Advertisement

Examining the Task Complexity in ELT Coursebooks

  • Jessie S. BarrotEmail author
Regular Article

Abstract

Since the introduction of task-based language teaching, tasks have become an integral component of the curriculum, ESL classrooms, and ELT coursebooks in the Philippines. Hence, this study examines the complexity of tasks in selected ELT coursebooks. Specifically, this study sought to determine the complexity features of tasks per grade level and how they progress from the simplest to the most complex within each ELT coursebook level and across grade levels. Based on the analysis, almost a quarter of the language activities in these coursebooks are tasks, most of which have complexity levels 3, 4, 5, and 6. Further findings reveal that none of the ELT coursebooks show a linear progression of task complexity within and across grade levels. Implications for ELT coursebook development and future studies are discussed.

Keywords

Task complexity ELT coursebooks Materials development Task-based language teaching Task 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper has been funded by the Southeast Asian Ministry of Education Organization Regional Language Centre (SEAMEO-RELC) as part of the researcher’s research fellowship award.

References

  1. Bao, R., & Du, X. (2015). Implementation of task-based language teaching in Chinese as a foreign language: Benefits and challenges. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(3), 291–310.Google Scholar
  2. Barrot, J. S. (2015). A sociocognitive-transformative instructional materials design model for second language (L2) pedagogy in the Asia Pacific: Development and validation. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(2), 283–297.Google Scholar
  3. Barrot, J. S. (2018). English curriculum reform in the Philippines: Issues and challenges from a 21st century learning perspective. Journal of Language, Identity & Education.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2018.1528547.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, J., & Gower, R. (1998). Writing course materials for the world: A great compromise. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp. 117–129). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Book Development Association of the Philippines. (2015). Charting the future of books in the Philippines: A roadmap of the book industry of the Philippines. Mandaluyong: Book Development Association of the Philippines.Google Scholar
  6. Breen, M., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 470–501.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shilcock, R., & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, H. D. (2009). Why and how textbooks should encourage extensive reading. ELT Journal, 63(3), 238–244.Google Scholar
  9. Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5–22). London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Department of Education. (2016). K to 12 curriculum guide for English. Retrieved June 6, 2016, from https://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/page/2016/English%20CG_0.pdf
  11. Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379–395.Google Scholar
  12. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed language learning and task-based teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 713–728). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509.Google Scholar
  15. Ellis, R. (2017). Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching, 50(4), 507–526.Google Scholar
  16. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–323.Google Scholar
  17. Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 215–240.Google Scholar
  18. Günay, D., & lker Etuş, Ö. (2007). The exploration of tasks in the 4th grade ELT coursebook used in state primary schools in Turkey. Istanbul, Turkey: Unpublished course paper. Istanbul University.Google Scholar
  19. Harmer, J. (2001). Coursebooks: A human, cultural and linguistic disaster? MET, 8(4), 5–10.Google Scholar
  20. Hooper, S. (2009). Biological processes underlying written language acquisition. Encyclopedia of language and literacy development (pp. 1–9). London, ON: Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network.Google Scholar
  21. Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48(4), 315–328.Google Scholar
  22. Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information-processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51(3), 401–436.Google Scholar
  23. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 261–284.Google Scholar
  24. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48–60.Google Scholar
  25. Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 319–326.Google Scholar
  26. Mackey, A., Ziegler, N., & Bryfonski, L. (2016). From SLA research on interaction to TBLT materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), SLA research and materials development for language learning (pp. 103–118). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Masuhara, H., & Tomlinson, B. (2008). Materials for general English. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language learning materials (pp. 17–37). London: Continuum International Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. McGrath, I. (2016). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching (2nd ed.). Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 52–83.Google Scholar
  30. Nitta, R., & Gardner, S. (2005). Consciousness-raising and practice in ELT coursebooks. ELT Journal, 59(1), 3–13.Google Scholar
  31. Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. D., & Bonk, W. (2000). Assessing performance on complex L2 tasks: Investigating raters, examinees and tasks. Paper presented at the 22nd Language Testing Research Colloquium, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  32. Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218–233.Google Scholar
  33. Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380–390.Google Scholar
  34. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  35. Richards, J. (1998). Beyond training: Perspectives on language teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Richards, J. (2005). Materials development and research – Making connections. A paper presented at a colloquium on research and materials development at TESOL Convention. March 2005.Google Scholar
  37. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57.Google Scholar
  38. Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45–105.Google Scholar
  39. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
  40. Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 193–213.Google Scholar
  41. Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 1–19.Google Scholar
  42. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62.Google Scholar
  43. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  45. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.Google Scholar
  46. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185–211.Google Scholar
  47. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120.Google Scholar
  48. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  49. Slatyer, H., Brindley, G., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Task difficulty in ESL listening assessment. Paper presented at the 22nd Language Testing Research Colloquium, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  50. Tomlinson, B. (1995). What dialogues can do. FOLIO, 1(2), 8–10.Google Scholar
  51. Tomlinson, B. (2008). English language learning materials. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  52. Tomlinson, B. (2014). Developing materials for language teaching (2nd. ed.). London: Bloombury.Google Scholar
  53. Waters, A. (2006). Thinking and language learning. ELT Journal, 60(4), 319–327.Google Scholar
  54. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© De La Salle University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lanzhou Jiaotong UniversityLanzhou ShiChina
  2. 2.National UniversitySampaloc, ManilaPhilippines

Personalised recommendations