2.2. Conceptual Framework
2.2.12. Critical Review of the Most Influential TBI Frameworks
Prabhu (1987), one of the earliest theoreticians to design tasks for language teaching, believed that students learn more effectively when they engage in completing tasks than when they focus on the language they use as, for him, the prominent condition of education is students’
engagement. Based on this view, a general TBI structure of two sequential phases was posited by Prabhu (1987) to promote language learning; the pre-task phase (teacher-centered activity) and the task phase (student-centered activity).
For Prabhu (1987), the purpose of the first phase is to prepare students to do the task in the way which ensures their acquisition of the intended language. He argues that, the first phase is not an introduction to the topic and the task as some may interpret but rather it is a teacher- centered activity publically performed in a whole-class context to get students to understand the nature of the employed task and to scaffold their performance when they start performing the task. He also avers that this phase is best executed through interaction using the question-answer technique and through task rehearsals. He, then, assures the close nexus between task performance and task rehearsal; namely, the closer the rehearsal for the employed task is, the better the performance of the assigned task is.
The second phase is centered on the task itself, during which students work individually to perform a similar but not the same rehearsed task. Prabhu (1987) warns against reducing students’ cognitive challenges to just a mere recall of rehearsed tasks. In this sense, Prabhu (1987, p. 53) states that “[E]ach task requires the independent effort of mind, i.e. it is not possible to transfer either the outcome or the procedures of one mechanically to the other”.
Moreover, this second phase provides students with opportunities to feel confidence of success when they realize that they are able to complete the task without teachers’ assistance. Not only
92
this, the second phase also enables students to take risks in front of their peers; meanwhile, creates an atmosphere of rivalry and comparison among students when they make public reports, which are subject to assessment and discussion by both teachers and other students.
Furthermore, the second phase is an opportunity for teachers to assess the arduousness of the task, and then, the ability to adjust task complexity in the following tasks to suit students’
cognitive ability, resulting in an improvement in students’ task performance. However, this does not mean that teachers should adjust the task to be too easy but rather they should adjust the task to enable students to perform it with some effort. For Prabhu (1987), if the task is easy, students will lose the willingness and motivation to perform the task, and if it is too demanding, students will be reluctant to make effort to perform it. To recapitulate, Prabhu (1987) does not support the use of small group work in his model as students work in a whole-class context during the pre-task phase and work individually during the second phase. Moreover, teachers’ roles are critical in this model as they simplify, paraphrase and repeat the input to make it comprehensible. They also may intervene when and where imperative to reformulate students’
speaking performance to be more native-like.
However, criticizing Prabhu’s (1987) TBI model for ignoring the importance of providing real-life communicative activities and disregarding the significant role of small group work in enhancing L2 learning, Willis (1996) propounded a framework of three phases to get over these limitations: the pre-task phase (introduction to the topic and the task), the task cycle phase (task, planning and report) and the language focus phase (analysis and practice). In her model, Willis prioritizes small group work during the second phase and allows for teacher- centered activities during the first and third phases. By doing so, she aims to reach fluency level in the second phase and accuracy level in the third phase.
93
Moreover, Willis’s TBI framework is distinguished from others in that it advises teachers to stand back and monitor students while they work on the task themselves during the main task phase. Willis (1996) also claims that students will not be able to learn the target language unless the following conditions are fulfilled: (1) students are provided with abundant opportunities to use the target language in real-life situations, (2) the priority should be given to language meaning rather than language form, which means that there is no need to make language form perfect, and (3) too much emphasis on language meaning through group work without giving attention to language form may result in grammar fossilization coupled with the risk of developing language fluency at the expense of language accuracy, a matter which necessitates combing both language meaning and form to develop both skills. Adding to those three rudiments, this model is advantageous in the way it allows for ample exposure to the target language either before or during the task cycle and for more focus on the language used and processed for meaning during its second phase, enabling students to meet the three essential conditions and a desirable one for learning: motivation, exposure, use and explicit focus on language structure respectively. Further information about this model is provided in the following “overview of Willis’s (1996) TBI framework” sub-section.
Nevertheless, despite recognizing the importance of using a wide variety of authentic activities that bring language form into focus, Willis’s (1996) TBI framework was criticized by Skehan (1996) for not having a clear and comprehensive theoretical foundation, but; however, it was considered a starting point from which Skehan’s (1996) TBI framework was developed.
This latter model, unlike Willis’ (1996) model, suggests a balanced focus on both language meaning and form by manipulating students’ attention to form through some instructional choices. Another distinction between Willis’s (1996) TBI model and Skehan’s (1996) TBI
94
model is that, this latter model advocates the focus on form before meaning while the former supports the focus on meaning before form.
Through his model, Skehan (1996), which is a strong proponent of the cognitive approach, propounds a framework of three sequential phases for effective language learning: the pre-emptive task phase (introduction to the task), the during-task phase (mediating accuracy and fluency) and the post-task phase (encouraging accuracy and restructuring). This model values the role of information processing, attention and mental representation in L2 learning and draws appropriate attention to both language competence and language performance. He also argues that effective language learning will not take place unless; (1) a considerable amount of input is received, (2) attention to form is enhanced and manipulated to overcome students’ limited attentional capacities, (3) a balance in language fluency and accuracy development is achieved, (4) a reflection on students’ produced language is stimulated to help students reorganize the new knowledge, and (5) the newly-attained language is practiced to help students develop from controlled to automatic information processing.
The aim of the first phase is to enhance students’ familiarity with the task so that students are more able to restructure the newly-attained language in their language system during the central information processing stage. It also intends to reduce students’ consumption of their attentional capacities, leaving some attention to the actual language use necessary to develop students’ speaking performance in terms of fluency, accuracy and complexity. The second phase is the central processing phase, during which students process the information received from the first phase for both meaning and form, leading to the development of both exemplar-based and rule-based systems. This second phase also enables students to connect the new language knowledge with the already existing one, conductive to language restructuring.
95
Moreover, according to Skehan (1996), it is important for teachers to make appropriate decisions about both task choice and task implementation. That is, teachers may consider choosing the task that is suitable for students’ cognitive abilities and consider manipulating students’ attention to release more attention to students’ production, or; otherwise, students’
attentional capacities are fully consumed during this second phase, leaving very little cognitive abilities to communicate during the last phase. The third phase provides students with opportunities to do public performance on the language processed for meaning and form through the first two phases, leading to an automatized cognitive processing of information, which is soon reflected in students’ speaking performance in terms of fluency, accuracy and complexity.
Notwithstanding, discrediting Skehan’s (1996) model for interpreting language learning from a purely cognitive perspective and neglecting the active role played by students in language learning, Ellis (2003) proposed two different TBI framework options based on Long’s (1981, 1983, 1996) interactionist theory and Swain’s (1985, 1995) output hypothesis to enhance effective language learning. These two framework options were also designed to address the huge gap between teaching and learning of L2 grammar as recognized by Ellis when he was teaching in a secondary school in Zambia. The first framework postulates that there is no need to explicitly teach grammar as students will acquire it spontaneously during their exposure and practice of the target language. This first framework consists of three sequential phases: the pre- task phase (consciousness-raising activities), the during-task phase (manipulating the target language) and the post-task phase (real-life use).
In this model, Ellis (2003) gives special attention to language meaning and to providing authentic activities that demand students to perform various cognitive processes as crucial to
96
enhance their learning. This model is distinguished from all other models in that it suggests the use of specific instructional choices (e.g., the use of sufficient time and suitable topics) to ensure students’ full communication and interaction on the task, and consequently, the ability of students to attain language form simultaneously without having to provide explicit linguistic instruction.
According to this model, the first phase is a good opportunity to plan for the task and establish its outcome. It is also a chance to regulate the time needed to complete the task and to do similar tasks. This phase is beneficial as it reduces students’ cognitive burden to avoid consuming their attention very early and also increases their confidence when they start reporting on the task. The second phase provides students with opportunities to work in pair or groups to complete the task, enabling them to receive comprehensible input, notice the difference in their own language and practice the target language.
Teachers’ roles during the second phase are crucial as they should look for effective ways to correct students’ mistakes and trigger them to react to the assigned task. Moreover, it is not expected from teachers to intervene during students’ communication unless it is necessary.
However, if they have to intervene, they should find ways to implicitly direct students’ attention to language form. This may include, according to Ellis (2003), manipulating and channeling planning time so that students are provided with sufficient time to rephrase and revise their report, leading to better speaking performance in terms of fluency and accuracy. He adds that the topic itself may be regulated as students’ familiarity with the topic influences their performance. That is, if students have a prior knowledge of the topic, chances to engage and interact in the task are increased.
97
The third phase yields students with opportunities to practice speaking by reporting on the task in front of the class. It is also the time when the task may be repeated as an instructional choice to increase students’ attention to the gap in their produced language and also to increase their confidence when reporting on the same task on second occasions. Finally, the reporting group, during the last phase, may be exposed to any task-related input from the other groups, and then they discuss their understanding with the other groups, enabling students to notice their gaps and process for both language meaning and language form.
Notwithstanding, realizing that students’ exposure and practice of the target language were not enough to master L2 structure, another TBI framework option of five sequential phases was introduced by Ellis (2003) not to teach grammar but rather to improve students’ L2 grammatical knowledge: the task listening phase, the task noticing phase, the task consciousness-raising phase, the task checking phase and the task production phase. Ellis (2003) claims that students have limited attentional capacities to simultaneously attend to form when language meaning is the main goal, and then they need a new model that focuses on language meaning; meanwhile, provides students with opportunities to process language form.
According to this model, the first two phases provide students with good opportunities to receive comprehensible input and process it for meaning through a listening activity. The third phase increases students’ awareness of the target grammar by analyzing the data in the assigned listening activity. The fourth phase helps students understand the target grammar as it provides practical training on the target grammar. The last phase enables students to test their own hypotheses about the target grammar using their own sentences in order to check if it is understandable or not.
98
However, believing in the importance of directing students’ attention to form during task performance as the most effective way to enhance students’ learning in dispute with all other models, Long (1991) posited a model of three main sequential phases and seven sub-phases. The main sequential phases include the task development phase, the task implementation phase and the task evaluation/ assessment phase. The seven sub-phases encompass analyzing students’
needs of communication to pinpoint the task, classifying the task into target task types, deriving a pedagogical task, sequencing the pedagogical task to constitute a task-based curriculum, implementing the pedagogical task with a proper methodology, assessing the pedagogical task using criterion-referenced, task-based and performance tests, and finally evaluating the whole program.
This model uses the term “focus on form” to get students to know the linguistic features they are able to use in proper communicative contexts. This term is distinguished from the term
“focus on forms” which is confined to providing explicit instruction on some linguistic features and from the term “focus on meaning” which gives no attention to any linguistic features. For Long (1991), the adoption of the above task sequence is particularly significant in promoting language learning as it can create useful patterns of communication breakdown, which are considered critical by him to enhance the process of negotiation of meaning. That is to say, the communication breakdown is the perfect time for teachers to intervene and help students focus on form. He further states that teachers’ assistance should indirectly be provided so that students are able to solve their own problems and continue to negotiate for meaning, a matter which enhances students’ language learning.
This account lucidly reflects Long’s (1981, 1983) firm belief, through his interactionist theory, that negotiation of meaning is pivotal in enhancing L2 acquisition. According to Long
99
(1981, 1983), the process of negotiation of meaning is substantial to direct students’ attention to form as it enables students to receive negative feedback and modify their utterance to be comprehensible, conductive to language learning. To encapsulate this, Long (1991) views language learning as a result of students’ interaction with input sources during the process of negotiation of meaning, the occurrence of communication breakdown, the incidental and implicit focus on form and finally students’ notice of the target linguistic features.
Nevertheless, questioning all above models that called for task sequencing to foster language learning, Nunan (2004) suggested a model of six non-sequential phases to promote language learning: the schema building phase, the controlled practice phase, the authentic listening practice phase, the linguistic-related focus phase, the freer practice phase and the communicative task phase. Nunan (2004) argues that students do not master a learning goal or objective in a sequential order but rather in an unsteady sequence. He particularly questions the model by Long (1991) for disregarding the significant role of explicit instruction (focus on forms) in language learning. This model is also distinct from all above-reviewed models in that Nunan (2004) waits until the end of the learning process to perform the main communicative task because he thinks that the task is the accrual of all other works. To put it differently, students do not perform the task themselves until they get considerable linguistic instruction and practice the newly-attained linguistic knowledge in a communicative environment. In this sense, the model suggested by Nunan (2004) is close to that of the weak version of TBI; the 3Ps model, but it differs in that the controlled practice in Nunan’s (2004) work is done in a more communicative context.
In his model, Nunan (2004) urges the use of topic-based units in all TBI-related materials and insists that each unit should tackle three main functions: (1) the ideational function
100
which forms the ideas, feelings and thoughts about the external world and the logical relations among them, (2) the interpersonal function which organizes the relations between language receivers and speakers in a given discursive situation, and (3) the textual function which connects the intended language with the given situation to produce semantically coherent and structurally cohesive materials. He also avers that each of the above three functions should be linked to certain linguistic features to enhance students’ development of both language meaning and language form.
To delineate this model, the first phase activates students’ existing language knowledge to enable them to easily construct the new language knowledge. During this phase, some key vocabularies and information about the assigned task are introduced through teacher-student interaction to free students’ attentional capacities for the following cognitive processes. The second phase provides students with chances to practice the target language functions, structures and vocabularies using certain activities controlled by teachers whose role is significant in correcting students’ mistakes and providing positive feedback. The third phase aims to expose students to native/native-like conversations and also intends to practice as much receptive skills as possible to implicitly increase students’ attention to language form.
The fourth phase serves to explicitly increase students’ attention to grammatical and/ or lexical features of the intended language. The fifth phase, unlike the controlled practice in the second phase, enables students to engage in free practice of the target language in terms of functions, structures and vocabularies. The last phase encourages students to use the language they learned during the earlier phases to perform the communicative tasks assigned by their teachers. However, despite his success in providing students with the four learning conditions;
motivation, exposure, practice and explicit linguistic instruction, Nunan’s (2004) TBI
101
framework was disregarded in the later works of the above theorists and theoreticians such as Ellis (2018), Long (2015) and Willis and Willis (2007), in which the use of sequential tasks was prescribed as mandatory to achieve effective language learning.
Having reviewed the most influential TBI frameworks, it can be inferred that TBI frameworks can be categorized into three categories: meaning-focused category (e.g., Ellis 2003; Prabhu 1987; Willis 1996), form-focused category (e.g., Long 1991, 2015; Nunan 1989) and balanced-focused category (e.g., Skehan 1996, 1998). From all above TBI frameworks, the researcher selected the framework developed by Willis in 1996, (see Appendix “A”), to be implemented in the current research site on the experimental group during the period of the treatment. Furthermore, he embraced it to develop the current research methods and used it as a reference point to analyze the research data and interpret the research results.