Task-based Interactional Approach to Language Teaching: Potentials and Challenges
Main Article Content
Keywords
Task-based approach to language, turntaking, stroking
Abstract
This study was aimed to analyze and describe how task-based interactional approach to language teaching works with students in the classroom. Using Social Interaction Model as a learning vehicle (Eggen & Kauchak, 2001), different tasks were introduced to two sections of English 1 education students of education students of a sectarian college in the Western Philippines: section 1 (35 participants with twenty-nine [29] females and six [6] males); and section 2 (32 participants with twenty-three [23] females and eight [8] males). Each section was divided into smaller groups comprising students rated as: performing very well (PVW), performing well (PW), and performing poorly (PP) based on their midterm grade to possibly show that other aspects like attitudes and behaviors, and skills were included. Interactions were observed, recorded, and transcribed and were later used to reinforce numerical data derived from the survey. After series of lessons taken from English 1 syllabus, a survey was conducted using questionnaires. Findings show that the teacher and the students performed complementary roles; students recognized the need for listening skills; the impact of task-based interaction to students' confidence to speak in the target language and their involvement in the lesson were very commendable; and the minimal display of linguistic output was due to students' difficulty to speak in English and not because of gender differences. Based on these findings, the following conclusions were reached: (a) The reversal in role paradigm between teacher and students in a task-based interactional approach redounds to greater participation in classroom activities by the students.; (b) The lack of facility in English and the noise that naturally goes with the set-up in a regular classroom site and with the number of students (40–45) are the two major problems in the implementation of task-based interactional approach.; (c) The integration of social skills side by side with the four language skills were achieved in this approach.; and (d) Gender was not a significant factor of interaction in terms of turn-taking and stroking.
References
Carless, D. (2002). Implementing task–based learning with young learners. English Language Teaching Journal, 56(4), 389 – 392.
Chavez, M. (2001). Gender in the language classroom. USA: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.
Djiwandono, P. I. (2006). Cooperative listening as a means to promote strategic listening comprehension. English Teaching Forum, 32(3), 32 - 36.
Eakins, B., & Eakins R. G. (1978). Sex differences in human communication. Boston, New York:Allyn and Bacon.
Eggen, P. D. &Kauchak, D. (2001). Strategies for teachers. (4th ed.). Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Teachng English as a Second or Foreign Language. 7(3).
Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej. org/wordpress/issues/volume7/ej27/ej27r5/?wscr .
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. United Kingdom:Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task–based language teaching. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task–based interaction. English Language Teaching Journal, 53(3), 149.
Shehadeh, A. (1999). Gender differences and equal opportunities in the ESL classroom. English Language Teaching Journal, 53(4), 259.
Simich – Dudgeon, C. (Summer 1998). Collaborative strategies for encouraging collaborative discussion. Retrieved from http://
www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/directions/12.html.
Warschauer, M. (2001). Millennialism and media: language, literacy, and technology in the 21st century. AILA Review 14: Applied linguistics for the 21st century Retrieved from http://aila.info/download/publications/review/AILA14.pdf#page=55.
Wright, T. (1987). Group dynamics andforeign language teaching system,25(1), 65-81.