Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:29:17.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - From Needs Analysis to Task Selection, Design, and Sequencing

from Part III - The Task Syllabus and Materials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

By
Roger Gilabert  and
Aleksandra Malicka
Edited by
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian  and
Michael H. Long
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Michael H. Long
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

Needs analysis has been proposed as a professional inquiry into second language learner needs that should inform task and syllabus design. These two areas, however, have been studied separately. We focus on the interface between learners’ needs and our macro and micro decisions during task and syllabus design. Needs analysis and its dimensions are defined by addressing important theoretical and methodological issues. We relate then relate needs analysis to the issue of how it may aid the highly complex decision regarding how tasks may be selected. We also inspect how needs analysis may directly and indirectly inform task design. Finally, we address the issue of how task sequencing may also be aided by needs analysis.

Keywords

needs analysisinterface between NA and task designtask selectiontask designtask sequencing.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching , pp. 226 - 249
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Further Reading

Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., and Robinson, P. (2014), eds. Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2005). Evaluating the use of multiple sources and methods in needs analysis: A case study of journalists in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Spain). In Long, M. H., ed. Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182–99.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. and Castellví, J. (2019). Task and Syllabus Design for Morphologically Complex Languages. In Schwieter, J. and Benati, A., eds. The Cambridge handbook of language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 527–49.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2014). The need for needs analysis in technology-mediated TBLT. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Task-based language teaching. Vol. 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 23–50.Google Scholar
Long, M.H. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malicka, A., Gilabert, R., and Norris, J. M. (2017). From needs analysis to task design: Insights from an English for specific purposes context. Language Teaching Research, 23(1), 78–106.Google Scholar
Malicka, A. (2018). The role of task sequencing in fluency, accuracy, and complexity: Investigating the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Language Teaching Research, 24(5), 642–65.Google Scholar

References

Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., and Robinson, P. (2014), eds. Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.Google Scholar
Boswood, T. and Marriott, A. (1994). Ethnography for specific purposes: Teaching and training in parallel. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C., Doughty, C. J., Kim, Y., Kong, D.-K., Lee, J., Lee, Y.-G., Long, M. H., Rivers, R., and Urano, K. (2005). A task-based needs analysis of a tertiary Korean as a foreign language program. In Long, M., ed. Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 225–61.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
East, M. (2012). Addressing the intercultural via task-based language teaching: possibility or problem? Language and Intercultural Communication, 12(1), 56–73.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2005). Evaluating the use of multiple sources and methods in needs analysis:A case study of journalists in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Spain). In Long, M. H., ed. Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182–99.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. and Castellví, J. (2019). Task and syllabus design for morphologically complex languages. In Schwieter, J. and Benati, A., eds. The Cambridge handbook of language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 527–49.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2014). The need for needs analysisin technology-mediated TBLT. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Task-based language teaching. Vol. 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 23–50.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, W., Anastopoulou, S., Schaumburg, H., and Mavrikis, M. (2018). Technology-enhanced personalised learning: untangling the evidence. Stuttgart: Robert Bosch Stiftung.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Malicka, A., Gilabert, R., and Norris, J. M. (2017). From needs analysis to task design: Insights from an English for specific purposes context. Language Teaching Research, 23(1), 78–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malicka, A. (2018). The role of task sequencing in fluency, accuracy, and complexity: Investigating the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Language Teaching Research, 24(5), 642–65.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. (2009). Multimedia Learning. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
OECD and OCDE. (2012). Languages in a global world : Learning for better cultural understanding. Éditions OCDE/OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
OECD (2015). Students, computers and learning – making the connection. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/studentscomputers-and-learning_9789264239555-en#.Wm9Kh3kiFpg#page3Google Scholar
Ollivier, C. (2018). Towards a socio-interactional approach to foster autonomy in language learners and users. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing/Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2019). An approach to assessing the linguistic difficulty of tasks. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 3, 58-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., and Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S., eds. Tasks and language learning. Integrating theory and practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., and Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending processability theory. In Pienemann, M., ed. Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 199–252.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential frame- work for second language task design. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. and Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 161–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saoquian, L. and Baoshu, Y. (2013). TBLT in China (2001–2011): the current situation, predicament and future. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 147–55.Google Scholar
Serafini, E. J. and Torres, J. (2015). The utility of needs analysis for nondomain expert instructors in designing task-based Spanish for the professional curricula. Foreign Language Annals, 48, 447–72.Google Scholar
Serafini, E. J., Lake, J. B., and Long, M. H. (2015) Needs analysis for specialized learner populations: Essential methodological improvements. English for Specific Purposes, 40, 11–26.Google Scholar
Serra, J. and Gilabert, R. (2020). Development of L2 reading skills in digital game-based learning: Comparing teacher and automatic adaptivity. IDC Conference: London (online).Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, Peter. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vanbecelaere, S. and Benton, L., (2020), eds. Technology-mediated personalized learning for younger learners: concepts, design, methods and practice. British Journal of Educational Technology [special issue]. IDC ’20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference: Extended Abstracts June 2020 doi.org/10.1145/3397617.3398059Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×