Teachers’ Understandings of Task and TBLT
TBLT has been utilized not only because it has well-grounded assumptions, principles, and theories of second language acquisition, but due to the sound rationale behind its implementation (Jeon & Hahn, 2006). The application of TBLT is really a consequence of a better sense of the nature and procedures of EFL learning and also owing to the insufficiency of other approaches, for example, presentation-practice-product (PPP) (Hui, 2004). The result of employing a PPP model is that learners are still unable to apply the structure accurately though grammatical rules have been accounted for with care (Ritchie, 2003). Apparently, there exists a gap between students’ mastering a rule and executing it in communication, and it is doubtful whether the grammar-based PPP model is effective to language acquisition (Ritchie, 2003).
TBLT indicates that language learning is a dynamic procedure facilitating communication and social interaction rather than a product acquired by practicing language items, and that students learn the target language more effectively when they are naturally exposed to meaningful tasks (Jeon & Hahn, 2006). Such a view of language learning caused the development of various task-based approaches in the 1980’s (e.g., Breen, 1987; Candlin & Murphy, 1987; Nunan, 1989; Prabhu, 1987), and during the 1990’s, developed into a detailed practical framework for communicative classrooms where students performed tasks through cycles of pre-task preparation, task performance, and post-task feedback (Skehan, 1996b). In particular, TBLT has been re-examined in recent years from distinct perspectives involving oral performance, writing performance, and performance assessment (Ellis, 2003b).
Classification of Different Items of TBLT
|Teachers’ Understandings of TBLT Concepts||۱-۷|
|Teachers’ Views on Executing TBLT||۸-۱۵|
چنانچه محصول Teachers’ Understandings of Task and TBLT را دریافت نکردید با شماره ۰۹۳۵۷۲۵۸۴۲۵ یا firstname.lastname@example.org ارتباط برقرار نمایید.