The analysis of the implementation of TBLT in primary school

陳敏盈

The development of the English syllabus reflects peoples attitudes toward the nature of English. According to Howatt & Richard （2014）， English syllabus development went through four stages： ‘the Classical Period， the Reform Period， the Scientific Period and the Communicative Period. In China， Task-Based syllabus has been implemented nationwide since 2001. Besides， the MOE advocates teachers to use TBLT as the central pedagogy in primary schools. However， the promoted syllabus does not implement well because of Chinas educational setting.

English teaching began to develop in the 19th century as English was increasingly needed because of Great Britain's colonial expansion and the massive immigration to the US （Howatt， 2004）. The Grammatical-Translation Approach first influenced English teaching in the classical period. During the Reform Period， the Direct Method developed， which focus on speaking. After 1920， English was taught outsides the EU & USA. During 1920 -1970， Palmer combined his teaching experiences & phonetics and developed the Oral Method. After WWI， "ELT" was established because of the Japanese government's high value on English learning. ESL， developed during the World Wars， mainly taking place in colonial countries. In the 1930s， EFL developed， and its target learners were refugees in the UK. As linguistics and psychology progressively influenced English teaching， Structural Approach， a drill-based teaching methodology was developed. After the 1970s， the Communicative Language Teaching Approach， which focuses on real-life communication， was established.

Scholars classified syllabuses according to different criteria. Nunan （1988） divided the syllabus into product-oriented syllabus and process-oriented syllabus based on the 'nature of learning & language and learners' needs.' The product-oriented syllabus emphasizes on learners' achievement of knowledge and skills， while the process-oriented syllabus focuses on the learning process. Wilkins （1976） divided the syllabus into the synthetic syllabus and analytic syllabus. The former proposes that language should be taught step by step while for the latter， language is taught holistically. Syllabuses can also be subdivided. The Grammatical syllabus and Structural syllabus are more or less the same， both of which propose those language items should be graded， and the teaching sequence should follow students' acceptability. Functional-Notional syllabus focus on the functions & notions of language and fluency is the priority. For the Content-based syllabus， it intergrades content with the target language. As for the Communicative Language teaching syllabus， it focuses on real-life language use.

The implementation of Task-Based syllabus in Chinas Primary schools

Task-based syllabus regards tasks are building blocks， focusing on the meaning rather than the form of language. Generally， a task is about daily life matter， and it emphasizes the meaning rather than the form of language. According to Ellis （2003）， tasks can be divided into focused and unfocused tasks. The former requires learners to use specific linguistic features， while the latter allows ranges of features. There are pedagogical， rhetorical， cognitive， and psycholinguistics tasks. According to Ellis， the selection and sequencing of tasks are essential. In general courses， the thematic content of tasks should be based on the students' life and preference. For specific courses， selection should be based on what is required to master. Task sequencing needs to consider task complexity， difficulties， and procedures.

In China， English has become a compulsory course and at least to be taught from Grade. 3 in primary schools since 2002. The ECS group announced that the Task-based syllabus would be implemented nationwide. Besides， it advocates teachers to adopt the TBLT as the primary teaching pedagogy. They discussed setting is a school in one of Guangzhou's villages. In that school， teachers there adopted several syllabuses simultaneously. Most of the time， teachers adopt the Grammatical-translation syllabus because of the exam-orientation setting required students' knowledge accumulation. The task-based syllabus is mainly used at the beginning of the semester because the study & teaching load is comparatively low. For task design， many teachers regard task is exercise. For those namely communicative tasks， they are mechanical practices focusing on language accuracy， e.g.， sentence-making or role-play from the textbook. Though prefer to use innovative pedagogy， young teachers give up at last because of the difficulty in task designing and discipline maintenance. School headmasters， even though they know TBLT is the official pedagogy， advocate teachers to use the traditional methods to boost the school's overall exam performance. Besides， because of the students' inadequate English level， teachers spend most of the time in task-preparation， thereof， the actual time of 'task fulfillment' is limited. The implementation goes against the rational of Task-based syllabus. The first reason is the aim of the task design. According to Ellis （2003）， 'task' is to 'improve students' linguistic & communicative competence. However， in that school， teachers design 'task' only for knowledge accumulation. What is more， the selection of task runs counter to students' interests or daily life. The second reason is the selection of task. Willi & Willis （2007） demonstrate that 'task' selection should be learners' interest， so that students can fully engage in the task. For the previously discussed teachers， their task selection is based on the textbook， which could not lead students to generate their meaning of language as primary school textbooks are not genuine enough.

The ineffectiveness is the result of the difficulties in implementation. The first difficulty is China's exam-oriented context and assessment system. In China， exam result is the most important criterion to evaluate students & teachers' performance. Thereof， teachers adhere to grammar & knowledge-based teaching to meet the exam requirements. The second difficulty is related to the learners' English proficiency. Pupils are grouped randomly in different classes. Even in the same class， the students' English level is varied. Therefore， it is challenging for teachers to carry out a task that is suitable for everyone， and 'task' are considered as time-wasting. The third issue is related to teachers. Firstly， some teachers twist the definition of 'task.' Influenced by the grammar-oriented teaching and the ambiguous definition of 'task' in the ECS， teachers regard 'task' like exercise. Secondly， teachers' lacking of time also impedes the implementation of the promoted syllabus. It is common for one teacher in charge of two or even more classes' teaching in that school. Thereof， they do not have any spare time to design tasks， and consequently， they chose the most traditional teaching method for convenience's sake.

The implementation of a Task-based syllabus could be improved if the above issues are solved. First， China's MOE should change the evaluation system. For pupils， their learning outcomes should not be only judged by the exams. Their daily performance， like task-presentation or involvement， could be an index for evaluation. Subsequently， teachers' attitudes and motivation for Task-based syllabus implementation could be improved. Second， teachers need to be instructed on the definition of 'task' and provided adequate training before carrying out the syllabus by schools or the MOE. According to Carless （2003）， only teachers can articulate what 'task' is， can they design and implement the syllabus appropriately. Besides， teachers themselves should well-prepared before carrying the syllabus as 'task-based teaching task-based teaching requires more thought， imagination， and planning than simply following the set text' （Carless， 2003）. They could work together to prepare activities and materials within their pupils' English proficiency.

Although Task-based syllabus has been integrated into the New Curriculum Standard and the ECS group advocates TBLT as the primary teaching pedagogy， the implementation is underdeveloped. To improve the implementation， the MOE should address potential problems， such as the evaluation system and teachers inexperience. Based on reality， it is unlikely that the Task-based syllabus could be fully implemented in the short term. However， educators or teachers figure out ways to incorporate form into tasks to improve students knowledge acquisition and communicative skills.

Reference

Allen， J. P. B. （1984）. General Purpose Language Teaching： A Variable Focus Approach： in C. J. Brumfit，（Ed） General English， Syllabus Design.

Carless， D. R. （2003）. Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools. System， 31（4）， 485-500.

Ellis， R. （2003）. Designing a task-based syllabus. RELC journal， 34（1）， 64-81.

Howatt， A. P. R.， & Widdowson， H. G. （2004）. A history of ELT. Oxford University Press.

Howatt， A. P.， & Smith， R. （2014）. The history of teaching English as a foreign language， from a British and European perspective. Language & History， 57（1）， 75-95.

Ministry of Education. （2001）. English language curriculum standards for full-timecompulsory education and senior secondary schools （trial version）. Beijing： BeijingNormal University Press. （In Chinese）

Nunan， D.， Candlin， C. N.， & Widdowson， H. G. （1988）. Syllabus design （Vol. 55）. Oxford： Oxford University Press.

Stern， H. H. （1987）. Directions in syllabus design. Language syllabuses： State of the art. Singapore： Seamo Regional Language Centre.

Wilkins， D. （1976）. Notional syllabuses. Bulletin CILA （Commission interuniversitaire suisse de linguistique appliquée） （?Bulletin VALS-ASLA? depuis 1994）， 24， 5-17.

Xiongyong， C.， & Moses， S. （2011）. Perceptions and implementation of task-based language teaching among secondary school EFL teachers in China. International Journal of Business and Social Science， 2（24）.

Zhang， Y. （2015）. Task-based language teaching in the primary schools of South China. Contemporary task-based language teaching in Asia， 87-102.