To The London Bridge (Pedagogic Task)

This is a pedagogic task to be used in classrooms to teach English. This task is designed to be used along with the learner's first language (L1). Wherever it permits, the learner must be allowed to make use of his/her L1 for understanding the task, and for communication. This does not hinder second language learning, but promotes it. According to supporters of bilingual and multilingual learning, L1 in fact is a powerful tool that reduces learner's affective filter, builds confidence and prepares a conducive contexts for second language acquisition. 

Total time required: 10 minutes

Task in TBLT

Tasks are tools that generate opportunities for language learning, based on learner's experience of knowledge (Samuda & Bygate, 2008). Alderson & Banerjee (2002) aptly stated that an understanding of the nature of tasks is central to the design of TBLT. Doyle (1983) perceived the curriculum as a collection of tasks while attempting to understand how teachers and students understand academic school work. He enumerated three areas to which tasks lead learners’ focus to: a) the task’s outcome in language; b) the operations/processes used in reaching this outcome; and c) the resources/materials available during the task performance. It is further argued that tasks lead to learning both the content used in the task and the processes used to reach the outcome (Doyle, 1983, p. 162). That is, tasks are defined by and aids in learning both the outcomes and processes involved in performance, and they lead learners’ attention to the materials used. This is in a way to say that task-content and processes involved in task performances can be manipulated to initiate and promote new learning.

References:

Alderson, C. J., & Banerjee, J. (2002). Language testing and assessment (Part 2). Language Learning, 35(2), 79-113. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444802001751

Samuda, V., & Mygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Doyle, W. (1983). Academic Work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159-199.