© 2002 by Oxford University Press
Point and Counterpoint |
From tasking purposes to purposing tasks
1 The University of Seville, Spain. Email: abruton@siff.us.es
In this section we present contrasting views on a topic of current interest. The first article is one that has been reviewed by the Editorial Advisory Panel and accepted for publication; the second is a commissioned response, to which the author of the original article is invited to make a brief reply.
Reactions from readers are particularly sought, either in the form of a letter to the Editor, or as a brief article (no more than 1,250 words), which will be considered for publication in the normal way.
To question synthetic syllabuses and PPP procedures is fairly commonplace in current ESOL practice. A recurrent alternative is to promote the adoption of task-based instruction (TBI) across the board. This has been an umbrella for a variety of different pairwork and group work (PW/GW) task types, whose purposes can be broadly classified under ‘independent collaboration’ and/or ‘communication’. Unfortunately, many collaborative language-focused tasks suffer in terms of content from the shortcomings of planned syllabuses. Nor is it necessarily the case that such tasks would contribute to improvement in oral development, just as open-ended PW/GW communication tasks, in terms of expansion or correctness, do not necessarily lead to oral language development. Although pre-task preparation and post-task feedback are expected to compensate for this, in practice they are somewhat ephemeral. The conclusion is that rather than adopting classroom procedures and attaching purposes to them, we should start from a consideration of the level of the students and the purposes we wish to achieve—and then select appropriate classroom procedures to meet these purposes.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. Bruton Vocabulary learning from dictionary referencing and language feedback in EFL translational writing Language Teaching Research, October 1, 2007; 11(4): 413 - 431. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|