A New Model of a Task-Based Didactic Unit and Its Effectiveness in the Primary Classroom - Assignment Example

A New Model of a Task-Based Didactic Unit The research paper by Antonio Duran Fernandez entitled, “Results of a research project carried out in the primary classroom using two units of work based on the task-based approach” proposes a new model of a Task-Based Didactic Unit while at the same time attempting to demonstrate its effectiveness in the Primary Classroom. The main purpose of the research is to find out whether more effective English Language Learning would result from the application of Task-Based Didactic Units as compared to the learning that results when Didactic Units based on the Traditional Approach: Presentation, Practice and Production are applied. In addition, the research also wanted to establish the relationship between English learning and different factors: The pupils’ Spanish level, Mechanical Calculus, Mental Calculus, the parents’ educational level and the hours spent in an English Academy as an outside activity, if applicable. The diagram below shows the main stages involved in the planning of a task-based unit of work. The participants of the study comprised of 62 students in the semi-private school ‘Nuestra Señora de la Consolación’ (Madrid). Two groups were chosen at random, with the Control Group having 33 members while the Experimental Group consisted of 29 members. Since the research was to be conducted using humans, it would be difficult to come up with a Control and Experimental groups. Hence, it was acceptable to have a varying number of participants in two groups. Most likely, the participants in the research were chosen by the researcher considering the ease and practicability of performing the experiment. The design used was a quasi-experimental design, which subjected the participants in the Experimental group and an equivalent Control group to a pretest and posttest. The participants were first evaluated in the pretest to establish a base line level and to guarantee that the Experimental and Control groups were equivalent and that the two groups had approximately the same English levels. Participants in the Control group were exposed to the Traditional Didactic Units while the participants in the Experimental group were exposed to the Task-Based Didactic Units. Finally, pupils were evaluated in the Post-test. The dependent variables investigated on in the study were Listening Comprehension, Reading Comprehension and Speaking. The participants’ Listening Comprehension and Speaking skills were measured by evaluating their performance in the teacher-pupil interaction. On the other hand, their Reading Comprehension skills were measured by evaluating the answers that they gave following their reading of a given text. A critical review of these activities indicates that the results may be affected by a lot of extraneous variables. Firstly, there was no mention of the standardization of the conversational and reading texts used in the study. In addition, the one in charge of evaluating the participants may also effect subjectivity to the results. These issues may affect the reliability of the results of the study. There were also secondary variables in the study and these include Spanish level and Verbal Aptitude. Verbal Aptitude was further divided into the following variables: Writing, Reading Comprehension, Speaking, Listening Comprehension, Spelling, Definitions, Mechanical Calculus, Mental Calculus, Parents’ Educational Level, and Hours Spent in an English Academy. The measures taken in the pretest and posttest cannot be compared because the tests given in the two phases were different. Thus, a direct comparison cannot be made. As pointed out in an earlier part of this review, the tests used were not standardized because, as the researcher points out, there are no standardized tests available for this type of research. Thus, it cannot be established that the tests given in the pretest and posttest were parallel in terms of providing accurate measures of the dependent variables. Moreover, the task of creating these parallel tests was beyond the objectives of the study at hand. The author claims that the participants were comparable in the pretest because statistical analysis of the pretest results showed no statistically significant differences in either the English variable or the secondary variables between the Control and Experimental groups. Furthermore, there were also no statistically significant differences found between the groups in the other sub-variables of the main English variable. Thus, the researcher concluded that the two groups were equivalent in the pretest. That is, both the Control and Experimental Groups had similar levels of English skills. Furthermore, the identified secondary variables may be eliminated as possible sources of data contamination. The significant differences between the Experimental and Control groups may be attributed to a number of factors. In the Reading Comprehension test, participants in the Experimental Group worked with photocopies, most of them in colour, so the texts were more communicative. On the other hand, participants in the Control Group worked with the textbook which implied more grammatical texts. Thus, differences may be attributed to different presentations of the didactic material in quantity and quality. In addition, learning strategies such as the use of notebooks in alphabetical order, cards, making of illustrated dictionaries, conceptual maps, tables, etc. were stressed in the Experimental group and many pupils put these techniques into practice. Other than this, the pupils were able to study vocabulary in a systematic and organized way, which could have contributed to a better learning vocabulary, and consequently, better Reading Comprehension skills. Another point of consideration would be the fact that pupils in the Experimental group each read at least one story as an exercise of intensive reading, and had to answer a series of comprehension questions on a piece of paper. Thus, these extensive reading tasks and greater facilities for intensive reading, could have caused the significantly higher scores of the students in the Experimental group compared to the Control Group. On the other hand, reasons for the lack of significant differences in the remaining skills were likewise pointed out by the researcher. Time constraint is one great point of consideration in the lack of significant differences. The research lasted for only one term and thus, the effect of the Task-Based Approach may have not been appropriately assimilated by the pupils in their oral English skills. The researcher stresses the fact that while there were no significant differences in the inferential level, differences in the descriptive level showed more promise. The researcher further points out that learning a foreign language is a gradual and extensive process developed over a long period of time. Thus, considerations in time played a great factor in the results achieved by the study. The researcher points out an interesting relationship between task-based learning and slow learners in the sample. Findings reveal that significant differences in all the variables were found in the lowest third of the group, comprised of 22 pupils. These pupils were those with the lowest marks and the differences were all in favor of the Experimental group. Thus, the researcher is led to conclude that the Task-Based Approach was beneficial for those pupils with more problems in English learning, that is, the Task-based approach showed great promise when applied to slow learners. With regards to the secondary variables, the researcher first identified the degree of correlation that these had to the main variable which was English learning. The researcher was able to identify that Verbal aptitude correlated highly with English learning. Among the components of this variable, all the variables, except for Mechanical Calculus, likewise correlated with English learning though at a lower degree. The researcher considers this as an interesting point of consideration because it supports the idea that teaching a foreign language is not based on mechanical imitation as was thought when structuralism was highly acclaimed. Instead, it is based on mental mechanisms through which all the linguistic system is processed both in reception and production. This, in fact, is the theory of the cognitive processing approach which underlines the Task-Based Approach. Moreover, the researcher opted to discard Writing in English from the research because this particular skill had hardly been taught and there was very little basis for research. It seems that the researcher did not pay enough attention to the analysis and interpretation of the secondary variables. The correlation analysis that was conducted could have been done prior to considering the secondary variables as components of the main variable. Furthermore, deeper levels of analysis could have been performed on the secondary variables. Firstly, this paper provided me with a deeper insight into the Task-Based Didactic Approach and how its activities compared with the Traditional Approach, particularly in the field of language learning. The research was able to clearly emphasize that a connection between tasks has to be established if learning of a foreign language is too take place. Furthermore, learning of a foreign language takes place through a sequence of tasks in a process over a considerable period of time. Also, Units of Work designed by following the Task-Based Approach offer the possibility that such tasks fulfill a purpose, have an intention and achieve the end objective of the Final Task in such a process. This paper likewise reaffirmed my thoughts that it is difficult to learn a foreign language in an environment where that language is not usually spoken, at a limited amount of time. Thus, it is important that learners use the foreign language as a means through which to learn other subjects so that they would have more time to use the foreign language. More importantly, this paper has also taught me that educators always have to be receptive to, and also critical of, the different approaches that are being introduced that claim to improve learning. While the intentions of these studies are no doubt, sincere, methodologies may leave much to be desired. It is very important to take these researchers and critically review each and every aspect rather than considering them at face value. Only with a critically open mind can one truly understand and accept pertinent proposals and ideologies, such as the ones presented in this paper. Read More