Materials Development Theoretical Review

communicative…since it provides a purpose for a classroom activity which goes beyond the practice of language for its own sake. Adapted from: Richards, et al. 1986: 289 in Nunan, 2004: 2 From the explanation above, the pedagogical tasks focus on the activities which are done inside the classroom. The statement above also states that it is better to use different kinds of tasks so that the teaching and learning process can be more communicative. In addition, it emphasizes the importance of having a non- linguistic outcome. Branden 2006 also makes a similar distinction in defining tasks. He gathers many ideas from other scientists and in the end makes two categories to define tasks. First is the definition of tasks as language learning goal. Using a language is a mean to an end: by understanding language input and by producing language output. The students get a better outcome if they use the language to interact with people in a real life situation. The second definition of tasks is educational activities. It emphasizes that there should be a close link between the activities or tasks done by the students with the outside world. Those tasks should be related to what the students are supposed to do in the real world target tasks. So, needs analysis is needed to establish course content in terms of the real-world target tasks. In addition, this definition also emphasizes on the primacy of meaning: the learners’ attention should be directed towards meaning exchange. Tasks should facilitate the students with meaningful interaction. It should give them the opportunity to process meaningful input and produce meaningful output to reach the expected goal. So, it means that tasks invite the students to act as language users, not as language leaners. The idea stated by some scientists that Branden 2006 puts into one category of definition task as educational activity also points out that the meaningful use of language should be regarded as complex skill, which demands from the learners that they draw on the linguistic resources as well as their general cognitive resources. Since language use is facilitative for reaching all kinds of goals in the real world, task-based language teaching TBLT naturally evokes a wide diversity of cognitive operation that people need to perform in order to function in real life. Tasks should encourage pupils to personalize language, pursue their interests and use language in an independent and hopefully in creative way Jean Brewster and Gail Ellis with Denis Girard, 2003:50.

b. Tasks

’ Components Based on Shavelson and Stern 1981 in Nunan 2004:40, task designers should consider some elements below: 1 Content: it is the subject matter to be taught. 2 Materials: the things that learners can observe or manipulate 3 Activities: the things that learners and teachers will be doing during a lesson. 4 Goals: the teachers’ general aims for the task these are much more general and vague than objectives 5 Students: their abilities, needs and interests are important. 6 Social community: the class as a whole and its sense of ‘groupness’. Those components are needed in order to make good tasks. So, a task designer should take these elements into consideration. Actually, there are also some scientists who have similar idea to construct tasks. So, Nunan 2004: 41 makes a diagram based on the idea of those scientists. Below is the diagram of the minimum specification of tasks: Goals Teacher Role Input TASK Learner Role Procedures Settings Figure 2.3. The Minimun Specification of Task Here is the explanation of each of the components stated by Nunan 2004: 1 Goals It is the vague, general intentions behind any learning task. There are some characteristics of goals. Goals are more specific than Halliday’s three macro skills interpersonal, transactional, and aesthetic but more general than formal performance objectives. Furthermore, it may relate to a range of general outcomes communicative, affective, or cognitive or may directly describe teacher or learner s’ behavior. He also adds another important point. Goals may not always be explicitly stated although it can usually be inferred from the task itself. There is not always a simple one-to-one relationship between goals and tasks. In the same cases, a complex task such as simulation with several steps and sub-tasks may have more than one underlying goals. It is also said that goals may relate not only to language but also other aspects of learning process such as sociocultural, process oriented or cultural, and communicative. The following table presents the types of goals which are adapted from Clark 1987: 227-32 in Nunan 2004: 43.