任务式教学理念在高中英语诵读教学应用

Chapter I Introduction

The teacher, who is in charge of the proceedings, has a professional part and alwayskeeps his authority in a well-structured class: the syllabus, the lesson aims, and theevaluation method are quite clear and straightforward. Besides, learners have a process ofhabit formation in which the emphasis is on the end product. Under such conditions,whatever is going to take place in the classroom can be easily predicted, but languageteachers must be aware that learners’ performance, i.e. the way learners make use of theirlanguage experience, is never amenable to their control. In recent years there have beenarguments that PPP are inadequate become less and less powerful, suggesting that theprecise focus on a particular form does not lead to learning and automatic (Brumfit, 1979).They go on to point out that what learners need is an approach that keeps the status ofgrammar teaching in the classroom and at the same time provides students withopportunities for communicative language use.Second language acquisition researchers have proposed a lot of ways in whichcommunication can bring about acquisition.
According to the interaction hypothesis (Long,1983), it is through the negotiation for meaning that the input becomes morecomprehensible and, as a result, acquisition can happen. Having grown in importanceenormously during the past years, the tads-based approach, which aims to cultivatelearners’ communicative skills by providing a purpose for the language activities, rests itstheory mainly in ling’s hypothesis. It has emerged as an important component, havingmade a great impact on syllabus design (Candlin, 1987), curriculum, and materialdevelopment (Kumaravadivelu, 1991; Nunan, 1989 ) ， and the language teachingmethodology (Bygate, 1987)too. In this point of view, tasks are activities which seemeaning as having primary importance, and these tasks have a strong resemblance toreal-life language exchange. To be brief, the outcome-evaluated task-based approach is theoffspring of communicative language teaching but focuses attention on the specific characteristics of language forms (Skehan, 1996).Nunan thinks that a task is an activity, which has a centered purpose and drives thelearner to make use of objective to take part in the interaction between reading,comprehension, process and output. Richards thinks that a task is a specific goal, whichcan only be gained by activity of using language. Synthesizing many linguisticeducationalists’ viewpoint, P. Shehan makes the definition of a task as an activity such as:For which purpose is the soul. During which a learner does not only repeat. With which asimilar activity in the real situation is connected in one-way or another. To which a priorityis given. To evaluate whether or not a task is finished is to see whether or not it bearskin afruit.
……………

Chapter II Literature Review

2.1 Task-based Language Teaching
As an introductory phase，we will first explain the notion of a task, especiallyconcerning how it is different from common classroom activity or practice. And later thetheoretical basis of Task-based Language Teaching will be showed. A number of definitions have been given about what we mean by ‘tasks’ intask-based language learning by previous researchers from different viewpoints. In someversions，it is suggested that the word ‘tasks’ is nothing new and it is only another term forvarious activities，including grammar exercises，language games，comprehension questionsand role-plays(Bygate，1996).But this is not the case. Here some definitions illustrated inthe recent literature are listed for us to understand.From a non-technical and non-linguistic perspective，a task is a piece of work donefor oneself or for others，freely or for some reward. It means what people do in everyone’slife，at work, and in between，i.e. painting fences，dressing children，filling out streetdestinations（.Long 1985：89）In a pedagogical sense, a task is an activity that is carried outas the result of understanding language.（i.e. as a response）for example，drawing a mapwhile listening to an instruction and performing a command. A task usually requires theteacher to specify what will be thought as successful completion of the task.（Richards，Platt and Webber 1986:289）
……………

2.2 Theoretical Basis of Task-based Language Learning
“Task-based language learning/teaching ”is an important communicative teachingapproach, which was put forward in the 1980s by many researchers after a lot of research .The theoretical basis of task-based learning dates back to cognitive psychology whichhas an effect on the elementary education. As early as 1977，a famous English linguist DickAllwright said “if the language activities involve the learners in dealing withcommunicative problems in the target language, language learning will look after itself ”.American educationist Dewey (1859-1952) gave student-centered project and learningby doing. A linguist Herbert Clark (1996) thinks “Language is used for doing things ”It is usually believed that the theoretical basis of task-based learning is Krashen’s“Input and Integrationists Hypothesis,”where he declares, “the input Hypothesis claimsthat we gain language in only one way by understanding messages which is by receivingcomprehensible input. If the input has forms and structures just beyond the learner’scurrent level of competence in the language,，then comprehension and acquisition will takeplace.”The first person who has used task-based learning to teaching programs and practiceis Prabhu. It was in Banualore of the south of India in 1979 that Prabhu started his boldexperiment to put his theories that deemed radical at that time into practice. He believesthat learners may learn more effectively when their mindsests are fixed on the task, ratherthan on the language that they are using. So Prabhu is believed to be the originator oftask-based language learning.
…………

Chapter III Experiment......... 15
3．1 Hypothesis ......... 15
3.2 Method...... 15
3.2.1 Subjects of the study..... 15
3.2.2 Instruments of the study ..... 16
3.2.3 Procedures of the study ...... 16
Chapter 4 Data collection and analysis......... 27
4．1 Descriptive statistics of pre-test and post-test ......... 27
4．2 The questionnaire and its analysis ......... 31
Chapter V Conclusion..... 33

Chapter 4 Data collection and analysis

4．1 Descriptive statistics of pre-test and post-test
The experiment collected the students’ exam scores on reading comprehension anddid a thorough analysis with the aid of the computer statistical program SPSSl0．0.Both thetwo classes experienced a pre-test(Appendix 3)which was designed to check whether thetwo groups are at the same level of English reading or not．The Independent Samples T testis employed and the results of it show the factor to be significant at least at the p=．05level(df=78，N=80). The following results demonstrate that the two groups are at the samelevel of English reading．To better compare the pre-test scores of the two groups，the meanand the standard deviation of the pre-test of reading are tabled at the beginning for the sakeof clarity and authority. Beneath the Group Statistics are the results of the “Independent Samples Test” that areused in the study．SPSS reports the observed t-value，the degrees of freedom C df，and thetwo—tailed probability (”Sig．(2-tailed)”)．Also reported on this line are the differencebetween the mean，standard error of the difference，and the 95％confidence interval for thedifference between population means.As is shown in Table 4.2 above，df=78，t=-.093，p=.926>.05，there is no significantdifference between these two classes ， which further shows the two classes arehomogeneous before the study and this agrees with the basic requests of sampling
……………

Conclusion

In“the task lead-in”part，because every student took some time in previewing thereading passage and collecting some information，they tried to be the first person to makethe speech during the class report and were afraid of lagging behind to show their product.In“the task learning the new language and participation”part，the students increased theirreading speed and reading comprehension by making use of the reading skills that theylearned. Meanwhile, they did favor to each other with the problems in the reading processthrough group work or pair work. By discussing the problems the students couldunderstand the text further. On the other hand, by competing in groups，the students’interests to complete the task were improved and the class atmosphere was active too. In“the consolidation of the new language”part，by comparing and discussing，the students’knowledge was enriched. In“the practice and application”part，the students changed theknowledge which they obtained into written language by collecting a lot of informationwhich enabled the students improve the reading ability，consolidate the knowledge in classand solve the information creatively，so making the reading efficiently. By reading thestudents’ notebook every week and often interviewing some of the students，the authorbelieved the experiment was effective. Most students believed the task-based approach didinfluence their reading skills and thinking patterns .And some of the students held activeattitudes towards task-based approach in extensive reading. In general，they thought thenew teaching approach made the class interesting and fun. This teaching method couldmake their study much more active .
……………
Reference (omitted)