to provoke ‘cutting edge‘ linguistic form (meaningful, non-mechanistic use of language) • „learner discourse“ better, because: creation of social context which supports risk taking and output pushing • „The equation between communicative discourse and output pushing is questionable, however, because sensitivity to one‘s interlocutor can easily deter output pushing and lead one instead towards conservatism and linguistic reductionism“ (p. 285) (e.g. describing pictures to a partner who sorts them)

  26. Research Methods ( Batstone:2006) • Confusion between linguistic token of complexity (e.g. subordination) and psycholinguistic tokens (degree of difficultuy for indiv. leaner) in SLA research • Learner-dependent measures necessary as e.g. think-alouds, other protocol analyses or as Ellis suggests pre- and post tests,

  27. Planning and Guidance (Batstone:2006) • If discourse relevance are disregarded planning hardly possible • E.g. Foster/Skehan, 1999: ballon example; guidance: think of arguments for character; re-grouping, no discourse structure • Finding that teacher-led planning superior to group planning questionable • Regrouping led to disorientation; discource-sensitive planning guidance important; e.g. initial case presentation phase, question and answers, discussion

  28. Learner Discourse ( Batstone:2006) • In communicative discourse, form as means whilst meaning is the end • In learning discourse, form is the end and meaning its means (not dichotomous to com. discourse) • E.g. pictures sequencing task • Monologues can free learners from constraints of clarity and econonmy (e.g. judgement task, two learners re-tell a story; more complexity – not communicative tasks, because content known)

  29. Consequences ( Batstone:2006) • „We need to think much more carefully about how to encourage learners to take risks and not to interpret the discourse context primarily in terms of communicative economy“ (289) • Be cautious with specific recommendations • More psycho- and sociolinguisticially sensitive research needed with regard to interlanguage boundaries and interpretations of individual learners

  30. Thank you for listening

  31. Bibliography • Batstone, R. (2006) Planning as discourse activity, in: Ellis, R. (ed) (2005) Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Philadelphia 278-295 • Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford • Ellis,R. Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research, in: Ellis, R. (ed) (2005) Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Philadelphia, 3 -33 • Legutke, (2006) Aufgabe – Projekt – Szenario, in: Bausch/Königs (ed) Aufgabenorientierung als Aufgabe: Arbeitspapiere der 26. Frühjahrskonferenz, 14-142 • Little, D. (2003) Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning. retrieved on: http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/goodpractice.aspx?resourceid=1409#toc_3371

More Related