Task-based language learning

I mentioned the Canadian language benchmarks in a previous post. Apparently all ESL instruction for immigrants in Canada, that is supported by government funding, (and this means hundreds of millions of dollars every year) has to be done based on task-based language learning (TBLL) methods. I was told that no other methods of learning can be considered.

Input based learning, all of the work that Krashen has done, for example is out, not considered. My questions are:

1) How widespread is TBLL? Is this recognized as some kind of super way to learn languages? I for one would not like to sit in class and pretend I was at a bank or train station.

2) Even if it is an effective learning method, it is based on the classroom. Why would government language learning funding be limited to classroom learning?

3) The outcomes in a classroom depend largely on the innate abilities and personalities of the teacher. Are there not excellent teachers who prefer other methods? What happens to them?

4) I was told that the government is not happy with the results of their program. Their solution is to be more demanding with regard to the credentials of their teachers.Wouldn't  allowing more flexibility on the part of learners and teachers be a better solution.

Does anyone have knowledge of TBLL?

Comments

[ed]

I think the assumption that learning is classroom initiated is the reason that the govt is promoting it. One if the biggest challenges as a classroom teacher is keeping students from getting too bored when you see them 3 hours a day 4 to 5 days a week. TBL takes he focus off the teacher and delegates to the student, giving them something other than the teacher to focus on and giving them limited autonomy. If you believe learning begins in a classroom, a strict TBL apporach is better than a lot of other ways of doing things.

If you discard the classroom, TBL becomes completely unworkable because it generally requires a lot of planning on the teacher's part.

[ed]

Is it widespread? Well it is the de facto planning style I learned in my BEd course. In reality, all teachers I have run across (including me) do it to some degree, both in the public and private sector. Bearing in mind that the classroom is a jungle and generally you do what works without paying attention to theory :P

[Keith]

I do not have knowledge of TBLL, but I think it stands for To Be Learned Later. haha

It does seem odd that the government would only allow one kind of language learning when they don't even know how to produce the desired results. Why not divide the funding up and try different methods and see which produces the best results? Why not be more flexible? Why blame the teachers?

Because they are clueless!

[John]

You were told that "no other methods of learning can be considered." Just like that? Outright?

[Oldboy]

I think TBLL is not a bad thing at all, but that input is the real "bread and butter" of language learning. And I agree with Steve, why have a one-size-fits-all approach? I know many younger students that love role-playing and communication games, but Steve says he hates it. TBLL is a fun tool that can be used in a classroom environment to a positive end, but it is hardly the end-all-be-all.

And of course, the government solution is to make sure that teachers get more checks by their name on the bureaucratic checklist.

BTW Steve, I think you are fighting a losing battle arguing for where government funding should go. What we need is a more free market in education. If we had that, you would see all the experimentation and individualization you could hope for. You might think it would be great if you could get government funding for X, but then just wait until the government decides to take an interest in their "investment" and shackle their new group the way they have mainstream "public" education.

[chris/blindside70]

I'm with oldboy. I'd rather just stop paying into the product I want nothing to do with, unfortunately we don't get that choice.

[Kevin Geoghegan]

Chris, it would be great if we could specify what the government spent our taxes on. Unfortunately, they are never going to give us that power any time soon.

[Kevin Geoghegan]

From comments above, it seems that teachers see TBL more as a useful tool to control discipline in the classroom than as an effective teaching tool. Of course as a teaching tool, it is output based and so almost useless for learning languages. In fact, it's probably worse than useless in that students will often be listening to incorrect language from other students. It must be one of the most stupid ideas ever concocted. Well, in an educational sense - I suppose it must work on a classroom management level.

[Oldboy]

Kevin, I indicated no such thing. Also, Steve himself has said that output has a place in learning. Do you have a tutor? Do you practice speaking? Writing? That is all output. Do you know anyone that learned a language without trying to speak or write once along the way? It is a fun way to practice and reinforce. It should not be the emphasis of the learning process the same way that class discussions on history should not be the basis for learning about history. That does not mean that it is not something valuable.

Also, people make mistakes in learning languages. Many mistakes. It is inevitable. But over time, you can improve and overcome them.

In conclusion, it is not one of the stupidest ideas ever concocted. By the way, are you off your Ritalin?

[Steve Kaufmann]

While I may not be as strong on this as Kevin, I do agree that this kind of role playing is not something that I would like to do as part of my language learning. It is artificial, and it is something that I am being forced to do at the teachers request. I prefer interesting content, and if I am going to talk with other learners, I prefer to talk about something of common interest.

[Igor]

Oldboy:
"Do you know anyone that learned a language without trying to speak or write once along the way?"

Yes, at least one person did it, Richard Boydell, output is next to useless, maybe 2% of the job.

[Jeff Jones]

Sounds to me like another interesting way to keep the students busy and eat up class time. This method is probably popular with a lot of language teachers because they can give the students a task to do and then their work is finished. It's probably popular with students only because it's more active than the typical boring grammar instruction.

For language acquisition, I doubt it has any relevance. After all, it is an output based activity. Trying to do "useful" activities like practicing ordering food at a restaurant (when you don't speak the language) along with other students (who don't speak the language), is probably not a good use of time at best and you may even acquire some bad habits / mistakes at worst.

I think task based learning is different than learning something IN the target language... for example, taking a cooking course in the target language, which can be very useful for intermediate level students (not beginners).

TBLL seems like pretending to do stuff that teachers think are practical activities without being able to really understand a language. It gives the illusion of having a real pragmatic class, yet it shows most educators still have NO clue how the brain acquires language and are just filling up time with whatever is in fashion at the moment.

[Steve Kaufmann]

I would tend to agree with you Jeff. Taking a cooking course in the target language is a great idea.

[Kevin Geoghegan]

Oldboy, I meant TBL is a stupid method because, in essence, it aims to get students to learn from each other. The blind leading the blind comes to mind. I can't think of a worse way to learn. Well, maybe being given an electric shock every time you make a mistake might be. But then again, just think what that would do for classroom discipline! ;-)

[Lai Kwok Wai]

Steve,

I think you might agree with me that school is not exactly the best place to learn a language and yet language learning must be done or else teachers, panel chairs, principals do not earn their paychecks.

What I hate about schools is their power structure. Panel chairs pretend to be professional. Why don't they trust the teachers. More often than not, the teachers know more about teaching and students than the panel who knows best to climb the power ladder and not language learning.

I was in a school for three months and I did everything I could to get out of it. They only cared to assign homework and check answers. the panel is a Czar or Queen of the classroom who dictated teaching practices to all teachers. Power corrupted real teaching and learning. Be it task based learning or communicative learning. It is a long road with no curve.

Let the students and teachers decide on the ways to learn. A democratic classroom is the best place for real learning. It hurts to see the eyes of those students pleading to be left alone. Learning is a fun thing but it is only fun when we are not being told to learn. Do you agree?