Presented by:Nastaran Rashidi,Mina Keivanlo,and Mahsa Fallah Engaging students in a series of communicative tasks. TBLT is based on a view of language learning that claims a L2 is best learned through learner’s effort to communicate with it. Every task has 4 criteria: 1.it should be meaningful(semantic and pragmatic) 2.there should be a gap 3.learners should rely on their own resources 4.language is a means to achieve outcome not as end Situational grammar exercises satisfy the criteria 2 and 3 which means there is a gap and learners should rely on their own learning but it doesn’t satisfy criteria 1 and 4 as the outcome is primarily the use of correct language Task-based:requires a syllabus consisting of unfocused tasks,the content of the instructional programme is specified in terms of the tasks to be completed Task-supported language teaching:utilises a structural syllabus and typically involves(presentation,parctice,production) According to widdowson:task-supported language teaching is likely to result in encoded usage rather than realization as purposeful use Unfocused task:designed to help learners to use language communicatively in general Focused task:are designed to help learner to use language communicatively by using specific language features Input-providing tasks:engage learner in listening and reading Output-providing tasks:engage learner in speaking and writing Closed-outcme task:has limited number of outcomes Oped-outcome task:has many possible outcomes Macro-evaluation can be defined as evaluation that seeks to answer one or both of the following question: 1.to what extent was the programme/project effective and efficient in meeting its goals 2.in what face can the programme/project be improved? Is an evaluation carried out for accountability or developmental purposes by collecting information relating to various administrative and curricular aspects of the programme including teaching materials A narrow focus on some specific aspects of the curriculum or the administration of the programme macro-evaluation may eventually emerge bottom-up from repeated micro evaluations Bretta ,Davies sought to compare the learning outcome of learners involved in the project(experimental group)with those in traditional classes(control group). Tests that favoured the experimental group (task-based test)….those that favoured the control group(structuretest)…and 3neutral test(contextualized grammar,,,dictation,,,reading/listening comprehension) In the neutral test ,the experimental group scored higher than the control group. on the group –biased test the experimental group did better on the task-based tests and control group scored higher in the structural test. they conclude that the results of the evaluation support the claim that task-based instruction produce different results from form-focused instruction. And this is reflected in the task-based learners superior acquisition of the structure that havenot explicitly taught and also in their ability to deploy what they have learned more readily. bretta collected historical narrative from 15 teacher and then rated it: 1)orientation:( lack of understanding task based and failed to implement it) 2)routine: understanding the rationale and implement it) 3)renewal (adopt a critical perspective and demonstrate the weakness and strengths). Bretta found that 40 percent of the teacher were at level 1 ,47 percent at level 2 and 13percent at level 3. he finally concluded that what he had done in the project cannot be assimilated by regular teacher and this is because lack of proficiency. there have been a number of evaluation: the study by Li: context: the introduction of communicative language teaching into secondary school in south korea where traditionally a grammatical syllabus has been used. purpose: to investigate the perception of the teacher of south korea of implementation of CLT. evaluation method:questionnaire:with likert scale items and open question administered to 18 secondary school teacher Finding:report difficulties in using CLT in korea: 1)difficulties caused by teacher. 2)student 3)educational 4)CLT system The study by Mitchell and Lee: Context: two settings explored: 1)11-12 year old English students in secondary school learning french 2)10-11 year old students in a korean primary school learning english Purpose:to examine how the communicative approach was interpreted and how the role of good language learner was constructed. Evaluation method: twenty recorded lessons- interviews and back up documentation. Findings:both teachers reflected a weak interpretation of CLT: 1)They aimed to provide learners with a fixed body of predetermined expressions and little opportunity for creative language. 2)teacher E adopted an egalitarian,undiffrentiated approach whereas teacher K privileged the more able students to provide the good model The study by carless: Context: primary school classrooms in hongkong.the three teacher in these classroom implement task-based syllabus Purpose:what are the teachers attitude and how they are attempting to implement taskbased syllabus? Evaluation method:1) classroom observation-field notes and transcriptions 2)six-semi structured interview 3)an attitude scale(data analysed qualitatively) Findings:the tasks represented language practice activities rather than genuine practice .they identified 3 key issues: 1)use of mother tongue 2)discipline 3)target challenges language production The study by Butler: Context:the governments of korea,japan,taiwan have introduced english teaching with the expectancy that the focus will be on the oral communication. Purpose:to identify teachers concerns regarding communicative activities Evaluation method: multivocal ethnography involving presenting teacher with videotaped scenes. Findings:1)teachers in different countries employed similar activity with different motives which led to different activities 2)teachers expressed concerns about how to develop communicative activities that were suitable for higher grade students 3)class harmonisation seen problematic especially in japan The study by Mcdonough and chaikitmongkol: Context: replace the traditional form focused course with task-based course in Thailand.key focus of course was the use of English for international communication. Purpose:1) what were Thai teacher and learner reactions toward task-based course? 2)if they had any concerns how were these concerns addressed? Evaluation method:task evaluations-students kept learning notebooks-observations by teacher and participant-course evaluation-interviewsfield notes Findings:A)teacher and learner reaction: 1)increased learner independence 2)course content 3)real world relevance B)addressing participants concerns: 1)revision undertaken to help participants adjust to the course 2)providing learner support 3)managing course materials. An inspection of (purpose)column suggests that these evaluation studies had 2 general aims: 1)to identify teachers perception and attitudes to task-based teaching. 2)to examine how the teacher implemented TBLT. Butlers observation support sociocultural view of task-. task : the actual materials that compromise the workplan for the activity activity:the learners behaviour that ensues when learners perform tasks Carless reported that teachers he investigated had mixed and confused the notion of (task) McDonough and Chaikitmonkgol have the most to say about materials. one of the problem they identified is how to interlink task-based materials that specifically developed for the university level with the materials from commercial book.another issue is the quantity of material.they conclude that it’s the curriculum that dictates the use of textbook not the textbook. Finally we conclude that such macroevaluation shed light on the viability of TBLT,it offers little insight into effectiveness of specific tasks or types of tasks and it is for this reason that there is a need for microevaluation In Elis he outlined a procedure for conducting a micro micro evaluation of a task 1.starting point Is a description of a task in terms of its objectives 2.the next to plan the evaluation by deciding on the objectives and purpose-the scope of the evaluation 3.the timing-the types of information-the data for the evaluation are collected Simons(1997) evaluated an unfocused in formation-gap task.the task was performed in pairs it required to students A to describe a route marked on the map and student B could draw in the route on his or her map but the 2 maps were not identical and students’ A map included some information that was missing from student B’s map thus creating a number referential differences Simons aim was simply to establish whether the task was successful in eliciting meaningful communication 1.telling 2.questioning 3.acknowledging 4.responding 5.miscellaneous Simons concluded because of the referential differences of this information gap task was an effective device for including learners to use the second language communicating Freeman set out to evaluate a dicto_gloss task.this required students to a listening text three times First they were asked to answer a multiple choice question The second , the students were told to note down the key content words The third different students should focus and take notes on the use of different linguistic forms Freeman’s aims of evaluation was designed to establish both accountability and to provide information about how to improve the task so freeman concluded that the students were largely successful in achieving the outcome of the task Conducted by yuan (1997) examined two decision _making tasks He was interested in investigating the effect of implementation of variable pre_task planing and the analysis focused on syntactical complexity ,syntactical variety and lexical variety The results: an interesting finding is that the opportunity to plan did not affect the learner ‘s performance of the tasks in the same way. All three evaluations were concerned with establishing whether the tasks achieve what they were designed to achieve but only one (freeman) also considered how the task might be improved. Only freeman’s study included a student_based approach so it was the best among these evaluations Is a good introspective opportunity for evaluating teaching tachniques an materials This chapter has examined the case for carring out both macro-and microevaluations of the task-based teaching and has reported examples of both types.