DESIGNING A LESSON PLAN FOR INDONESIAN ADULT STUDENTS BY USING TBLT (TASK BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING)

This paper starts with the introduction concerning the development of the pedagogical implementation of second language acquisition (SLA) from communicative language teaching (CLT) to task based language teaching (TBLT). Within the same section, the definition of a task is also provided. It then continues to the design of the lesson plan by implementing the six-step model for TBLT as suggested by Nunan (24); the rationale for each of the step is presented. Lastly, it culminates with the evaluation over the principles applied in the design of the lesson plan.

adopt all main principles of the preceding audio-lingual method (acceptability). The last one is that the objectives advocated by CLT are found to be inappropriate to be implemented in some contexts (e.g. India, China, Japan, Pakistan, Africa, and Thailand) due to the different local linguistic, sociocultural, educational, and political situations (adaptability).
Interestingly, though, according to Richards and Rodgers (2001) TBLT advocating tasks starts emerging as vehicles to apply the same principles advocated by CLT as mentioned in the first paragraph above. Therefore, some consider TBLT is another name of CLT (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Littlewood (2004Littlewood ( , 2007, Nunan (2004), Richards (2005) and Harmer (2007) certainly also imply that TBLT is within a development of CTL. Furthermore, Skehan (1996;1998) posits TBLT has the similar view of communicative language teaching as he refers "tasks" to activities that primarily focus upon meaning. Sheen (1994) argues that the advocacy of TBLT has brought uncertainty and insecurity among teachers and students, that the revolution of CLT to TBLT is unproductive, and that it is the result of the failure in seeing the validity of the large amount of research that become empirical basis for the conventional methods that TBLT sought to replace. Similar to Sheen, Swan (2005) also certainly implies that the opinions that the traditional approaches have failed to meet the demand of teachers and students in English language teaching and learning are not well-founded, and that the advocates of those opinions are often as a result of misinterpretation of the approaches they try to challenge. He continues that another claim made in association with TBLT that it is more superior compared to other language teaching approaches based on the current SLA literature "cannot be sustained" (P. 396). Swan even warns that the theories advocating TBLT may create immerse harm to millions of learners and teachers as every year overseas students coming to English-speaking countries to study cutting-edge theory before going home to give influence in the educational policies within their countries, if the theories advocating TBLT are inappropriate to student teaching contexts. Additionally, Seedhouse (1999) reveals that he does not find any holistic analysis of evidence in the form of lesson transcripts that can demonstrate the benefits claimed by the advocates of TBLT, and he considers this omission to be puzzling.
The above criticisms made by the authors Sheen, Swan, and Seedhouse have been responded by some advocates of TBLT such as Nunan (1994, 781-782), Long (1994), and Ellis (2009); in general the three authors mention that the criticism to question the theories of TBLT is the result of misinterpretation. Nunan, for example, claims that Sheen`s article "contains so many misleading assumptions and assertions" (p. 781), and he provides two objections. The first objection is that Sheen has failed to cite some available resources that have been written by Nunan; instead Sheen only takes the data that are only intended to criticise Nunan`s work. The second objection is that Nunan`s views are "consistently misrepresented". (p. 782). For example, Sheen posits that Nunan in mentioning the beliefs underlying TBLT has tried to show his support to Krashen`s theory of comprehensible input (CI), while Nunan himself does want to critique Krashen`s CI. It means that Sheen has mistakenly considered Krashen`s CI to have become one of the assumptions that characterizes TBLT. Krashen has hypothesized that input is sufficient for the first or second language acquisition, and humans do not acquire by practicing speaking (Gregg, 1986). However, currently it seems to be that he has changed his mind by stating that "comprehensible input is necessary but not sufficient", and that "speaking is now thought to be a result of acquisition, not a cause" (Krashen, 1983, p. 43).
Next, in giving a response to Sheen`s article, Long says that there are "numerous factual inaccuracies, confusions, non sequiturs, distortions, and gross misrepresentations of my own and others" work" (p. 782) in Sheen"s article. In his article, Sheen states that it is unjustified to follow Long and Nunan`s views that methods in SLA do not exist in that teachers as practitioners do not implement the methods as expected, and that methods mostly give little or no difference in classroom implementation, which then trigger the two authors to adopt task based syllabus (TBS) as a replacement. To support his statements, Sheen mentions some studies (e.g. Spada, 1987) which are then in question by Long. Long points out that Sheen has misinterpreted the findings of Spada`s research. Spada`s study is not inconsistent with Long and Nunan`s proposal that methods have lost their integrity when teachers implement them in the classroom. This phenomenon appears to be one of the main factors that contributes to the emergence of "postmethod condition", that is, an effort to find an alternative to method, and not an alternative method (Kumaravadivelu, 1994).
Lastly, Ellis (2009) attempts to sort out "the misunderstanding" (P. 221) of TBLT among researchers and teacher educators. One of the criticisms he tries to address is Widdowson`s statement that the definition of task is "loosely formulated" (2003, p. 126). Ellis admits that Widdowson is right for showing that the definition of task seems to be inconsistent as is evident in some sources which provide various definitions (e.g. Bygate, Skehan, & Swan, 1991;Ellis, 2003;Samuda and Bygate, 2008). However, he continues that Widdowsn reaches such an understanding as Widdowson sticks to one definition that is provided by Skehan (1996;1998).
Skehan mentions that any activities can be considered to be a task when satisfying four criteria: • Meaning is primary.
• There is a goal which needs to be worked towards.
• The activity is outcome-evaluated.
Widdowson criticises Skehan for not being specific to what he means by "meaning" (it may either or/and both refer to semantic or pragmatic meaning), "goal", and "real-world relationship". I have mentioned some criticisms of TBLT by doing my best to arrange it according to the timeline, yet I realise that the dispute among the abovementioned linguists and others is still ongoing. And it is not this time in this paper I shall mention this; instead I will focus more on the theoretical beliefs underlying TBLT that will also be the rationale of my lesson plan within this paper.

B. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Before going on mentioning the principle theories supporting TBLT, I think I need to, at the outset, determine what I mean by the word "task" across this paper. As admitted among its advocates (e.g. Nunan, 2004;Branden, 2006;Skehan, 1996Skehan, , 2013Littlewood, 2004;Long & Crookes, 1992;Ellis, 2009), the definitions of task vary in TBLT, which then invites controversy among researchers (Harmer, 2009). Long`s non-technical and non-linguistic meaning, for example, refers (target) tasks to any activities that people do in everyday life, including such examples as buying a concert ticket, borrowing a book from the library, and writing a letter (1985).
For the definition that will be used throughout this paper, I shall refer to Branden (2006) that tasks are any activities in which students engage to reach an objective that requires them to use their language resources. This type of task is generally called "pedagogical task" (Nunan, 2004), or also "classroom task" (Calvert & Sheen, 2014). In this respect, language is not the end of a task, yet it functions as a means to help leaners reach the objectives within those pedagogical tasks that provide attempt to reflect the real-world situations (Branden, 2006;Ellis, 2006;Willis & Willis, 2007). Tasks having non-linguistic outcomes are in contrast to exercises (non-tasks) which have no communicative purposes (Nunan, 2004;Ellis, 2003). Estaire & Zanon (1994) call "enabling tasks" for what Ellis names "exercises", and "communicative tasks" for what Ellis mentions as "tasks". In TBLT students may use any language resources as many as possible to achieve the task outcomes (Willis and Willis, 2001).
Inasmuch as TBLT`s focus is upon meaningful communication, yet without neglecting the importance of the grammatical knowledge, I think it may suite my student needs who come to my class to improve their communicative skill, but still want to learn grammar as most of English tests in my country, Indonesia, still requires accuracy and even explicit grammatical knowledge (e.g. the TOEFL ITP). Considering that Nunan`s model seems to be more specific than other models of TBLT (e.g. Willis, 1996;Ellis, 2003), I will use Nunan`s six-step model for my lesson plan.

Schema Building
The first step of Nunan`s model of TBLT is to activate student schematic knowledge; it is interchangeably used with background knowledge (Carrell, 1983;Hedge, 2001). In the field of cognitive psychology, it is plausible that the activation of schema(ta) that attempts to relate student existing knowledge structure with the new experience can provoke student interest into the topic of language learning (Carrell, & Wise, 1998). Schema building may then assist students perform tasks more easily (Nunan, 2004).
To lead my students into contexts and to introduce the topic along with the relevant vocabularies and expressions in relation to the tasks that students will have to perform at a later stage (Nunan, 2004), I provide some pictures related to the topic of the tasks, that is, the pictures of the top universities around the world (see Appendix 2). One of the objectives of my lesson is to enable my students to tell about the popular universities and the majors. While showing the pictures to them, I also ask some relevant questions that will encourage them to start using vocabularies and expressions that are relevant to the learning topic. As scaffolding is initiated in this first step (Nunan, 2004), I have put some possible questions to ask by the teacher and some example of the answers that may scaffold the students in creating their own unique answers (see Appendix 2). I expect that this topic would be easier for my students as the topic of top universities is familiar to all of my students (Nunan, 2004).
Still in relation to this aspect, I suppose that this familiar topic can engage my students into participating and being proactive and that may ease them into active learning. In the field of SLA, it is plausible that successful learning requires student active engagement (Saville-Troike, 2006;2012). Not only is it specific to language learning, but it also applies to other types of learning (Littlewood, 2004). Furthermore, as my students have the motivation to pursue their master`s or doctoral degree, this topic, I expect, could motivate them to be more active to complete the tasks.
I do concern in actively encouraging my students to have good motivation in language learning in that I believe that motivation as a cognitive force is one of the keys to ultimate level of proficiency in SLA (Saville-Troike, 2006;2012;Rost & Wilson, 2013).

Controlled Practice
In this step, with controlled practice students are scaffolded in using language vocabulary, structures, and functions that they can use later (Nunan, 2004). One way to do this is to provide a short conversation related to the topic. Students will listen, read, and at the end practice (speak) the conversation with a partner. One major reason to do this, according to Nunan, is to allow students to see, hear, and practice the target language that will be useful for completing the tasks at a later stage. This will also help learners to start actively using the language in that TBLT puts the importance of the notion that students can learn best through doing (active learning) (Nunan, 2004). In attempting to meet the above criteria, I have provided a conversation between a man and woman talking about the woman`s university major (see Appendix 3). My students will first look at the conversation for a while, and then listen to the audio of that conversation. After that, my students then practice it in pairs. Seemingly, one of the reasons for this step is because the advocates of TBLT believe that students not only acquire language through input but also output (e.g Ellis, 2003;Nunan, 2004;Swain 1985 in Fotos and Ellis). Therefore, tasks can be both input based (e.g. listening and reading) and output based (e.g. speaking and writing), and that tasks provide students opportunities to practice the four language skills. Typically in TBLT tasks are integrative, that is, two or more skills are involved. A study by Sung and Soh (2008) demonstrates that students provided with output opportunities can have significantly greater noticing that leads acquisition than students who receive no output opportunities. This principle of TBLT also distinguishes it from Krashen`s CI theory that was once believed to be sufficient for language acquisition.
Furthermore, this step should be clearly distinguished from controlled practice in the presentation-practice-produce model (PPP) in that in PPP forms are introduced to students at the beginning before going into controlled practice. Although it seems to mirror the PPP model as Nunan puts forms before the task (Littlewood, 2004); the selection of activities for controlled practice in PPP and TBLT is different. Whilst in PPP students are encouraged to practice the forms (e.g. through drills) (Carless, 2009), TBLT provides the language within contextualized model. PPP model focuses more on student accuracy of language, while TBLT prefers student fluency over accuracy.

Authentic Listening Practice
Before proceeding to the theories underlying this step, I would first define what I mean by authentic material across my paper. Authenticity may be divided into two different types that are used in TBLT: situational authenticity and interactional authenticity (Ellis, 2003;). The former refers to any tasks that provide students for natural language use, that is, corresponding real-world activities (life likeness), while the latter, also called interactiveness (Bachman & Palmer, 1996), concerns with student engagement with the tasks. It means that activities within TBLT can be considered to be tasks when they can engage students (Guariento and Morley, 2001, p. 350). Nunan (2004) refers authenticity to any materials (e.g. written and spoken materials) that are originally designed not for language teaching purposes. However, Nunan admits that tasks in TBLT should not be limited to this definition as what matters is that how students can be engaged with those tasks that may lead to the creation of optimal learning opportunities. Breen (1985) appears to have proposed the similar definition as he admits that the recent argument towards authenticity is to expose learners to immediate and direct contact with input that are genuinely in nature, and he continues that authentic materials should engage students in giving their effort for active communication.
Seemingly, though, to me they all implicitly state the similar notion that tasks in TBLT which are authentic in nature are not limited to the materials that have originally been produced for communication purposes not for language learning as the important thing for tasks is to have students get involved in completing the tasks (task-involvement). In general, authentic materials are always associated with native speakers of English (e.g. Willis, 1996;Richards and Rodgers, 2001;Nunan, 2004) in Kachru`s inner circle (Kachru, 1992). However, in designing materials for this step I will not limit myself to this definition. I don"t want my students to have less confidence in spoken English in that they will never have the opportunity to be native-like fluency. I share the same view of the notion of Global Englishes (GE) that attempts to raise awareness of the different types of English around the world (e.g. Galloway and Rose, 2014;Galloway, 2013;Jenkins, 2006).
To meet the criteria of authentic listening in this step, I provide a YouTube video showing seven students from different countries including Kachru`s inner circle stating the reason for choosing their college major (see Appendix 4). Within this activity, my students will have to watch the video and answer the questions by filling in the blank that I have provided (see Appendix 4).
Of the seven questions, I have provided the answer the first number as an example; I suppose they can be scaffolded with it. Also, to complete the tasks, I will divide into small groups (in three) so that they can share their answers and that would let them have more interaction among them and get scaffolded.
The above activity is to activate my student top-down processing, which is knowledge based. This type of processing requires students to focus on the ideas rather than on the language structures, words or sounds as in bottom-up processing (Rost & Wilson, 2013). Focusing upon building understanding of complex ideas has been considered to be a key to student listening development (Ibid). Another central principle underpinning the top-down approach is schemata theory (Nunan, 1997). In the first step there has been schema building, so my students have already been scaffolded to activate their schematic knowledge. If my students cannot complete the tables after sharing answers with their friends within their small groups, I will play the video again as suggested by Nunan (ibid) with the hope that it can be challenging to them and provide more exposure to input.

Focus on Linguistic Elements
This step focusing more upon form (e.g. lexical, grammatical, and phonological elements) is expected to raise student awareness to see the interrelation between linguistic knowledge and communicative meaning rather seeing them as separated and isolated elements as is often the case in more conventional approaches (Nunan, 2004). Unlike the TBLT model proposed Willis (1996) who puts language focus in the end of the lesson or after the task stage, Nunan puts language focus before students complete the task as Nunan points out that students should not be expected to produce language that has not been previously implicitly or explicitly introduced.
As my objective is to improve my student use of subordinating conjunction (but, or, and, so) and coordinating conjunction (because), I have provided my students with what a grammar task (see Appendix 5) that would, hopefully, allow them to analyse and practice specific linguistic features that may be useful for them to use for the task completion at a later stage. To solve this grammar task, my students will have to have active interaction with their partner. Student A gets a card that contains cut sentences (in half), and the other half are in the student B card. For example, student A reads the first cut (half) sentence "You may think that you have found your perfect college, …" and students B will say "… but you realize that the climate is too cold or too hot for you". Again, this interactive activity is to fulfil my expectation to have my students become aware that grammatical knowledge has to be connected with language use and meaning (Fotos and Ellis, 1991;Goh & Burns, 2012).

Provide Freer Practice
The previous steps have involved my students in "reproductive" language work (Nunan, 2004). Nunan also proposes the contribution of "receptive-to-productive" principle. This step will have the students engage in freer practice by using any language resources they have to complete the task. It is also associated with Swain`s comprehensible output principle (1985) in that learners are pushed to produce any language for the task completion (Nunan, 2004).
In this step, I would divide my students in group of three to have role play (see Appendix 5). One of them would be the interviewer acting as a university staff who is recruiting students to his university. The two others would be the students who are enrolling to the university. In the end, one of the students will be selected as a nominee. Hopefully, this activity can engage and motivate my students and that leads to the development of their fluency in using the target language in that they have the opportunity to express themselves freely with their own ideas and experience (Hedge, 2000).

Introduce the Pedagogical Task
In this step, my purpose is to make my students realise that in the end they can do the (pedagogical) task by themselves without any support (scaffolding). I remove the scaffolding in this step in order that my students can be independent in their learning and that leads to learner autonomy (Nunan, 2004;Goh & Burns, 2012). Hopefully, my students can be highly motivating as they have seen themselves working through the sequence (ibid). With the increase of my student motivation, they will be able to deal with their anxiety and risk-taking (Gardner, Tremblay & Masgoret, 1997) and increase their self-confidence (Aragão, 2011).
My students will have to have a-two-minute speech about the major that they are going to take in the future along with the reasons and I will allow them to plan the task around three minutes. With the pressure time, I expect it can be more challenging to my students (Ellis, 2003) and hopefully can also be motivating.

C. EVALUATION
The general consensus of using tasks is to provide communicative language use that tend to focus on the negotiation of meaning rather than the grammatical forms as advocated by traditional language instruction that applies a syntactic syllabus (Ellis, 2009). That is, the primary focus is not on language learning, yet on language use (Tomlinson, 2008;Harmer, 2007). It does not mean that grammar has no place in TBLT (Nunan, 2004) as it can also be explicitly taught after the focus on meaning has been completed (Willis and Willis, 2007;Samuda, 2001). Nunan in his model of TBLT, in contrast, demonstrates that the focus on form may precede the focus on meaning in that grammatical knowledge may help students in expressing meaning. I am aware that there has been an effort to distinguish the use of the terms "form", "forms", and "language" as proposed by Willis and Willis when comparing their terms to Long`s uses of "form", "forms", and "language", yet I tend not to use these differences in this paper.
The use of meaning focus and form focus, or focus on forms (e.g. grammar exercise), I think, can be clearly understood, and these two terms should be enough to explain TBLT.
In my lesson plan, I tend to use pair or group work in that interaction is central within the theories of TBLT. Through interaction students have the opportunity to negotiate meaning and that makes them acquire (Skehan, 2003). If seen from sociocultural theory (SCT), interaction not only facilitates learners to acquire but also it could be a causative force in acquisition (Saville-Troika, 2006;2012). Negotiation of meaning in this paper is concerned with the way students deal with difficulties in communication to complete tasks (Skehan, 2003). A study done by Pica and Doughty (1985) demonstrates that group and pair based interactions provide more conversational modification in that interaction requires students to exchange information. However, Ellis (2003) asserts that in TBLT tasks can be performed by students not only through pair or group work but also individually.
Related to the theory of interaction, another salient theory in TBLT is "scaffolding", which is mostly developed within sociocultural approach in SLA. Scaffolding is any verbal guidance provided by an expert to assist leaners to perform tasks; an expert in this case is mostly referred to native speakers and teachers, yet it may also refer to students in peer or group collaboration while performing too difficult tasks to complete as individually (Saville-Troika, 2006;2012).
A study carried out by Li (1998) shows that through peer collaboration students have more interest in providing scaffolding particularly for clarifying meaning and noticing forms; noticing in TBLT is also another central feature as it is regarded as a requisite in SLA (Schmidt, 1994).
Inasmuch as TBLT encourages more on peer and group collaboration, TBLT is then can be regarded as student-centred (Willis & Willis, 2007;Branden, 2006), which is to make students more participative in classroom (active learning), although Ellis also states that TBLT can be both learner-centred and teacher-centred.
However, I have to acknowledge that peer or group work may not always provide scaffolding as expected as shown in Kay-Aydar`s study (2003) that students-led discussion has failed to provide appropriate scaffolding as certain students dominate more while negotiating meaning. Kay-Aydar reveals that teachers can give more scaffolding to students, so in my lesson plan I will always do monitoring to scaffold my students except in the last step, that is, pedagogical task in which students have to carry out their tasks individually.

D. CONCLUSION
With the post-method condition, it is now widely believed that there is no single method or set of procedures that suite all student needs and fit all different contexts of language learning. Current research clearly shows the fundamental rise of tasks in TBLT among researchers and teacher educators in the field of SLA. Notwithstanding its criticism, TBLT seems to have more advantages than disadvantages. TBLT`s principle is to balance between language use, language meaning, and language forms; all skills and elements are integrated and not separated as is typical in traditional approaches. However, as there have been so many different opinions (e.g. how task is defined) among its advocates, understanding TBLT should not be limited to one or two authors. We have to be open to receive all coming ideas in that all of those ideas are purely intended to help students learn English effectively and efficiently.

Group:
Intermediate adult students; the students are well-educated. They all have done their bachelor`s degree; one of them has a master`s degree. They take this class (course / programme) for international communication. Their overall goal is to be able to communicate in English. They have appropriate motivation to study English, yet still find themselves anxious to speak; they are afraid of making mistakes / errors (less accuracy). One of the students have better communication skill yet has problems with linguistic knowledge (grammar). Two of them have good knowledge of English structures yet less fluency. The others tend to have balanced abilities (accuracy and fluency). I have good relation with them; we sometimes go out eating dinner after the class before going home (the class starts at 7pm; they work at day time).

Recent topic work:
Last meeting we talked about environmental issues (also quite related to health issues) in Indonesia especially in Makassar (the city where we live in) along with the student propose of solutions, and how far the government along with the society in Makassar had tried to handle the issues.

Recent language work:
Ss have so far learnt that each sentence in English has a subject and verb. They also have learnt about past and present participle and appositives. Aim(s):  To develop student listening ability about choosing a college or university major. Albeit they already work, they still have the motivation to do their master`s or doctoral degree abroad (they tend to mention the UK and the USA).  To develop student communication ability about reason for choosing a college or university major.

Materials:
You tube videos, pictures of top universities around the world presented, two loud speakers, printed material Reflection (to be completed after delivery) Learning Outcomes: By the end of this lesson, SS should be able to:  Tell about the popular universities and the majors.  Describe their reasons of choosing a major (it may be specified in terms of their bachelor`s major or their proposed master`s or doctoral degree preference).  Apply the use of the connecting words "but" "or" "so" and "because" in explaining their reasons for choosing a college or university major. The action verbs are taken from Farrel (2002); the objectives try to meet Bloom`s taxonomy of thinking process (Shrum & Glisan, 1994).

Anticipated problems:
The internet connection sometimes drops out, so T has downloaded the videos in advance.
Anticipating the sound of the video is not very clear to students, T has prepared tow loud speakers and has already put them in the class. T. tells SS they are going to watch a short Youtube video with seven students telling their reason(s) for choosing their major at university. T put the students into group of three https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcOKHr qfMws Ss watch the short Youtube video with seven students telling their reason(s) for choosing their major at university. Ss in group of three will have to will have to answer the questions by filling in the blank that I have provided (see Appendix 4). Ss in the end share their answers to the other group members.

13
Linguistic elements T distributes two interactive cards for students in pairs. (see Appendix 5).
Student A gets a card that contain cut sentences in half, and the other half are in the student B card. For example, student A reads the first cut (half) sentence "You may think that you have found your perfect college,…" and students B will say "… but SS-SS Speaking Cards (App 5) you realize that the climate is too cold or too hot for you".

10
Freer practice Role play T asks the students to be in two groups (there are seven ss, so one group will be in three and the other in four). Each group has one interviewer whose job is to select one student with the best reason for his university program. T tells the student acting as the interviewer to ask any questions that can make him convinced in choosing the right candidate to his program. After each group has finished choosing their candidate, each group reports to teacher about their chosen student and the reason to choose him.
Ss are in two groups (each consisting three). Each group selects one interviewer whose job is to select one student of the two with the best reason for his university program. All ss select the same university program.
After each group has finished choosing their candidate, each group reports to teacher about their chosen student and the reason to choose him.

SS-SS T-SS
Speaking Printed material (Appendix 6) 20 Pedagogi cal Task T asks ss to make a two-minute prepared speech about the university to which they would like to apply in the future along with the reason and how they will be able to pass the selection process. T gives ss three to five minutes to to prepare their speech.
Ss have three to five minutes to make a two-minute prepared speech about the university to which they would like to apply in the future along with the reason and how they will be able to pass the selection process.