Andijon davlat chet tillar instituti

References

1. 
   Jalolov J.J., Makhkamova G.T., Ashurov Sh.S. “English Language Teaching methodology” -T.: 2015
   
2. 
   Jalolov J.J. “Chet til o’qitish metodikasi.” - T.: 2012.
   
3. 
   Axmedova L.T., Normuratova V.I. “Teaching English practicum” / “Praktikum po metodike prepodavaniya angliyskogo yazika” - T.: 2011.
   
4. 
   Khoshimov O’, Yaqubov I. “Ingliz tli o’qitish metodikasi” – T.: 2003.
   

5.Aхмедова Л.Т. “Роль и место педагогических технологий в
профессиональной подготовке студентов”- T.: 2009.
6.Мильруд Р.П.“Методика преподавания английского языка.”English
language methodology: Учебное пособие для вузов. 2-изд. - Москва.
Дрофа, 2007.
7.Rogers and Richards. “Approaches and methods in Language Teaching.”
Cambridge University press.
8.Harmer Jeremy. “The practice of English language Teaching.” Cambridge,
2007.
9.Makhkamova G.T. “Innovative pedagogical Technologies in the
English Language Teaching.” Tashkent, 2017.

Lecture-4
The role of tasks and activities in foreign language teaching.
Plan
1.Difficulties in creating tasks and activities in foreign language teaching .
2.Using activities at the lesson.


Key words: task, activity, instruction, amount of choice, procedures, motivation, particular type of classroom procedure, communicative purpose, component of an activity, student's understanding.

The Task teaching style is an option available to students under Student-Directed Teaching, a progressive teaching technology that aims to give the student a greater sense of ownership in his or her own education.

This teaching style is "for those students who required formal instruction and yet are capable of making some choice as to the appropriate practice for them to master the objective." This formal instruction happens at the same time as theCommand students.
Under Task, the teacher will:
-Provide a unit plan consisting of the objectives for several days, written in a language that students can understand
-Provide formal instruction
-Limit formal instruction to 25% of the time
-Provide an instruction area
-Assign an appropriate amount of choice in practice related to the instruction
-Provide a checking station with answer keys
-Use good questioning techniques and negotiation to help steer the students to becoming more independent
-Spend approximately 60% of the total class time with the students whose choice was Task (remember Command and Task are together for formal instruction)
-Provide perception checks and final tests as indicated in the unit plan
-Provide a second evaluative activity if required by an individual student
The student will:
-Listen to the instruction
-Consider what they know and what they don't know when selecting the amount and type of practice
-Declare the mark expected on each perception check
-Do more than one perception check if the declared mark is not reached within the flexibility factor
-Assignments for students choosing Task style might look something like this:

An activity describes any procedures in which learners work towards a goal such as play a game or engaging in a discussion. Finally, a task is something undergone by students using pre-existing or scaffolded language resources.

‘Activity’ is a high-frequency term in ELT professional discourse. Along with ‘activities’, it appears in the title or abstract of no fewer than 85 articles published inELT Journal since January 2000,1 easily outnumbering other key concepts such as ‘autonomy’/‘autonomous’ (37 articles over the same period) and even ‘motivation’/‘motivate’ (53 articles). One reason for this is the wide range of meanings that ‘activity’ can convey. The Collins English Dictionary indicates two main uncountable senses—‘the state or quality of being active’ and ‘lively action or movement’—as well as the countable meaning that underpins the way it is commonly used in ELT discourse: ‘any specific deed, action, pursuit’. In ELT professional talk, “activity” is deployed so flexibly and frequently that distinctions between its various meanings often go unexamined. But the very centrality of ‘activity’ to our discourse, the property of the term that can render it almost invisible to its users, is also an excellent reason to investigate it carefully as a professional concept.
In the ELT literature, it is possible to observe a continuum of meaning for ‘activity’, ranging from its general use to describe virtually any distinctive phase within a language lesson, to quite technical characterizations that construct activities as a particular type of classroom procedure. In Mitchell’s study, which sought to capture the variety of classroom procedures observed in Scottish language classrooms, the term serves as a catch-all descriptor of any delineable phase of behaviour, whether that of teacher or learner. Scrivener narrows its sense only slightly by excluding teacher behaviour, describing it as ‘something that learners do that involves them using or working with language to achieve some specific outcome’. Thornbury similarly presents activity as ‘a general term to describe what learners are required to do, using the target language, at any one stage in the course of a lesson’.
More particular than this ‘umbrella’ sense are those descriptions that view activities as language learning procedures prioritizing meaning over form. Harmer explains that, in CLT, activities involve students in communication, ‘where the successful achievement of the communicative task they are performing is at least as important as the accuracy of their language use’. Ur describes an activity as ‘a procedure where the learner is activated in some kind of task that induces him or her to engage with the target language items in a meaningful way’. She distinguishes activities from exercises, which ‘focus very much on correct forms’, sometimes ‘without any understanding of the meaning at all’.
This sense of ‘activity’ as a learning procedure directed at communicative language use emerged in ELT discourse during the same period that the communicative approach took hold in UK-based practice. Hunter and Smith’s study of historical change inELT Journal identified ACTIVITY as the third most frequent keyword during the period (1981–1986) when discussion of ‘communicative’ ideas became most intense. This evidence that ‘activity’ played a central role in an emerging communicative discourse is borne out by other writings of the time: Brumfit, for example, advocated ‘fluency activities’ as part of a communicative methodology. Howatt and Widdowson’s retrospective account of the emergence of the communicative approach suggests that whatever its theoretical origins, in practice ‘the legacy of the CLT classroom that distinguishes it most clearly from its predecessors is probably the adoption of “activities”. While they identify primary school language teaching projects carried out in the 1960s as the likely specific starting point for the popularity of activities in ELT , they observe that ‘activity methods’ (ibid.) in which learners are exposed to opportunities for discovery as an educational procedure, can be traced back through the history of education as far as Rousseau.
Even more specific descriptions of an ‘activity’ are those that seek to closely specify its characteristics and offer a typology of its instances. Harmer’s description includes the criteria that a ‘communicative activity’ should: have an identifiable communicative purpose; give learners a desire to communicate; and require a focus on content rather than form. A ‘describe and draw’ pair work game is offered as the activity that most fully meets these communicative requirements. Ur offers several characteristics of a ‘good’ practice activity. These include the stipulations of ‘validity’ (addressing the language or skill it purports to practise), success-orientation, ‘heterogeneity’ (being manageable by all of the learners in a group), and interest. A more recent list of speaking activity categories is provided by Harmer, who mentions: acting from a script, communication games, discussion, prepared talks, questionnaires, and simulations and role-plays as common activity types. While these categories relate to speaking activities, the point is often made that an activity can involve any or all of the four skills, as well as language areas like grammar and vocabulary.
‘Task’ and ‘activity’, though sometimes used interchangeably in general discussion by teachers, are often carefully distinguished in language methodology literature. Ur refers to ‘task’ as a component of an activity’s design; the objective that learners are required to attain when assigned an activity. In literature concerned with Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT), the notion of task encapsulates many of the same concepts as activity, but the use of tasks is more frequently advocated on the basis of its consistency with SLA research and theory. Just as TBLT has been described byWillis and Willis as a ‘development on CLT’, absorbing then advancing many of its principles, so might ‘task’ in TBLT be considered a refinement of the broader, less theorized CLT concept of ‘activity’.
What is perhaps most notable about ‘activity’ as a term is its persistence in our discourse despite the vicissitudes of terminological fashion. Hunter and Smith (op.cit.) suggest that some of the senses that ELT Journal writers attached to the keyword ACTIVITY during the period of CLT’s emergence in the 1970s and 1980s—in particular the need for learners to use language free of teacher control—had previously been associated with GAME. The same study shows that, while TASK never came close to supplanting ACTIVITY as a keyword, during the late 1980s, it did absorb some of its senses and valorizing arguments. What has persisted across this transfer of meanings from one term to another is the common ethos, centring on the independence of learners and the importance of absorption in meaningful use of language, that they articulate within ELT. Part of the secret of the persistence of ‘activity’ as a central term within our discourse may well be its continuing association with these powerful ideas.
It is equally important that each activity is meaningful, and ensures student development and advancement through the unit. Activities should build on previous activities and avoid being repetitive, they should enable students to engage with and develop their skills, knowledge and understandings in different ways. Meaningful activities engage students in active, constructive, intentional, authentic, and cooperative ways.
Useful learning activities are ones where the student is able to take what they have learnt from engaging with the activity and use it in another context, or for another purpose. For example, students are able to directly apply the skills or knowledge they acquired to an assessment task, or to the next activity in your unit.
The activity types provided below are by no means an exhaustive list, but will help you in thinking through how best to design and deliver high impact learning experiences for your students in your unit.
The goal of all activities is to enhance student's understanding, skill or effectiveness in a specific area by engaging multiple styles of learning. School activities also serve to infuse fun into learning as well as boost students confidence and the ability to learn and think critically.