2.2. Conceptual Framework
2.2.10. TBI and TSLT, What is the Difference?
Many scholars, language teachers, L2 acquisition researchers and material designers valued the significance of communicative tasks in L2 development, but they differed in the way these tasks should be assigned to achieve language learning goals and objectives (Ellis 2003). Ellis stated further that communicative tasks were assigned in the literature in two different ways constituting two different teaching approaches; the task-based language teaching (TBLT) approach or the TBI approach and the TSLT approach. Tasks in the first approach are “units of teaching in their own right and have designed the whole courses around them”, whereas tasks in the second approach are incorporated into “traditional language-based approaches to teaching”
(Ellis 2003, p. 27).
86
According to Samuda and Bygate (2008), there is also a difference between the two approaches in terms of assessment and instructional design. To explain this, tasks in the TBI approach are used as a vehicle to assess students’ performance based on their successful completion of the assigned tasks. They are used to set language goals and assess students’
outcome as in the case of CEFR (2020). In TSLT, tasks are not used to assess students’
language learning but they can be used to diagnose students’ level. Also, they are seen as a tool by language teachers and students to serve particular language goals and objectives and used with varied pedagogical activities (focused practice, explicit instruction, exercises, etc.).
Methodologically, Tasks in TBI are the core unit of study in all syllabus design stages (from the needs analysis stage up to students’ assessment stage), with no explicit language instruction at the beginning of instruction (Long 2015). Tasks in TSLT follow the 3Ps sequence, which means that language form is first presented to students before being practiced in controlled manner then used in the free production stage; a stage where tasks can be employed (Ellis 2003). Nevertheless, Ellis (2003) warns against the use of TSLT and 3Ps interchangeably as the teaching process in TSLT can start with the production stage and the tasks in this case can play a diagnostic role, while the teaching process in 3Ps has to follow the “presentation- practice-production” sequence.
With respect to the tasks employed, tasks in both TBI and TSLT approaches are very analogous or even quite same but the difference is in the way these tasks are selected and assigned (Samuda & Bygate 2008). Also, as explained above, task completion is substantial in TBI as it is the base upon which students’ performance is assessed, while in TSLT, teachers use tasks to practice the already learned structure or vocabulary or to help them diagnose the
87
weaknesses in students’ language oral production. Table (2) distinguishes the tasks in both TBI and TSLT as stated by Ellis (2003), Long (2015) and Samuda and Bygate (2008).
Aspect TBI TSLT
Selection of
tasks - Based on needs analysis. - Based on the structure needed to be exercised through the task.
Sequence of tasks
- Contingent on the complexity of the task.
- Contingent on the sequence of the main units in the curriculum.
Role of tasks
- Core units of teaching and syllabus.
- Draws teachers’ attention to students’ weaknesses of language form.
- Achievement of tasks is essential to assess students’ performance.
- Enables students to notice the gap in their language production.
- Supports the current instructional material.
- Provides opportunity to practice the already learned grammar.
- Focuses on some pre-conceived vocabularies and structures.
- Reduces the cognitive burden on the part of students.
Language focus
- Is practiced through corrective feedback and meaning-focused activities.
- Is practiced through explicit instruction and corrective feedback during the presentation stage and the practice stage.
Classroom activities
- Are conducted through the work on the task.
- Are conducted through the work on the task and other activities.
Assessment - Is centered on the successful completion of the task.
- Is centered on the correct use of grammar.
Table 2: Tasks in TBI and TSLT
As for classroom behavior, these two approaches differ in matters related to teachers’ role, students’ role, turn taking, negotiation of meaning, and feedback among others (Ellis 2006). All these differences, as viewed by Ellis (2006), are presented in Table (3).
Aspect TBI TSLT
Discourse
structure - Loose discourse structure.
- Rigid discourse structure (Initiative/Response/Feedback or IRF structure).
Turn-taking
- Typified by the rules that govern our daily talks and conversations.
- Typified by the class teacher.
Types of questions - Divergent, referential and - Convergent, display and planned
88
unplanned questions. questions.
Teachers’ role - Supervisors and monitors. - Source providers and controllers.
Students’ role
- Active players during the process of language teaching and learning.
- Passive players during the language teaching and learning process.
Negotiation of meaning
- Provides huge opportunities for negotiation of meaning.
- Provides little opportunities for negotiation of meaning.
Feedback
- Form-focused (i.e. teachers highlights the mistakes in students’ oral production of the target language).
- Content-focused (i.e. teachers spotlights the content of the message delivered by students).
Table 3: Classroom Behavior Differences between TBI and TSLT
Having discussed the difference between TBI and TSLT, we can argue that TBI is the one assigned to the current experimental group because (1) the provided tasks are the core units of the syllabus, (2) students are assessed based on their successful completion of the tasks, (3) the focus is on language-meaning not language form, (4) teachers at the warm-up stage only refresh students’ minds to the topic-related vocabularies, and (5) students use what they know not what they are presented about language structure to report on the task. Moreover, as discussed above, TSLT is not entirely 3Ps since the last stage in the TSLT approach (the free production stage) can precede the first two stages to play a diagnostic role. However, on the assumption that both TSLT and 3Ps have the same “presentation-practice-production” form in classroom practice, then they both share the same characteristics.
To add more on the difference between TBI and 3Ps, Long (2015) compares “the focus on form” term to “the focus on forms” term. According to Long (2015), the term “focus on form” gives particular attention to the linguistic features students are able to use in proper communicative contexts, and this term is closely connected with TBI. On the other hand, the term “focus on forms” is confined to yielding some explicit instruction on some pre-planned
89
linguistic features, and this term is linked to 3Ps. Adding to this, Li, Ellis and Zhu (2016) argue that this pedagogic difference between TBI and 3Ps/TSLT suggests different theoretical perspectives, with 3Ps/TSLT centered on a more integrated system (the unitary mode system) since it supports only the explicit learning system, while TBI is more consistent with a neutral system (the dual mode system) since it postulates separate implicit and explicit learning systems.