1
LICENCIATURA EN ENSEÑANZA DEL IDIOMA INGLÉS
Subject: Materials Design I
Contents writer: Ana María Rozzi de Bergel
Teacher: Ana María Rozzi de Bergel
UNIT 2
ANALYSING AND SEQUENCING ACTIVITIES
This is the second part of the Materials Design I project.
Project theme: Catering for needs.
Project topic: There must be a good match between materials, curriculum and learners’ needs.
Project objective – Part 2: To design activities for integrative language use.
Part 2 product:Four connected activities, designed to cater for those students’ needs not met by the materials, as shown in the analyses in Part 1.
In this unit, we will be working towards this final objective but we will not achieve it yet. This unit’s objectives are:
- Define tasks, activities, exercises.
- Define types of activities according to performance outcomes.
- Analyse activities.
- Analyse a sequence of activities.
In order to do this, we will study:
2.1.Definitions of task, activity, exercise.
2.1.1 Activity or task?
2.2.Activity analysis
2.2.1.The taxonomy of performance objectives.
2.2.2.The educational dimension.
2.3.Sequencing activities.
2.3.1.Open and close-ended activities.
2.3.2.Skills-based sequences.
2.3.3.Sequencing content-based activities.
2.3.4.From easy to difficult, from the general to the particular.
This information will later be used for
- analyzing integrative activities in the following unit.
Key words:
activity – integrative – task – rationale
Core bibliography
Bruton, A. (2006) Description or Prescription of Task-Based Instruction? A Reply to Littlewood. The Asian EFL Journal. Volume 9, Issue 1, Article 12
Crandall, J. (1994) Content-Centered Language Learning. Center for Applied Linguistics
Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining “task”. The Asian EFL Journal, Volume 8, Issue 3, Article 1.
Short, D.J. (1991) Integrating Language and Content Instruction: Strategies and Techniques. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, Number 7.
Further reading
Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives
Digest.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Teaching.Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Kolb in Harmer, J. (2001)The Practice of English Language Teaching. London:Longman.
Littlejohn, A. (1996) What is a good task?English Teaching Professional, Issue 1.
Littlejohn, A. (1997) Language learning tasks and educationEnglish Teaching Professional, Issue 6.
Littlejohn, A. (1997) Making good tasks better. English Teaching Professional, Issue 3.
Littlejon, A in R.K. Johnson (Ed.) ( 1989) Beyong language learning: perspectives on materials design. The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press
Munby, J. (1978) Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Richards, J., J. Platt H. Weber. (1986). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. London: Longman.
Tomlison, ¨B (Ed.) (1998) Materials Development in Language Teaching.Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press
Interactive work
Remember to participate in the forums and exchange ideas with your colleagues. Prepare your questions before you come to virtual lessons, so that you can make the most of this weekly contact with your tutor.
Evaluation and self-evaluation
You will find activities for self-evaluation in the unit, so that you can constantly check your progress, but you will also be requested to send some work to your tutor, particularly, the final Evaluation, for her review.
We will now focus on the first objective:
Define tasks, activities, exercises.
TEACHING MATERIALS
Think about it: What would you call “a task”? Tick:
Is this a task? / Yes / Noa. A fill-in-the-blanks vocabulary exercise.
b. Reading a text and answering two pre-questions.
c. Using a real menu to act out a situation: ordering at a restaurant.
d. Playing charades in class.
e. Writing an e-mail to a business customer, as part of a writing lesson.
f. Answering a mock examination, as preparation for taking it.
g. Singing a song after learning the lyrics.
2.1Definitions of task, activity, exercise
Exercises, Activities, Tasks … the definitions of these words seem somewhat elusive. Perhaps the clearest-cut notion is that of “exercise”, because it evokes operations such as drilling, filling in blanks and changing sentences from active into passive. The boundaries between “activity” and “task” are not so well defined. Perhaps, the way to best way to tell them apart is not so much attempting a definition but analysing the approaches where they are inserted.
“Exercise” may be associated to grammar-based methodologies and materials designed according to the principles of Presentation – Practice – Production, whereas “Activity” belongs more to the realm of communicative language teaching. A “Task”, on the other hand, is a feature of Task-Based Learning, although it has been adopted by other methods and approaches, but it would be impossible to exclude Task-Based Learning from the very broad category of Communicative Approaches.
So, which word shall we use?
We are going to exclude the word “Exercise” from our materials design vocabulary, but we would like to explore the concepts of “Activity” and “Task”more in depth. Are they distinctive concepts? To what extent could they be used interchangeably? Does it really matter which one we use?
We will now seek to find some answers to these questions.
2.1.1 Activity or task?
Please read, from the Core Bibliography:
Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining “task”. The Asian EFL Journal, Volume 8, Issue 3, Article 1.
In his article, Nunan cites two definitions of pedagogical “tasks” before producing his own:
…an activity or action which is carried out as the result of processing or understanding language (i.e. as a response). For example, drawing a map while listening to a tape, listening to an instruction and performing a command may be referred to as tasks. Tasks may or may not involve the production of language. A task usually requires the teacher to specify what will be regarded as successful completion of the task. The use of a variety of different kinds of tasks in language teaching is said to make language teaching more communicative … since it provides a purpose for a classroom activity which goes beyond the practice of language for its own sake. (Richards, Platt Weber, 1986 p. 289 in Nunan, 2006).
There are some interesting features of this definition: the word “task” is used as a synonym of “activity” or “action”; a task is defined as a response, so it is not clear whether a student-initiated activity might also be a “task”; the purpose is never the production of language for its own sake, a feature which would clearly distinguish a task from an exercise and finally, the definition includes a mention to the role of tasks in communicative language teaching.
Further on in Nunan’s article, we are exposed to Ellis’s definition:
A task is a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or receptive, and oral or written skills and also various cognitive processes. (Ellis, 2003 p.16 in Nunan, 2006)
This definition appears to clearly distinguish tasks from activities or exercises, but if we explore Ellis’s approach, we will find his now well-known distinction between pre-tasks, during-tasks and post-tasks activities, where the apparently clear boundaries separating these concepts become slightly blurred. This is clear in his list of pre-tasks:
(1) supporting learners in performing a task similar to the task they will perform in the during-task phase of the lesson, (2) asking students to observe a model of how to perform the task, (3) engaging learners in non-task activities designed to prepare them to perform the task or (4) strategic planning of the main task performance.
Giving learners models of how to perform the task and engaging them in non-task activities designed to prepare them to perform the task are, typically, activities or even exercises.
Nunan, in the article we are discussing, defines tasks as follows:
My own definition is that a task is a piece of classroom work that involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to express meaning, and in which the intention is to convey meaning rather than to manipulate form. The task should also have a sense of completeness, being able to stand alone as a communicative act in its own right with a beginning, a middle and an end.
A cynical critic might point out that by attempting such a detailed and comprehensive definition of a task, Nunan has succeeded in blurring the concept altogether. According to this, only purely mechanical drilling, or learning sentences by heart, or the meaningless recitation of lists of words might be excluded from the “task” category.
Although we would not be inclined to regard a fill-in-the-blanks exercise as “a communicative act in its own right”, would we change our minds slightly if this exercise were a meaningful paragraph, clearly performing a communicative function once it has been completed?
Another interesting feature of Nunan’s definition is that it does not make any distinction between student or teacher-originated tasks, so when he talks about the “intention” of a task, we do not know whose intentions are involved.
However, it is clear that Nunan’s is the clearest definition and that it conveys the ideas of purpose, life-like behaviour and completeness which are typically associated with the word “task” and also listed by Skehan (1998) and cited by Nunan:
- meaning is primary
- learners are not given other people's meaning to regurgitate
- there is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities
- task completion has some priority
- the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome.
Which word shall we use?A proposal, more than a conclusion:
We will propose adhering to the principles of informed eclecticism, which state that methods and procedures should be chosen from a variety of approaches, basing the selection and combination of elements on the teacher’s awareness of the students’ needs and on his/her professional knowledge of various theories of learning and teaching and state-of-the-art methods.
When designing materials according to informed eclecticism, nothing should be decided on dogmatic considerations – because it fits such and such an approach – but according to what is best for what purpose. Materials designers should have a clear idea of their audiences and be able to choose the ways and means to best cater for their needs. Nothing should be excluded “because it is not done”. Quite the contrary: anything can be done, as long as we know why and for what purpose.
As we are advocating a balanced combination of elements coherent with the ruling principle of the design, we cannot adopt the word “task” and exclude “activity” from our vocabulary. We might use the term “activity” in our designs, but keep the word “task” for classroom work which may be categorised as clearly belonging to the scope of Task-Based learning or to discuss theories or principles by authors who use this word.
However, we will propose using the word “activity” throughout this course, so as not to burden the students with having to distinguish between tasks and activities – not an easy undertaking, as we have just discovered.
Students may, of course, decide to use both words. This will be accepted, but the author will have to define his/her terms.
Forum discussion
- How would you define “activity”?
Produce a definition and at least one comment on another student’s definition.
The discussion of Nunan’s article and your work in the Forum, we hope, have given you more insight into the meaning of “tasks”, “activities” and “exercises”. We believe you have achieved the first objective:
Defining tasks, activities and exercises
We will now focus on the second objective:
Define types of activities according to performance outcomes.
Summing up and moving on
In our analysis of the extent to which the materials used with a group actually catered for our students’ needs, we gave priority to whether the materials would produce the outcomes and performance needed by those learners.
Linguistic performance can be defined as “what we do with language”, in very broad terms. We use language not only for communication but also for the construction of knowledge and the creation of new technology. Language is the instrument of human cognition, social development and cultural transmission. It is then only natural that we should be primarily concerned with the type of performance that different kinds of activities produce.
2.2 Activity Analysis
Language programmes include three very important components, often called “dimensions” (Dubin & Olshtain, 1986): language content, product (a description of the desired end level) and process: how to get to the product. These components are subdivided into sub-components, as shown in the figure below:
Figure 1 – Components of a language programme
The way these components interact is determined by the ruling principle of the design of the programme. Activities, for example, will be chosen or designed according to the type of organization of the contents and to the roles that teachers are learners are assigned. Similarly, contents will be organized in various ways, depending on the course designer’s views of language and learning: in some materials, topics will determine the situations and language will serve these situations and topics; in other cases, topics and situations will be placed at the service of language structures and serve only as their carriers.
Given the interrelation between language content, process and product, activities should be analysed at two levels: the programme level, that is, the pertinence, location and relevance of the activity within the programme and the individual level, that is, the activity per se. In a top-down analysis such as the one we have undertaken, the programme level should precede the individual level, which is why we have started by analyzing a textbook or set of materials and will now proceed to analyse activities.
We will now present some tools for this analysis.
2.2.1 The taxonomy of performance objectives
Linguistic performance is the manifestation of the user's communicative competence, and it takes different forms according to its purpose of (the language operation the person is trying to perform) and the user's degree of language competence (the language operation the person can reasonably perform within his/her level of proficiency).
During lessons, students perform within different categories of performance, and hopefully switch from basic to more sophisticated categories within one lesson. Some items, however, remain in the basic categories for quite a long time. This might explain why students can normally read and understand texts well above their level of oral production.
The Taxonomy of Performance Objectives we are going to discuss, based on Bloom's taxonomies and adapted to suit the situation of learners of English as a Foreign Language, shows the basic categories. Ideally, items travel from Perception to Creative Use as the learner progresses in his/her command of the target language.
For materials design, it is important to remember that items go through all the categories in all cases, making it undesirable for the designer to try to skip categories. It is also vital to remember that if the teacher changes the method of evaluation, the student's performance is either promoted to a higher category – for which he/she may not be ready – or demoted to a lower category, which makes evaluation relatively useless.
Examples:
A student produces a very good account of an incident, at Transfer level, and the teacher does not grant him full marks because it is too short, and she expected the student to write at least fifty words more. However, there was no word limit in the task. (The teacher evaluates at the level of Knowledge: the academic parameters are more important than the communicative content.)
A student answers questions on a text, at Knowledge level, very accurately, but the teacher does not grant him full marks because he has not added his opinions on the text. However, the student has not been instructed to do so. (The teacher evaluates at Creative Use level: the teacher expected fully creative performance, but did not ask for such a thing. Her evaluation raises the activity to a higher level)
The teacher’s actions are outside the materials designer’s control, but an effective design may help teachers respect the parameters set for each category of performance.
In each case, we will describe what kind of action is required of the learner, what activities best produce this type of performance and how it should be evaluated within the same category.[1]
Please study the Taxonomy of Performance objectives now:
Universidad CAECE – Licenciatura en Enseñanza del Idioma Inglés – Materials Design I – Unit 2
1
TAXONOMY OF PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
CATEGORY OF PERFORMANCE / WHEN THE LEARNER'S PERFORMANCE REQUIRES...... / THE MOST USUAL ACTIVITIES ARE.... / AND THE LEARNER'S PERFORMANCE IS RATED IN TERMS OF ......PERCEPTION / Detecting differences, similarities, recognising correct forms without being able to account for them. Overall comprehension of what is read or what is spoken, awareness of functional meanings. / Multiple choice, Right/Wrong, True/False, substitution tables, giving titles to passages, recognising register, saying what people are talking about, matching words and their meanings. / "Right" or "Wrong" according to expected outcome, which is 100% predictable.
MANIPULATION / Command of mechanisms: the ability to manipulate forms with awareness of their meaning. / Filling in blanks, transformation exercises, question-and-answer exercises, drills, dictation. / "Right" or "Wrong" according to syntactic-semantic correctness.
KNOWLEDGE / Command of rules governing mechanisms, insight into theoretical language matters, being acquainted with the subjects in the textbook/course/materials / Accounting for, explaining, contrasting grammatical forms and/or lexical items. Summarising, abridging, reporting, retelling, learning textbook lessons. / Whether it meets - or not - certain academic standards of proficiency set by the tutor and/or the school.
TRANSFER / Application of text-based knowledge to life-based situations, re-created in the classroom with a view to establishing a connection between them. / Discussions, interviews, role-playing, letter-writing, reports, notes, expressing points of view in writing or orally, relating events, etc. similar to those in the textbook. / Whether learners are able to use the textbook material for communicating, and to what degree.
CREATIVE USE / Use of the language in open-ended communication or in life-based situations not modelled on the pattern of the textbook . Integrated application of the whole of the learner's acquired language. / Discussions, conversations, debates, live-role, written communications occurring in the learner's life, spontaneous language use. / Whether communication has been achieved, and to what extent.
Universidad CAECE – Licenciatura en Enseñanza del Idioma Inglés – Materials Design I – Unit 2