3. The Emphasis on focus on form in Task Based Language Teaching- To Be or Not To Be—Selvan & Sivakami

The incompetent learners use the question “Did you like to buy?” in place of “Do you like to buy?, while performing the task in the class. In actual fact, they wish to know the things which the other person wants to buy usually and not on a particular occasion in the past.

“We used to take it for our breakfast” is the response that learners make to mean the regular habit of taking some particular food item for the breakfast. They are unaware of the meaning of the statement that they stop taking the food item at the time of speaking. The question “Are you finished your breakfast?”sounds ungrammatical to the competent speakers. It seems grammatical for the other learners whose inter language accepts it logical. This paper proposes to establish the need for the focus on form so that mastery of language will result with learning experiences.

Interlanguage, the term coined by Selinker (1972) is the series of stages every learner has to cross from the source language to target language. It is like a continuum between L1 and L2 and at any point in the continuum, the difference in the language of that particular learner from other learners is due to the difference in their learning experience.( Larsen-Freeman 60)

This interlanguage needs modification to ensure the acquisition of language leading to the mastery of the same. `The best way for such modification is through social interactions, according to Pica, Kanagy and Falodun(1993).(Norris 31) Socio cultural theorists utilize the construct put forwarded by Vygotsky “Zone of proximal development” to validate the nature of learning involved in the TBLT.(East 44) So, TBLT provides the platform for the modification of interlanguage of the learners. Now, the question is whether to integrate the focus on form with the communicative experience. Though the theory of TBLT has little to do with grammar pedagogy, Mitchell(2000) argued that TBLT” can offer a balanced approach in which grammar pedagogy and focus on form are linked with communicative experience.” (East 115)

Lightbrown and Spada highlighted the classroom researches which underscore the attention to focus on form within communicative interaction.(115) Focus on form is different from form focused instruction. It occurs either incidentally or deliberately. The focus on form is in between the purely inductive method and purely deductive method. The purely deductive approach is supported by Grammar translation method. It favours the ability to deploy the knowledge about the language rules. Learners are aware of how they can apply the rules from their teachers whereas communicative language teaching prepares learners to be aware of ‘when’ and ‘where’ to use the language rules on their own.

The retention of what is learnt will be better if learners notice the rules by themselves. However much drilling is given on the usage of language structures, learners lack in their ability to use them in the naturalistic context and it results in the failure of the behaviouristic method of teaching.

The drilling of language structures disregards the meaningful practice in life situations. Moreover, the grammatical item that is learnt at a point of time will later get modified at a later point in time, as Ellis points out. The hierarchical attitude towards the language learning by allowing the learners master each grammatical item sequentially becomes illogical. The realisation that learning is not permanent has put an end to the practice of drilling.

Then the question regarding the place of grammar in Communicative Language Teaching arises. The imposition of linguistic expressions makes CLT lose its value as the method for realistic use of language. Task based approach insists on the use of linguistic resources at the learners’ disposal. Communicative version of explicit pedagogical grammar has been favoured for its assistance in improving the implicit knowledge, and its necessity for performing some kinds of communicative activity. For that, the tasks are to be designed in such a way to allow the learners to produce the necessary language and then reflect on the language employed in the tasks. This reflection on the language employed for performing the task by discussing with the group groups can be part of the task or the entire task can be specially designed for reflection after the implementation of two or three related tasks. The provision of corrective feedback not immediately on the spot but in the subtle manner as a task will also develop the explicit knowledge. This type of task is known as consciousness raising tasks. The indirect consciousness raising task allows the learners to work out the grammatical explanation by themselves. It leads to noticing that assures the spontaneous use of language.

‘Noticing’ as Schmidt calls it, linguistic forms in input enables them to acquire the forms while performing the task. Schmidt and Frota (1986) assures in their “Notice the gap principle” , that learners may notice the target language forms in the input and the gap that exists between the target language forms and the forms in their own inter language.( Doughty 66)

Focus on form brings to the knowledge of the learners the need for a particular linguistic expression to carry out the task successfully, though s/he is aware of the meaning and use of those expressions already known to them.(Long 186)

The learners’ exposure to these expressions makes them modify their interlanguage and the restructured interlanguage is a sign of acquisition. The writer of this paper suggest a type of task ‘Editing Task’ in between a sequence of tasks for the study of the effect of explicit knowledge on the acquisition of language. The teachers can allow learners to transcribe the recordings of the task completed by them. The investigator can play the recordings to note down the grammatically wrong sentences used by the learners. She can prepare a list of grammatically appropriate sentences for the wrong sentence constructions repeatedly used and essential for getting the meaning across. In the targeted tasks, the learners can be given the copies of the linguistic structures in the grammatically accepted form.

While editing their own language production, the explicit knowledge gets activated to bridge the existing gap in their learners’ implicit knowledge of the target language and the real target language.

The difficulty in understanding or producing the target language leads to the use of explicit knowledge of syntactic structures to find out the source of difficulty. This type of searching in the linguistic resources ends up with the development of implicit knowledge.

To Krashen, acquisition is only through implicit knowledge. (Little 103) Consciousness raising facilitates the acquisition of implicit knowledge indirectly. The reflection on the content or process of learning can also be a part of the task and the final stage of the task can accommodate the reflection. If learners work together, they learn more effectively. This creates the framework of the target language within which they locate the formation of words and sentences. This knowledge enables them to gain spontaneity later. Hence, the explicit knowledge is an important factor for developing the autonomous learners. As Anne MA points out in the introduction of her work, the importance of grammar teaching must be a part of the design of the task and its integration be meaningful within the framework of task based methodology.

Books referred:

1. Norris,John et al. Designing Second Language Performance Assessments USA:Uof Hawaii, 1998. Google Book Search.Web.26 Aug 2013.

2. Nunan, David. Task –Based Language Teaching. Rev. ed., Cambridge UK: CUP, 2006. Google Book Search.Web.20 Sep 2013.

3. Long, Michael H. “Focus on Form in Task Based Language Teaching.” Language Policy and Pedagogy: Essays in Honour of A.Ronald Walton. Ed. Richard D. Lambert and Elana Shohamy. Amsterdam:John Benjamin, 2000. Google Book Search.Web.20 Aug 2013.

4. MA, Anne. ed. A Practical Guide to a Task-Based Curriculum: Planning,Grammar Teaching and Assessment. Hong Kong: City U of Hong Kong P, 2008. Google Book Search.Web.20 Jan 2014.

5. East,Martin. Task-Based Language Learning from the Teacher’s Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, 2012. Google Book Search.Web.20 Jan 2014.

6. Doughty,Catherine,andJessicaWilliams.ed. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP, 1998 7th ed. Cambridge Applied Linguistics. Google Book Search.Web.05 Sep 2012. Google Book Search.Web. 25 Jan 2014.

7. Ellis,Rod.“ Grammar Teaching –Practice or Consciousness raising?”Methodology in Language Teaching : An Anthology of Current practice.Ed.Jack.C.RichardsandWilly A.Renandya. Cambridge :CUP, 2002. Google Book Search.Web.20 June 2013.

8. Ellis, Rod. Language Teaching search and Language Pedagogy. UK :Wiley Blackwell, 2012. Google Book Search.Web.10 Jun 2013.

9. Harwood, Nigel. English Language Teaching Materials Theory and Practice. Ed. Jack C Richards. Newyork:CUP,2010. Google Book Search.Web.24 Jan 2014.

10. Little, David. “Words and their Properties:Arguments for a Lexical Approach to Pedagogical Grammar.”ed.Terence Odlin. Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. Cambridge Applied Linguistics.Cambridge:CUP,1994. Google Book Search.Web.24 Jan 2014.

11.Larsen-Freeman,Diane,and Michael H.Long.An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. Harlow,England:Longman-Pearson, 1991. Print.