论文部分内容阅读
Task-based language teaching （TBLT） is a methodology derived from the communicative language teaching （CLT） method， aiming to improve communicative abilities （Littlewood 2006）. As a refined pattern， it is superior to CLT and traditional PPP methods （Presentation， Practice， Production）. However， due to some conflicts with Chinese characteristics and traditional concepts， the efficiency of implementing TBLT in China still need to be studied.The purpose of this paper is to clear the concept of TBLT and evaluate its efficiency in the context of China.
The definition of TBLT varies from time to time and person to person， while Murat （2011） draws three common features of TBLT from many studies， which are： （a） student-centered classes; （b） including well-organized tasks; and （c） meaning-based approach. Compared with CLT， TBLT is more specific， and according to Murat， Task means a classroom activity with an academic purpose that exerts an influence on communicative ability. And compared with the traditional PPP method， which is universally used in China， it shows two main differences： （a） the role of teachers and students in class， and （b） the class design （Murat 2011）. As for the first difference， Murat points out that the teachers using TBLT should act both as an assistant， doing some preparing and maintaining work before and during the class， and a highlighter， to integrate and improve at the end of the class. On the other hand， students should be a “ （1） group participant; （2） monitor; and （3） risk-taker and innovator” （Murat 2011， p.50）; in other words， they should become the center part of the class. However， in traditional classes， teachers are the main speakers， who carefully control the whole teaching process （Willis and Willis 2007）. In terms of the second difference， Lin （2009） stresses that the aim of teaching is to create or simulate a native speaking environment， where language acquisition happens naturally. And Littlewood （2004， p.324） suggests that the communicative tasks are more than a teaching technique but also the core of the class design， whereas in traditional Chinese classes， communicative abilities are always neglected （Zou 2019）.
Therefore， the advantages of TBLT is obvious. Firstly， it can make up for the shortcomings of traditional teaching methods and guarantee a well-rounded development. Traditional education separates the ability of each language to practice alone， but in fact each language ability affects the other. As a result of the PPP method， many Chinese students’ speaking ability and writing ability are lagging behind reading and listening ability， according to the IELTS’ 2018 White Paper on Academic Performance in Mainland China. Chinese examinees’ mean speaking （5.27） and writing scores （5.32） are around 0.5 lower than that of reading （6.15） and listening （5.88） separately. This illustrates Chinese English learners’ output abilities are weaker than their input abilities. Zou （2019， p.169） claims that due to “dumb teaching” Chinese students can understand but cannot express. However， TBLT aims to improve students’ communicative capacity， therefore， teachers using TBLT will create various tasks to activate students to use language and more opportunities for students to communicate. Accordingly， students’ output abilities will be better trained. Secondly， TBLT is more student friendly. It contributes to an independent learning habit. Since teachers are acting as a helper instead of an instructor， students will feel less stressful and have more autonomy during the learning process （Masoud， et al 2012）. Besides， they become confident to express themselves （Liu 2015）. Due to a group-work pattern， students learn from each other， and according to a research， under this pattern， students have more positive feelings and gain a sense of achievement after class （Zou 2019）.
Finally， TBLT combines theories with practices. Howatt （1984） proposes that language is learned according to communication. Similarly， TBLT does not separate learning and practicing， but compounds them. Students learn it while using it in a natural context. Thus， knowledge acquired via this method is in accordance with the law of learning and has more practical significance.
Although the advantages of TBLT are obvious， because of the particularity of China’s national conditions， to widely use it in China is beset with difficulties. There are three reasons.
First of all， according to TBLT， teachers do not instruct but enlighten students to figure out problems （Murat 2011）. Moreover， China is a country with a huge population. A typical Chinese classroom usually contains around 50 students. Even if they are divided into five-people groups， there will be 10 groups， which is too many for teachers to cater to the needs of each group or individuals. That is to say， in this case teachers cannot work at full capacity. As a result， some students may not be attended to. Additionally， as Littlewood （2006） mentioned in his article， TBLT requires a higher level of class-control capacity， language ability and sensitivity from teachers， otherwise， the classroom will become very confused. In a word， the quality and efficiency of student-centered teaching are hard to be guaranteed in these large classes.
Another barrier is China’s form-oriented test and exam-oriented education. The existence of this critical teaching and evaluating model is understandable but very difficult to be changed at present. Since English and Chinese belong to different language families， neither their vocabulary nor syntax， or neither grammatical composition nor writing are similar. Thus Chinese people need lectures， introducing some basic knowledge and they need to learn English from the beginning of vocabulary and grammar. However， as a meaning-based approach， an effective implementation of TBLT is based on the default that students have the ability to express themselves （Willis and Willis 2007）. Therefore， TBLT may be only applicable in high school or university， where students have a certain foundation in English. However， in order to cope with the difficulties of selecting talents from such a large population in China， standard tests come into being. In addition， the traditional Chinese teaching methods， from the private school to the ancient imperial examination system， and to the current college entrance examination， is exam-oriented education. Chinese students are used to studying for tests. Admittedly， methods such as cramming and memorizing can be reflected more quickly on the score of tests， but this is an inadequate learning method. Additionally， both schools and parents are reluctant to bet on their children’s future to try a relatively unfamiliar method of education. Littlewood， also recognising these conflicts， called it “ incompatibility with public assessment demands” （2006， p.245）. That is to say， although more and more people have realized the drawbacks of exam-oriented education and form-based approach， due to the pressure of reality and the limitation of language proficiency， people have to yield to the original teaching methods. In other words， as the basis of effective TBLT is effective communication， this requires a certain degree of language ability. Therefore， it is difficult to implement TBLT in primary schools or even junior high schools in China. Besides， if the high school entrance examination system is not reformed in the future， the radical changes in teaching methods will not be accepted by students and parents.
Last but not least， the conflicts with the Chinese traditional concept of teaching is also an obstacle to the development of TBLT in China. Han Changli （768-824）， a famous Chinese thinker， philosopher and politician in the Tang dynasty said in his article called Shi Shuo （which means： On Teachers） that “Teacher is the person who could propagate the doctrine， impart professional knowledge， and resolve doubts” （Ma 1987， p.44）. According to this， we can find out the traditional idea of the learning process in China is that teachers pass on knowledge to students. Hence， as for Chinese students， an underlying idea of learning pattern is listening to lectures， and they believe that learning is a process of knowledge dissemination （Littlewood， 2006）. However， Littlewood believes that learning is actually a process of knowledge internalization， and Murat （2011） states that this internalization will perform better in an original task-based communicative context. Thus， according to Littlewood and Murat， the main character in the TBLT study process is the student. Via using existing knowledge， students discover and learn new knowledge independently. Therefore， Chinese students may feel lost when they first get in touch with the TBLT model.
Littlewood （2006， p.247） claims that CLT teaching is divided into five stages （1. Non-communicative Learning， 2. Pre-Communicative Practice， 3. Communicative Language Language Practice， 4. Structured Communication， and 4. Authentic Communication）， which are distinguishable by the proportion of form-oriented and meaning-oriented parts in classes， so that to be consistent with students’ communicative competence. Indeed， the implementation of TBLT is a marathon， not a sprint， especially in China. Due to the large gap between English and Chinese， and the reality in China （population， class size; English proficiency）， the English teaching method suitable for China should be the combination of form-based and meaning-based， and a combination of student-centered and teacher-centered approach. Only when the students have a certain English ability， and， in Littlewood’s opinion （2006）， teachers implement TBLT step by step can the real TBLT be designed according to the students’ needs.
In conclusion， when people try to apply TBLT in China， they need an analysis of specific Chinese issues. Although TBLT is a good way to create an English language environment for learners and activate learners’ independence and confidence to the greatest extent， the particularity of China need to be considered. Therefore， it is best to adjust and improve IBLT based on China’s national conditions. Only when it suits China’s national conditions can TBLT show its advantages.
Author’s Brief Introduction： Shuyang Yang， Female， Han nationality， Henan-Nanyang People， Master of Arts， Research direction：Applied linguistics with TESOL.
【作者簡介】Shuyang Yang，The University of Sheffield.
The definition of TBLT varies from time to time and person to person， while Murat （2011） draws three common features of TBLT from many studies， which are： （a） student-centered classes; （b） including well-organized tasks; and （c） meaning-based approach. Compared with CLT， TBLT is more specific， and according to Murat， Task means a classroom activity with an academic purpose that exerts an influence on communicative ability. And compared with the traditional PPP method， which is universally used in China， it shows two main differences： （a） the role of teachers and students in class， and （b） the class design （Murat 2011）. As for the first difference， Murat points out that the teachers using TBLT should act both as an assistant， doing some preparing and maintaining work before and during the class， and a highlighter， to integrate and improve at the end of the class. On the other hand， students should be a “ （1） group participant; （2） monitor; and （3） risk-taker and innovator” （Murat 2011， p.50）; in other words， they should become the center part of the class. However， in traditional classes， teachers are the main speakers， who carefully control the whole teaching process （Willis and Willis 2007）. In terms of the second difference， Lin （2009） stresses that the aim of teaching is to create or simulate a native speaking environment， where language acquisition happens naturally. And Littlewood （2004， p.324） suggests that the communicative tasks are more than a teaching technique but also the core of the class design， whereas in traditional Chinese classes， communicative abilities are always neglected （Zou 2019）.
Therefore， the advantages of TBLT is obvious. Firstly， it can make up for the shortcomings of traditional teaching methods and guarantee a well-rounded development. Traditional education separates the ability of each language to practice alone， but in fact each language ability affects the other. As a result of the PPP method， many Chinese students’ speaking ability and writing ability are lagging behind reading and listening ability， according to the IELTS’ 2018 White Paper on Academic Performance in Mainland China. Chinese examinees’ mean speaking （5.27） and writing scores （5.32） are around 0.5 lower than that of reading （6.15） and listening （5.88） separately. This illustrates Chinese English learners’ output abilities are weaker than their input abilities. Zou （2019， p.169） claims that due to “dumb teaching” Chinese students can understand but cannot express. However， TBLT aims to improve students’ communicative capacity， therefore， teachers using TBLT will create various tasks to activate students to use language and more opportunities for students to communicate. Accordingly， students’ output abilities will be better trained. Secondly， TBLT is more student friendly. It contributes to an independent learning habit. Since teachers are acting as a helper instead of an instructor， students will feel less stressful and have more autonomy during the learning process （Masoud， et al 2012）. Besides， they become confident to express themselves （Liu 2015）. Due to a group-work pattern， students learn from each other， and according to a research， under this pattern， students have more positive feelings and gain a sense of achievement after class （Zou 2019）.
Finally， TBLT combines theories with practices. Howatt （1984） proposes that language is learned according to communication. Similarly， TBLT does not separate learning and practicing， but compounds them. Students learn it while using it in a natural context. Thus， knowledge acquired via this method is in accordance with the law of learning and has more practical significance.
Although the advantages of TBLT are obvious， because of the particularity of China’s national conditions， to widely use it in China is beset with difficulties. There are three reasons.
First of all， according to TBLT， teachers do not instruct but enlighten students to figure out problems （Murat 2011）. Moreover， China is a country with a huge population. A typical Chinese classroom usually contains around 50 students. Even if they are divided into five-people groups， there will be 10 groups， which is too many for teachers to cater to the needs of each group or individuals. That is to say， in this case teachers cannot work at full capacity. As a result， some students may not be attended to. Additionally， as Littlewood （2006） mentioned in his article， TBLT requires a higher level of class-control capacity， language ability and sensitivity from teachers， otherwise， the classroom will become very confused. In a word， the quality and efficiency of student-centered teaching are hard to be guaranteed in these large classes.
Another barrier is China’s form-oriented test and exam-oriented education. The existence of this critical teaching and evaluating model is understandable but very difficult to be changed at present. Since English and Chinese belong to different language families， neither their vocabulary nor syntax， or neither grammatical composition nor writing are similar. Thus Chinese people need lectures， introducing some basic knowledge and they need to learn English from the beginning of vocabulary and grammar. However， as a meaning-based approach， an effective implementation of TBLT is based on the default that students have the ability to express themselves （Willis and Willis 2007）. Therefore， TBLT may be only applicable in high school or university， where students have a certain foundation in English. However， in order to cope with the difficulties of selecting talents from such a large population in China， standard tests come into being. In addition， the traditional Chinese teaching methods， from the private school to the ancient imperial examination system， and to the current college entrance examination， is exam-oriented education. Chinese students are used to studying for tests. Admittedly， methods such as cramming and memorizing can be reflected more quickly on the score of tests， but this is an inadequate learning method. Additionally， both schools and parents are reluctant to bet on their children’s future to try a relatively unfamiliar method of education. Littlewood， also recognising these conflicts， called it “ incompatibility with public assessment demands” （2006， p.245）. That is to say， although more and more people have realized the drawbacks of exam-oriented education and form-based approach， due to the pressure of reality and the limitation of language proficiency， people have to yield to the original teaching methods. In other words， as the basis of effective TBLT is effective communication， this requires a certain degree of language ability. Therefore， it is difficult to implement TBLT in primary schools or even junior high schools in China. Besides， if the high school entrance examination system is not reformed in the future， the radical changes in teaching methods will not be accepted by students and parents.
Last but not least， the conflicts with the Chinese traditional concept of teaching is also an obstacle to the development of TBLT in China. Han Changli （768-824）， a famous Chinese thinker， philosopher and politician in the Tang dynasty said in his article called Shi Shuo （which means： On Teachers） that “Teacher is the person who could propagate the doctrine， impart professional knowledge， and resolve doubts” （Ma 1987， p.44）. According to this， we can find out the traditional idea of the learning process in China is that teachers pass on knowledge to students. Hence， as for Chinese students， an underlying idea of learning pattern is listening to lectures， and they believe that learning is a process of knowledge dissemination （Littlewood， 2006）. However， Littlewood believes that learning is actually a process of knowledge internalization， and Murat （2011） states that this internalization will perform better in an original task-based communicative context. Thus， according to Littlewood and Murat， the main character in the TBLT study process is the student. Via using existing knowledge， students discover and learn new knowledge independently. Therefore， Chinese students may feel lost when they first get in touch with the TBLT model.
Littlewood （2006， p.247） claims that CLT teaching is divided into five stages （1. Non-communicative Learning， 2. Pre-Communicative Practice， 3. Communicative Language Language Practice， 4. Structured Communication， and 4. Authentic Communication）， which are distinguishable by the proportion of form-oriented and meaning-oriented parts in classes， so that to be consistent with students’ communicative competence. Indeed， the implementation of TBLT is a marathon， not a sprint， especially in China. Due to the large gap between English and Chinese， and the reality in China （population， class size; English proficiency）， the English teaching method suitable for China should be the combination of form-based and meaning-based， and a combination of student-centered and teacher-centered approach. Only when the students have a certain English ability， and， in Littlewood’s opinion （2006）， teachers implement TBLT step by step can the real TBLT be designed according to the students’ needs.
In conclusion， when people try to apply TBLT in China， they need an analysis of specific Chinese issues. Although TBLT is a good way to create an English language environment for learners and activate learners’ independence and confidence to the greatest extent， the particularity of China need to be considered. Therefore， it is best to adjust and improve IBLT based on China’s national conditions. Only when it suits China’s national conditions can TBLT show its advantages.
Author’s Brief Introduction： Shuyang Yang， Female， Han nationality， Henan-Nanyang People， Master of Arts， Research direction：Applied linguistics with TESOL.
【作者簡介】Shuyang Yang，The University of Sheffield.