COMMUNICATION ORAL, PEERWORK TASKS

COMMUNICATION ORAL,
PEERWORK TASKS (COPTS)

The assumption is that the COPTs have been selected because they reflect target task types. In other words, they are supposedly a blueprint for PeW interaction and afford some predictability. However, if there are identifiable roles in the interaction, which roles are the focus, and what happens to other non-focus roles?

The other major argument is that selected COPTs will prompt spontaneous language and the type of interaction conducive to language development. However, the language will be more unpredictable the more open-ended the task, and there is no assurance that the PeW interaction will be conducive to language development. This puts into question one of the major rationales for the use of COPTs, although it has been assumed that tasks can be manipulated to vary individual attention to complexity, accuracy and fluency (Skehan, 1998), and that certain task types can be selected to prioritise certain types of interaction (see Ellis, 2000:200). Again, no mention is made of the different roles that different peers might adopt in the interaction, either when they are more clearly defined, as in role-play type tasks, or when they are not, as in problem-solving ones. Clearly, there is a fundamental conflict between the individual perspective, in terms of syllabus (Long & Crookes, 1992, 1993) and task performance (Skehan, 1996), and the interactive peer group perspective apparently necessary for language development.

If the COPTs do stimulate creative use of the TL and what Swain (1985) calls 'pushed' output, with no immediate interactive constraints, there is no guarantee that the outcome will not be pidgin-like (Bruton, 2002a; Sheen, 1994). There is a lack of clarity about how learners assimilate and restructure language through negotiated interaction in the short term, but presumably one student's output is another student's input and potential intake. In monolingual FL classes, therefore, with an excess of PeW tasks and less proficient students, pidgin-like language has every likelihood of emerging (Sheen, 1994, Bruton, 2002a, Lightbown, 1991, Cook, 2002).

The major concerns of programmes centred on COPTs are the same as the programmes they were designed to replace. Since no predictable or reliable input for language assimilation is likely to become available directly from the COPTs pre- and post-task activity is designed to compensate for it, including
scripted inputs of various types. These various options have to be co-ordinated sequentially in any one pedagogical unit, which is rarely mentioned, but see Samuda (2001).

There are one or two other significant cases where COPTs are implicit. The first is in the Willis (1996) framework. She outlines the central task cycle as including three stages: the "task" followed by the "plan", followed by the "report" - see Figure 2. The planning is for a description or comment on the task to be reported, very often publicly. However, this is a completely separate task, requiring completely different discourse and with a different outcome - doing a spot-the-difference task is not the same as describing how it was done and what the outcome was (Bruton, 2002a). One of the assumptions is that the planning and the report will focus the students' attention on form and accuracy, but, whereas the task was spontaneous in the oral medium, this task is more conscious and with some use of the written medium.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

KOMUNIKASI LISAN, TUGAS-TUGAS PEERWORK (ASLINYA) Asumsinya adalah bahwa aslinya telah dipilih karena mereka mencerminkan jenis tugas sasaran. Dengan kata lain, mereka seharusnya cetak biru untuk PeW interaksi dan mampu prediktabilitas beberapa. Namun, jika ada peran yang diidentifikasi dalam interaksi, peran yang yang fokus, dan apa yang terjadi pada peran non-fokus lainnya? Argumen utama lainnya adalah bahwa aslinya yang dipilih akan meminta bahasa yang spontan dan jenis interaksi yang kondusif untuk perkembangan bahasa. Namun, bahasa akan lebih tak dapat diprediksi lebih terbuka tugas, dan tidak ada jaminan bahwa interaksi PeW akan kondusif untuk perkembangan bahasa. Hal ini menempatkan ke pertanyaan salah satu alasan-alasan utama untuk menggunakan aslinya, meskipun itu telah diasumsikan bahwa tugas dapat dimanipulasi untuk memvariasikan perhatian individu untuk kompleksitas, akurasi dan kefasihan (Skehan, 1998), dan bahwa tertentu tugas jenis dapat dipilih untuk memprioritaskan interaksi jenis tertentu (Lihat Ellis, 2000:200). Sekali lagi, tidak disebutkan terbuat dari peran berbeda yang rekan-rekan yang berbeda mungkin mengadopsi dalam interaksi, atau ketika mereka lebih jelas didefinisikan, seperti dalam pergaulan jenis tugas, ketika mereka tidak, dalam pemecahan yang. Jelas, ada konflik mendasar antara perspektif individu, dalam hal silabus (panjang & Crookes, 1992, 1993) dan kinerja tugas (Skehan, 1996), dan perspektif kelompok interaktif rekan tampaknya diperlukan untuk perkembangan bahasa. Jika aslinya merangsang kreatif menggunakan TL dan apa Swain (1985) panggilan 'mendorong' output, dengan tidak ada kendala interaktif langsung, ada tidak ada jaminan bahwa hasil tidak akan seperti pidgin (Bruton, 2002a; Sheen, 1994). Ada kurangnya kejelasan tentang bagaimana peserta didik mengasimilasi dan merestrukturisasi bahasa melalui negosiasi interaksi dalam jangka pendek, tapi mungkin salah satu siswa output asupan input dan potensi siswa lain. Monolingual FL kelas, oleh karena itu, dengan kelebihan PeW tugas dan kurang mahir siswa, pidgin-seperti bahasa memiliki kemungkinan berkembang (Sheen, 1994, Bruton, 2002a, Lightbown, 1991, memasak, 2002). Keprihatinan utama dari program-program yang berpusat pada aslinya adalah sama dengan program-program yang mereka dirancang untuk menggantikan. Karena ada masukan yang diprediksi atau terpercaya untuk bahasa asimilasi cenderung menjadi tersedia langsung dari aslinya pra- dan pasca-tugas aktivitas dirancang untuk mengkompensasi, termasuk scripted masukan dari berbagai jenis. Ini berbagai pilihan harus dikoordinasikan secara berurutan dalam setiap satu unit pedagogis, yang jarang disebutkan, tetapi melihat Samuda (2001). There are one or two other significant cases where COPTs are implicit. The first is in the Willis (1996) framework. She outlines the central task cycle as including three stages: the "task" followed by the "plan", followed by the "report" - see Figure 2. The planning is for a description or comment on the task to be reported, very often publicly. However, this is a completely separate task, requiring completely different discourse and with a different outcome - doing a spot-the-difference task is not the same as describing how it was done and what the outcome was (Bruton, 2002a). One of the assumptions is that the planning and the report will focus the students' attention on form and accuracy, but, whereas the task was spontaneous in the oral medium, this task is more conscious and with some use of the written medium.