9/20 Readings

References: Anthology, Chapter 9
Skehan, P. - "Task-based instruction" (2003)

The articles for this discussion were focused on task-based instruction, which "emphasises the need for learners to focus on meaning and to convey information to one another" through use of communicative activities in the classroom, although Skehan states that the word "task" is now almost synonymous with the term "communicative activity" (pg. 1). Skehan goes on to describe the different approaches to interaction in terms of the research that is out there today, which are psycholinguistic, social interactive, cognitive, and structure-focused. I definitely see the use of all of these approaches as being useful in different contexts within the classroom; there needs to be an element of eclecticism, because each approach cannot be applied to every situation, in my opinion, and it truly depends on the type of learners you have in your ESL classroom and the dynamic between them. For example, the sociocultural approach to interaction which is described as "how learners co-construct meaning while engaging in interaction" (pg. 5). While this sounds like an excellent idea, it is a rather vague term, it includes "no negotiation of meaning...it is assumed that the interest in a task to allow participants to shape it to their own ends and to build meanings collaboratively that are unpredictable and personal" (pg. 5). To me, this sounds good in theory, but in practice, you cannot have the students rely on each other entirely for negotiation of meaning. One student might have all of it completely wrong and may have a stronger personality than the others in their interactive group, so the other students take their lead on a topic and just go with what they are saying. Following that vein, it could problematic in low-level proficiency classroom where students cannot express their feelings written, let alone orally. The sociocultural approach would likely work best in a classroom with high-level proficiency students who can communicative their ideas effectively enough to get the task done.

Skehan addresses this sort of problem in the section on "individual variables" on page 7 of the article: "Few would argue that all learners respond to tasks in the same way - indeed a central factor with sociocultural theory is to enable the individual to interpret tasks in whatever way they think is appropriate." So, here lies the issue. The fact is, students in a regular mainstream classroom are going to interpret stories or topics very differently, let alone in the context of an ESL classroom where you have conflicting cultural viewpoints and you may have students that do not want to discuss some topics at all because they are completely taboo in their culture, like in Anthology Chapter 9 where the teacher gave them a list of topics including "marriage, marriage and the single mother, suicide, older men dating high school girls", etc (Anthology, pg. 100). These topics are tricky already in a regular classroom, and some students will not want to approach them already because it is uncomfortable. My suggestion would be to do a little more research about each of the cultures represented in the classroom and find topics that would be more neutral yet provocative so that students would not feel uncomfortable talking about them with peers, let alone doing an interview with others about it. Some of the topics they do list like the environment and the information society are much more appropriate topics culturally; everyone has an opinion about computers and can see both sides to that issue, as well as with the environment. Students will want to know how other cultures feel about it; I just have a feeling that any topic relating to sex or religion should be cut out at least at the lower levels, for sure. The advanced students may have a more cultural understanding of what is appropriate in the United States versus their society or may have been here much longer, and after that amount of time, they may have developed a more neutral attitude or at least know that these topics are not taboo in our schools. Overall, I thought the task described in Chapter 9 was well thought-out and well-planned for sure, but I did have to critique the topic choice list when I was reading it. I agree with Belgar and Hunt, the authors of the chapter, when they state that "curriculum and syllabus design involves a never-ending process of making adjustments" (pg. 102). This is completely true; we as teachers need to realize that every lesson plan is not going to go perfectly or have the results that we desire, and our job as a "good teacher" so to speak is to reflect on our lesson and see what we can change to make it more effective and engaging.