Tasks are a big deal for sure.
Lai and Li (2011) discussed the interrelated nature of TBLT and technology. In CMC TBLT, learners typically produced more language, a wider variety of discourse functions, and more linguistically complex speech/text. Of interest to me is that some research shows that participation is equalized through CMC TBLT. Students who may be hesitant to speak up in class participated more equally with their more out-going peers over CMC. In my classroom, the majority of students are from Arabic-speaking countries, but I have three Chinese students. The Chinese students employ a very different (much more reserved) communication style, and because of this, sometimes get linguistically run over by the Arabic students who prefer to speak spontaneously as soon as they have an idea. I think that CMC might benefit my class in terms of equalizing participation for these groups of students.
Good task design is very important. Although I constantly read about TBLT and task design, in practice, I have to keep refining my knowledge about how to design tasks based on what actually happens in the classroom.
Having a clearly defined end point, that is, a goal for completion is most important to me. As a student, few things frustrated me more than not knowing when I'm done with an assignment (because I feel like I need to keep working on it). Task directions should include some kind of indication (e.g., 10 minutes, 5-7 sentences, 2-3 pages, etc.) of what and how much the teacher expects. In broader terms for TBLT, Folse (2006) advocates the closed task, in which a final "answer" is available. This stands in opposition to the open task, in which no "answer" exists.
From the teacher's perspective, a lack of end point results in difficultly in stopping or, conversely, maintaining, an activity; difficulty in assessment; and ambiguity in dealing with student complaints. I'm learning to delineate my tasks more carefully to avoid these pitfalls.
Until next week...
No comments:
Post a Comment