text:
Mehr über die Mitgliedschaft bei Scribd erfahren
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
1September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
ISSN 1738-14602September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Table of Contents:Foreword by Roger NunnForeword by John Adamson1. David Nunan...- Task-based Language Teaching in the Asia Context: Defining Task2. Rod Ellis.......................................................................................................- The Methodology of Task-Based Teaching3. Francis Mangubhai.- What do we know about Learning and Teaching Second Languages:Implications for Teaching4. Roger Nunn..- Designing Holistic Units for Task-Based Teaching5. Rebecca Oxford.............................................................................................- Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning: An Overview6. Darren Lingley...- A Task-based Approach to Teaching a Content-based CanadianStudies Course in an EFL Context7. Meena Lochana and Gitoshree Deb.- Task-based Teaching: Learning English without Tears8. Theron Muller..- Researching the Influence of Target Language on LearnerTask Performance9. Ahmet Acar.- Models, Norms and Goals for English as an International LanguagePedagogy and Task Based Language Teaching and Learning10. In-Jae Jeon...- EFL Teachers Perceptions of Task-Based Language Teaching:With a Focus on Korean Secondary Classroom Practice11. Mariko Eguchi and Keiichi Eguchi. .- The Limited Effect of PBL on EFL Learners:A Case Study of English Magazine Projects12. Benedict Lin- Genre-based Teaching and Vygotskian Principles in EFL:The Case of a University Writing Course13. Neil Heffernan- An integrated approach to teaching academic writing14. Naoki Fujimoto-Adamson- Globalization and History of English Education in Japan15. Todd Vercoe..- Taking Advantage of Cognitive Difference of Asians andWesterners in the Teaching of EnglishBook Reviews1. Top Notch 1: English for Today's World(Saslow, Joan & and Ascher)Reviewed by Kevin Landry..
3September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
ForewordTask-based Learning in the Asian ContextThis set of papers started off as one section of the proceedings of the 2006 Asian EFLJournal Conference held in Pusan, Korea in March but has rapidly developed into acollection of full academic papers on Task-based Learning in Asian contexts.Teachers, curriculum developers and researchers working in Asian contexts, andsome of the world's top specialists on Task-based Learning, have all contributed theirinsights based on extensive experience of task-based learning. It is important toemphasize that task-based learning is not presented in this collection as an ideology,or indeed a "method" except in the very broadest sense of the term. As a coherentcontextualized curriculum framework, it enables us to have meaningful and usefuldiscussions that combine insights from extensive practical teaching experience,learning theories and practice-based research. When these three are combined,improved learning almost inevitably follows. A task-based framework can also helpsituate consideration of key issues relevant to all language teaching. One such issue isthe relationship between focus on meaning and focus on form, a central concern ofmany of the papers in this collection. Arguably achieving the appropriate balance inthis respect is the most important factor of successful implementation of task-basedlearning.
Most good studies start by defining their terms, and a study of Task-basedLearning seems to require a definition of task as a priority. David Nunan providesus with a very useful starting focus for our collection of papers in this respect. Nunanreminds us of the important distinction between analytical and synthetic syllabusdesign, suggesting that in most Asian contexts the synthetic approach has tended todominate. The implication is therefore that TBL proposes a challenging alternative.
4September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Having presented on this topic several times recently, the reactions have alwaysbeen interesting. Many teachers in the audience for whom it is a "new" idea suggestthat is not so different from what they already do. Models of task-based cycles andthe design of task-based units seem to help these teachers rationalize their approachby providing some kind of conceptual framework, helping them to organize andreflect in a focused way on the relationship between their classroom approach andlanguage learning. This seems very rewarding and positive for all concerned.However, it also seems to be a common assumption at conferences that presentersteach in ideal classrooms and audiences don't. The very same teachers, and evenduring the same discussions, sometimes say that this "theory" is a nice idea but "willnot work in my class". While there is an apparent contradiction, the common point ofthese two views is that presentations on TBL seem to oblige listeners to reflect ontheir daily practice. Teachers at least consider modifying their current practice,attempting to imagine how or even if an activity being presented will work in their5September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
own context. This kind of "reflection on daily practice" is also a useful startingdefinition of what we often mean by "theory" in EFL discussion and is a core value ofthe Asian EFL Journal.
In this respect it is interesting that our key note speaker, Rod Ellis, whom we mighthave expected to focus on the theory of TBL in relation to SLA theory, also made itclear that discussion of task-based learning needed to be directly and immediatelyrelated to classroom practice. A significant part of his presentation involved bringinglocal students on stage to perform a task and the performance of this task became thefocus of the "theoretical" discussion. Ellis's paper, while firmly rooted in SLA theory,is eminently practical. The need to situate the use of tasks in some kind of coherentframework is a recurrent theme of the paper. It outlines a framework for planning"task-based" lessons. Teachers must first design the basic structure of the lesson, andthen "the specific option(s) to be included in each phase of the lesson can beconsidered."
The issues raised in these papers often relate to notions of SLA that are significantand will need to be addressed in any language learning context regardless of theapproach being used. One keynote speaker, Francis Mangubhai, did not directlyaddress task-based learning at all, but every one of the eleven insights he discusses isalso relevant to teachers who are critically examining TBL in order to improveclassroom practice and to develop professionally as teachers and to set up conditionsfor improved classroom learning. It is also interesting that none of these papers abouttask-based learning is exclusively about task-based learning. Designing and usingactivities that we can define as "tasks" will never be a sufficient condition in itself tofoster language learning, but the way activities are designed and used in particularcontexts in relation to other pedagogical considerations will always be significant.
language is used from a discourse and pragmatic perspective. The paper illustrateshow tasks can be integrated into larger units and beyond lesson boundaries, proposingand illustrating a "task-based unit" that extends over several lessons. This paper doesnot just reflect a temporary interest in TBL as the trend of the moment or as a passingconference theme interest. It is based on a long-term and large scale curriculumproject developed with a team at Kochi University in Japan.
Another member of the Kochi team, Darren Lingley addresses the issue of "contentbased" teaching in relation to TBL further underlining the fact that TBL is not to beused as an impervious "method" in a traditional sense. It is rather a resource that cancross-fertilize with other areas providing useful SLA concepts for curriculumdecisions, a framework for course planning and useful techniques for deliveringdifferent types of activities. Again the issue of how and when to focus on form isaddressed, this time in a content-based course dealing with different aspects ofCanadian culture taught to intermediate-level university students. Having observedthe course personally, I can add that this is another example of TBL theory beingapplied (with great success) to a highly practical course.
Dr. Meena Lochana and Dr. Gitoshree Deb of the Language Centre, Sultan QaboosUniversity, in Oman return us to Bangalore in India, one of the homes of task-basedlanguage learning, where the medium of instruction is Kannada. Their researchproject is based on their concept of "whole language", a concept they outline in detail.They begin with the hypothesis that "task based teaching enhances the languageproficiency of learners". As all teachers must, Lochana and Deb have to adapt to therealities of their situation, which in their case includes having to adapt to thattraditional enemy of reflective teaching, the mandatory school textbook. The detailedreport on their project implementation provides useful insights for other teachersattempting to apply principles of task-based learning in relation to notions of SLAsuch as input and focus on form. Lochana and Deb, in their textbook oriented systemmake it clear that they favour a major focus on meaning for the activities theydescribe.7September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
In his thought-provoking position paper, "Models, Norms and Goals for English asan International Language Pedagogy and Task based Language Teaching andLearning, Ahmet Acar, from Turkey, provides us with another reminder, from amore global viewpoint, that conceptualizing learning in relation to tasks is only oneperspective that requires consideration in curriculum planning. His paper examinesthe theoretical assumptions and practices of task based language teaching andlearning within the framework of English as an international language. He argues infavour of taking EIL competence and learners purpose in learning the language as apoint of reference. For Acar, while tasks are "valuable pedagogical tools", they needto be re-conceptualized within this broad global curriculum framework.
In his AEJ conference contribution, already published in our March issue, "EFLTeachers Perceptions of Task-Based Language Teaching: With a Focus on KoreanSecondary Classroom Practice", Jeon In-Jae addressed the important issue of EFLteachers perceptions of task-based language teaching in a Korean secondary schoolcontext. His research findings indicate "that there exist some negative views onimplementing TBLT with regard to its classroom practice". His paper makes usefulsuggestions aimed at helping teachers implement a TBLT curriculum moreeffectively.
8September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
We are also very pleased to be able to present a paper by Rebecca Oxford who wasunable to attend our conference for personal reasons, but has set down her thinking onwhat would have been a keynote speech in great detail. She provides us with a veryuseful and comprehensive review of the field in her paper, "Task-Based LanguageTeaching and Learning: An Overview". One of the many highlights in this paper isthe original and stimulating discussion of possible definitions of "task". Thisunderlines the importance of the different focuses and meanings that can be assignedto "task", such as "a general activity or exercise for L2 learners", "an outcomeoriented L2 instructional segment", "a behavioral framework for research", or "abehavioral framework for classroom learning". The definition of "task" is a dauntingtask in itself and one that Oxford addresses with skill and vigour throughout herwhole piece. She ends with a very useful checklist that addresses key issues such asgoals, student diversity, criteria for sequencing tasks, focus on form, needsof ordinary teachers, global applications and cultural background. It will, ofcourse, be no surprise to readers that Oxford also addresses the relationship betweenlearning strategies and tasks in relation to the different roles that teachers and learnersadopt at different stages of task-based instruction.
The Asian EFL Journal aims to publish papers from a wide range of cultural,geographical and educational perspectives. Our aim is not only to publish highquality research but also to encourage different cultural "voices" and different stylesof writing. We have often been fortunate to receive papers from leading internationalscholars but we also do our best to encourage and support younger scholarspublishing for the first time in an International Journal and some of these have nowbecome well-known names in Asia and beyond. Authors who publish online in AEJhave become used to receiving feedback from all over the globe. We would welcomeresponses to any of these papers and would be happy to review them for inclusion infuture issues of the Asian EFL Journal.Roger NunnSenior Associate EditorAsian EFL Journal9September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
10September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
The next paper comes from Naoki Fujimoto-Adamson who puts forward a proposalfor gaining a more macro picture of English teaching in Japan. This paper suggeststhat teacher knowledge can be effectively enhanced by tracing the Japanese history ofELT by interlinking it with non-ELT events both nationally and internationally.Globalization in its economic, political and philosophical forms is shown to have hadan impact upon the status of English in various ways from the opening of Japan in theMeiji Era to the present day. Fujimoto-Adamson's tabulated representations of theseinfluences can serve as useful reflective tools for Japan-based teachers.Finally, Todd Vercoe offers advice from cognitive psychology to teachers in thewider Asian sphere about "the way Westerners and North-East Asians perceive andthink about the world." This paper investigates L1 interference in L2 learning and caninform EFL practitioners about more effective ways to teach Asian students. Vercoe'sstudy puts forward practical implications for teaching methodology by applying thework of Nisbett to Asian EFL.Also, in our recently introduced Book Review section, Kevin Landry offers apositive recommendation of Top Notch 1: English for Todays World, the second ofthe Longman-Pearson six-level ELT course book series.We hope you enjoy reading these Asian EFL-related papers from the Pusanconference.John Adamson, Ed.D2006 Conference Proceedings EditorAsian EFL Journal
11September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Bio Data:Professor David Nunan is Director of the English Centre and Professor of AppliedLinguistics at the University of Hong Kong. He has worked as an ESL/EFL teacher,researcher, curriculum developer, and materials writer in many parts of the world,including Australia, Oman, Japan, Singapore, Thailand, and the UK.Professor Nunan has published books on language teaching curriculum development,discourse analysis, second language teacher education, language teachingmethodology, and research methods in applied linguistics.Dr. Nunan is on the Advisory Board of the Asian EFL Journal
In this short paper, I would like to set out some basic principles of task-basedlanguage teaching in the Asia context. In 1976, the British applied linguist DavidWilkins suggested a basic distinction between what he called synthetic approachesto syllabus design and analytical approaches. All syllabuses, he suggested, fitted oneor other of these approaches.
In synthetic approaches,Different parts of the language are taught separately and step by step sothat acquisition is a process of gradual accumulation of parts until thewhole structure of language has been built up. (Wilkins, 1976, p. 2)Such approaches represent the traditional way of organizing the syllabus, and reflectthe common-sense belief that the central role of instruction is to simplify the learningchallenge for the student. One way to simplify learning is to break the content down12September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
into its constituent parts, and introduce each part separately and step-by-step. Arelated concept that was popular in the 1960s was that of mastery learning. Havingbroken the subject matter down and sequenced it from easy to difficult, each item ofcontent was introduced to the learner in a serial fashion, and a new item was notsupposed to be introduced until the current item had been thoroughly mastered (thusthe label mastery learning).
The dominant approach to language teaching in Asia (and, indeed, most of the restof the world), has been, and remains, a synthetic one. Teachers who have learnedtheir own languages through a synthetic approach, and see this as the normal andlogical way of learning language.
Since then, the concept of task has become an important element in syllabusdesign, classroom teaching and learner assessment, although teachers brought up intradition methods still struggle with the concept. It underpins several significant13September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
research agendas, and it has influenced educational policy-making in both ESL andEFL settings.
The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language, butalso on the learning process itself.
The linking of classroom language learning with language use outside theclassroom.
Tasks have been defined in various ways. Nunan (2004) draws a basic distinctionbetween real-world or target tasks, and pedagogical tasks. Target tasks, as the nameimplies, refer to uses of language in the world beyond the classroom. Pedagogicaltasks are those that occur in the classroom.
Long (1985, p. 89) frames his approach to task-based language teaching in terms oftarget tasks, arguing that a task isa piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for somereward. Thus examples of tasks include painting a fence, dressing achild, filling out a form, buying a pair of shoes, making an airlinereservation, borrowing a library book, taking a driving test, typing aletter, weighing a patient, sorting letters, talking a hotel reservation,writing a cheque, finding a street destination and helping someoneacross a road. In other words, by task is meant the hundred and onethings people do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between.
14September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
The first thing to notice about this definition is that it is non-technical and nonlinguistic. It describes the sorts of things that the person-in-the-street would say ifasked what they were doing. (In the same way as learners, if asked why they areattending a Spanish course, are more likely to say, So I can make hotel reservationsand buy food when Im in Mexico, than So I can master the subjunctive.) Relatedto this is the notion that in contrast with most classroom language exercises, taskshave a non-linguistic outcome. Non-linguistic outcomes from Longs list above mightinclude a painted fence, possession, however temporary, of a book, a drivers licence,a room in a hotel etc. Another thing to notice is that some of the examples providedmay not involve language use at all (it is possible to paint a fence without talking).Finally, individual tasks may be part of a larger sequence of tasks, for example, thetask of weighing a patient may be a sub-component of the task giving a medicalexamination.
When they are transformed from the real world to the classroom, tasks becomepedagogical in nature. Here is a definition of a pedagogical task.an activity or action which is carried out as the result of processing orunderstanding language (i.e. as a response). For example, drawing a mapwhile listening to a tape, listening to an instruction and performing acommand may be referred to as tasks. Tasks may or may not involve theproduction of language. A task usually requires the teacher to specifywhat will be regarded as successful completion of the task. The use of avariety of different kinds of tasks in language teaching is said to makelanguage teaching more communicative since it provides a purposefor a classroom activity which goes beyond the practice of language forits own sake. (Richards, Platt and Weber, 1986, p. 289).In this definition, we can see that the authors take a pedagogical perspective. Tasksare defined in terms of what the learners will do in class rather than in the worldoutside the classroom. They also emphasize the importance of having a non-languageoutcome.
range of outcomes for those who undertake the task. Task is thereforeassumed to refer to a range of workplans which have the overall purposesof facilitating language learning from the simple and brief exercise type,to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem-solving orsimulations and decision-making. (Breen, 1987, p. 23)This definition is very broad, implying as it does, that just about anything thelearner does in the classroom qualifies as a task. It could, in fact, be used to justifyany procedure at all as task-based, and, as such, is not particularly helpful. Morecircumscribed is the following from Willis (1996), cited in Willis and Willis (2001).A classroom undertaking where the target language is used by the learner for acommunicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome. Here the notion ofmeaning is subsumed in outcome. Language in a communicative task is seen asbringing about an outcome through the exchange of meanings. (p. 173).
Skehan (1998), drawing on a number of other writers, puts forward five keycharacteristics of a task.
meaning is primary
(See, also, Bygate, Skehan and Swain 2001, who argue that the way we define a taskwill depend to a certain extent on the purposes to which task are used.)
Finally, in a recent book that looks at task more from a language acquisitionperspective than a pedagogical one (although it does also deal with aspects ofpedagogy), Ellis (2003, p. 16) defines task in the following way:A task is a workplan that requires learners to process languagepragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated interms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content hasbeen conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention tomeaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the16September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
While these definitions vary somewhat, they all emphasize the fact that tasksinvolve communicative language use in which the users attention is focused onmeaning rather than grammatical form. This does not mean that form is not important.My own definition refers to the deployment of grammatical knowledge to expressmeaning, highlighting the fact that meaning and form are highly interrelated, and thatgrammar exists to enable the language user to express different communicativemeanings. However, as Willis and Willis (2001) point out, tasks differ fromgrammatical exercises in that learners are free to use a range of language structures toachieve task outcomes the forms are not specified in advance.
ReferencesBreen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin and D. Murphy(Eds.), Language Learning Tasks. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (eds.) (2001). Researching Pedagogic Tasks:Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. London: Longman.Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.17September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
18September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Bio Data:Professor Ellis, a renowned linguist, received his Doctorate from the University ofLondon and his Master of Education from the University of Bristol. A formerprofessor at Temple University both in Japan and the US, Prof. Ellis has taught innumerous positions in England, Japan, the US, Zambia and New Zealand. Dr. Ellis,who is known as the "Father of Second Language Acquisition", has served as theDirector of the Institute of Language Teaching and Learning at the University ofAuckland. Author of numerous student and teacher training textbooks for PrenticeHall and Oxford University Press, Prof. Ellis's textbooks on Second LanguageAcquisition and Grammar are core textbooks in TESOL and Linguistics programsaround the world.
IntroductionThe purpose of this paper is to consider methodological procedures for teaching tasks.These are of two basic kinds. Firstly, there are those procedures relating to how thetasks specified in a task-based syllabus can be converted into actual lessons. Secondly,there are procedures relating to how the teacher and learners are to participate in thelessons. This paper will address only the first of these.
students can undertake before they start the task, such as whether students are giventime to plan the performance of the task. The second phase, the during task phase,centres around the task itself and affords various instructional options, includingwhether students are required to operate under time-pressure or not. The final phase ispost-task and involves procedures for following-up on the task performance. Onlythe during task phase is obligatory in task-based teaching. Thus, minimally, a taskbased lesson consists of the students just performing a task. Options selected from thepre-task or post-task phases are non-obligatory but, as we will see, can serve acrucial role in ensuring that the task performance is maximally effective for languagedevelopment.Phase
Examples of options
A. Pre-task
B. During task
* Time pressure* Number of participants
C. Post-task
* Learner report* Consciousness-raising* Repeat task
20September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Skehan (1996) refers to two broad alternatives available to the teacher during thepre-task phase:an emphasis on the general cognitive demands of the task, and/or anemphasis on linguistic factors. Attentional capacity is limited, and itis needed to respond to both linguistic and cognitive demands then engaging in activities which reduce cognitive load will releaseattentional capacity for thelearner to concentrate more on linguisticfactors. (p. 25).These alternatives can be tackled procedurally in one of four ways; (1) supportinglearners in performing a task similar to the task they will perform in the during-taskphase of the lesson, (2) asking students to observe a model of how to perform the task,(3) engaging learners in non-task activities designed to prepare them to perform thetask or (4) strategic planning of the main task performance. We will consider each insome detail.
content to the main task. Thus, it served as a preparation for performing the main taskindividually. For example, if the main task involved working out a class timetablefrom the timetables of individual teachers, then the pre-task would be the same butwith different information in the teachers timetables.
Prabhu explains that the pre-task was conducted through interaction of the questionand-answer type. The teacher was expected to lead the class step-by-step to theexpected outcome, to break down a step into smaller steps if the learners encountereddifficulty and to offer one of more parallels to a step in the reasoning process toensure that mixed ability learners could understand what was required. The teacherwas provided with a lesson plan that included (1) the pre-task and (2) a set of gradedquestions or instructions together with parallel questions to be used as needed. Whenimplemented in the classroom, the plan results in a pedagogic dialogue. Prabhuemphasises that the pre-task was not a demonstration but a task in its own right. Itis clear from this account that the pre-task serves as a mediational tool for the kindof instructional conversation that sociocultural theorists advocate. The teacher, as anexpert, uses the pre-task to scaffold learners performance of the task with theexpectancy that this other-regulation facilitates the self-regulation learners willneed to perform the main task on their own.
Providing a modelAn alternative is to ask the students to observe a model of how the task can beperformed without requiring them to undertake a trial performance of the task (seeAston (1982) for an early example of such an approach). Minimally this involvespresenting them with a text (oral or written) to demonstrate an ideal performance ofthe task. Both Skehan (1996) and Willis (1996) suggest than simply observingothers perform a task can help reduce the cognitive load on the learner. However, themodel can also be accompanied by activities designed to raise learners consciousnessabout specific features of the task performance for example, the strategies that canbe employed to overcome communication problems, the conversational gambits forholding the floor during a discussion or the pragmalinguistic devices for performing22September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
key language functions. Such activities might require the learners to identify andanalyze these features in the model texts. Alternatively, they might involve pretraining in the use of specific strategies. Nunan (1989) lists a number of learningstrategies (e.g. Learning to live with uncertainty and Learning to make intelligentguesses) that students can be taught to help them become adaptable, creative,inventive and above all independent (p. 81) and thus more effective performers of atask. However, the effectiveness of such strategy training remains to be convincinglydemonstrated.
Strategic planningFinally, learners can be given time to plan how they will perform the task. Thisinvolves strategic planning and contrasts with the online planning that can occurduring the performance of the task. It can be distinguished from other pre-task optionsin that it does not involve students in a trial performance of the task or in observing amodel. However, it may involve the provision of linguistic forms/strategies forperforming the task but a distinction can still be drawn between the non-taskpreparation procedures described above and strategic planning, as the former occurwithout the students having access to the task they will be asked to perform whilestrategic planning involves the students considering the forms they will need toexecute the task workplan they have been given.
There are a number of methodological options available to teachers who opt forstrategic planning. The first concerns whether the students are simply given the taskworkplan and left to decide for themselves what to plan, which typically results inpriority being given to content over form, or whether they are given guidance in whatto plan. In the case of the latter option, the guidance may focus learners attention onform or content or, as in Sangaruns (2001) study, form and content together. Skehan(1996) suggests that learners need to be made explicitly aware of where they arefocussing their attention whether on fluency, complexity or accuracy. Theseplanning options are illustrated in Figure 2. Here the context is a task involving aballoon debate (i.e. deciding who should be ejected from a balloon to keep it afloat).The guidance can also be detailed or undetailed (Foster and Skehan, 1996). Theexamples in Figure 2 are of the undetailed kind. Skehan (1998) gives an example ofdetailed planning for a personal task involving asking someone to go to your house toturn off the oven that you have left on. This involved instructions relating to planningcontent (e.g. think about what problems your listener could have and how you mighthelp her) and language (e.g. think what grammar you need to do the task). Theseoptions do not just provide for variety in planning activities; they also enable theteacher to channel the learners attention onto different aspects of language use. Forexample, Foster and Skehan (1996) found that when students were given detailed24September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
guidance they tended to prioritise content with resulting gains in complexity whenthey performed the task.Strategic planning options
1. No planning
Another option concerns the amount of time students are given to carry out the pretask planning.
planning have allocated between 1 and 10 minutes. An effect on fluency was evidentwith very short periods of planning in some studies but longer was needed for aneffect on complexity (Skehan, 1998 suggests 10 minutes is optimal). Finally, planningcan be carried out individually, in groups, or with the teacher.
date has demonstrated is the likely effects of some of the procedures referred to above.Important questions remain unanswered. For example, we do not know whether taskpreparation that involves an actual performance of the task is more or less effectivethan preparation that involves just observation. Nor is it clear to what extent linguisticpriming subverts the naturalness of a task resulting in teaching of the presentpractice-produce (PPP) kind. Only in the case of strategic planning do we have someidea of how the different options affect task performance.
26September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
ensure that the students can complete the task in their own time. However, if theywant to encourage fluency they need to set a time limit.
The second task performance option involves deciding whether to allow thestudents access to the input data while they perform a task. In some tasks access tothe input data is built into the design of a task (e.g. in Spot the Difference, Describeand Draw, or many information gap tasks). However, in other tasks it is optional. Forexample, in a story retelling/recall task the students can be permitted to keep thepictures/ text or be asked to put them on one side as they narrate the story. This caninfluence the complexity of the task, as tasks that are supported by pictures and textsare easier than tasks that are not. Joe (1998) reports a study that compared learnersacquisition of a set of target words (which they did not know prior to performing thetask) in a narrative recall task under two conditions with and without access to thetext. She found that the learners who could see the text used the target words morefrequently, although the difference was evident only in verbatim use of the words notgenerated use (i.e. they did not use the target words in original sentences). Joes studyraises an important question. Does borrowing from the input data assist acquisition?The term borrowing in this context comes from Prabhu (1987). He defines it astaking over an available verbal formulation in order to express some self-initiatedmeaning content, instead of generating the formulation from ones own competence(p. 60). Prabhu distinguishes borrowing from reproduction where the decision totake over a sample of a language is not made by the learner but by some externalauthority (i.e. the teacher of the text book). Borrowing is compatible with task-basedteaching but reproduction is not. Prabhu sees definite value in borrowing formaintaining a task-based activity and also probable value in promoting acquisition.Certainly, from the perspective of sociocultural theory, where learning occurs throughparticipation, borrowing can be seen as contributing directly to acquisition.
The third task performance option consists of introducing some surprise elementinto the task. Skehan and Foster (1997) illustrate this option. They asked students tocomplete a decision-making task that required them to decide what punishment27September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
should be given to four criminals who had committed different crimes. At thebeginning of the task they were given information about each criminal and the crimehe/she had committed. Half way through the task the students were given furtherinformation of a surprising nature about each criminal. For example, the initialinformation provided about one of the criminals was as follows:The accused is a doctor. He gave an overdose (a very high quantity of apainkilling drug) to an 85-year-old woman because she was dyingpainfully of cancer. The doctor says that the woman had asked for anoverdose. The womans family accuse the doctor of murder.After talking for five minutes, the students were given the following additionalinformation:Later, it was discovered that seven other old people in the same hospitalhad died in asimilar way, through overdoses. The doctor refuses to say ifhe was involved.However, this study failed to find that introducing such a surprise had any effect onthe fluency, complexity or accuracy of the learners language. This does not meanthat this option is of no pedagogic value, as requiring learners to cope with a surpriseserves as an obvious way of extending the time learners spend on a task and thusincreases the amount of talk. It may also help to enhance students intrinsic interestin a task.
Process optionsProcess options differ from task performance options in that they concern the way inwhich the discourse arising from the task is enacted rather than pedagogical decisionsabout the way the task is to be handled. Whereas performance options can be selectedin advance of the actual performance of the task, process options must be taken inflight while the task is being performed.
The teachers on-line decision about how to conduct the discourse of a task reflecthis/her theory-in-use (Schon, 1983) and practical knowledge (Eraut, 1994). On thelearners part, they reflect the language learning beliefs (Horwitz, 1987) they bring to28September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
the classroom and, more particularly, to a specific task. How teachers and learnersconduct a task will be influenced, to a large extent, by their prior experiences ofteaching and learning and their personal definitions of the particular teaching-learningsituation. Thus, the options described below are primarily descriptive, reflecting aninternal rather than external perspective (Ellis, 1998) on the methodology of taskbased teaching.
Figure 3 contrasts two sets of classroom processes. The first set corresponds to theclassroom behaviours that are typical of a traditional form-focussed pedagogy wherelanguage is treated as an object and the students are required to act as learners. Thesecond set reflects the behaviours that characterize a task-based pedagogy, wherelanguage is treated as a tool for communicating and the teacher and students functionprimarily as language users (Ellis, 2001). Thus, which set of behaviours arise is
29September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
BTask-based pedagogy
Two questions arise. The first concerns what the participants in a task need to do toensure that the interactions they engage in manifest the processes described in columnB in Figure 3. Implicit in this question is an acknowledgement of the importance ofthese processes for task-based instruction. The second question, however, challengesthis assumption by asking whether in fact these processes are criterial of task-based30September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
It has often been pointed out (see, for example, Nunan, 1987) that the processesdescribed in column B are a rarity even in classrooms where the teacher claims to beteaching communicatively. The main reason for this lies in the difficulty teachers andstudents have in achieving the required orientation. As Goffman (1981) has pointedout, classrooms are governed by an educational imperative which dictates the kindof discourse that arises. It is for this reason that teachers and students find it difficultto consistently orient to language as a tool and to adopt the role of language userswhen they both know that the raison-detre for their being together is to teach andlearn the language. In effect, task-based teaching calls for the classroom participantsto forget where they are and why they are there and to act in the belief that they canlearn the language indirectly through communicating in it rather than directly throughstudying it. This is asking a lot of them, especially if the social practices theparticipants bring to the classroom belong to a pedagogy of transmission rather thanof interpretation (Barnes, 1976). It is probably easier to achieve when students areinteracting among themselves, without the teacher being present, as the greatersymmetry of social roles this affords leads naturally to the kinds of risk-takingbehaviour required of a task-based pedagogy (Pica, 1987). This is one reason whypair and group work are seen as central to task-based teaching.
However, even when the participants in a task are oriented to treat language as atool and to function as language users, the text of the task may disappoint,manifesting few of the characteristics facilitative of acquisition. Seedhouse (1999)has pointed out that the characteristics of task-based interaction do not always matchthose described in Figure 3. He illustrates how in some tasks the turn-taking system isconspicuously constrained, there is a tendency for students to rely on topic-commentconstructions where verbal elements are omitted (a feature also noted in pidgins) andto produce highly indexicalised utterances. An even greater limitation in task-basedinteraction, according to Seedhouse, is the minimalization that characterizes some31September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
task-based interactions. This is illustrated in the extract below where the studentswere required to complete and label a geometric figure:
L1: What?L2: Stop.L3: Dot?L4: Dot?L5: Point?L6: Dot?LL: Point, point, yeh.L1: Point?L5: Small point.L3: Dot(From Lynch, 1989, p. 124; cited in Seedhouse, 1999).
Here all the utterances but one consist of a single word. Clearly, such interactionsdo not help the stretch learners interlanguages, one of the stated goals of task-basedpedagogy (Nunan,1989). Seedhouse suggests that such limited interactions arisebecause learners appear to be so concentrated on completing the task that linguisticforms are treated as a vehicle of minor importance (p. 154). In other words, the verynature of a task (i.e. the fact it is directed at accomplishing a specified outcome) mayresult in a restricted variety of communication.
Seedhouse overstates this limitation of tasks. First, it is possible to argue that therestricted nature of the talk shown in the extract above is well suited to the studentspurpose. Second, the nature of the interaction depends crucially on the designcharacteristics of tasks and procedures for implementing them. Thus, richer varietiesof communication characterized by more complex language use, are achievable if, forexample, students are asked to perform open tasks with divergent goals and are giventhe opportunity to plan their performance before hand. Nevertheless, Seedhousescritique needs to be addressed. Clearly, teachers need to monitor their students32September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Where Seedhouse questions whether the kinds of behaviours shown in Figure 3 areachievable in task-based teaching, others have challenged whether they constituteappropriate goals for interaction in a classroom. Cullen (1998) has pointed out thatthe classroom context constitutes a communicative environment in its own right thatis distinct from the communicative contexts of the world outside and on thesegrounds has challenged the basis for assessing the communicativeness of classroomdiscourse. In effect, then, Cullen disputes the assumption that underlies task-baskpedagogy - that classrooms need to replicate the kind of communicative behaviourfound outside the classroom. He illustrates how what appears to be noncommunicative teacher talk is not necessarily so in the classroom context (p. 183)with an extract from an English lesson in Egypt. This interaction is teacher-led, is fullof display questions, includes feedback that is form-focussed and contains a lot ofechoing all processes associated with a traditional form-focussed pedagogy.However, Cullen argues that in the context of the classroom, the interaction can beconsidered communicative in that the entire sequence manifests a focus on messagecontent, the teachers questions are carefully structured, the feedback is clear and theuse of echoing serves to ensure that the students attention is not lost. He claims thatthe discourse is pedagogically effective because the teacher has successfully
33September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
combined the role of instructor and interlocutor. Arguably, this is what a taskbased pedagogy needs to strive for. How might it be achieved?
One way is by incorporating a focus on form into the performance of the task. Ellis,Basturkmen and Loewen (2001) report this can be achieved in either respondingfocus-on-form episodes, where one of the participants, usually the teacher, respondsto a student utterance containing an error, or in initiating episodes, where either theteacher or a student elects to take time out from the exchange of message content toattend briefly to form, usually by means of a direct query about a specific form. Suchattention to form differs from that arising in lessons of the traditional, focus-on-formskind because, for, as Wilberg (1987) notes, the content is dictated by the student, theform only by the teacher (p. 27). It also differs in another way. As Prabhu (1987)points out, correction during a task is incidental rather than systematic in nature.In incidental correction, only tokens are addressed (i.e. there is no attempt togeneralize the type of error), it is seen by the participants as a part of getting on withthe activity in hand, not as a separate objective (p. 63) and, crucially, it is transitory.Prabhu excludes preventive or pre-emptive attention to form but, as Ellis, Basturkmenand Loewens study shows this too can be incidental.
Teachers can employ both implicit and explicit techniques to achieve this focus onform. These techniques can be used when some kind of communication problemarises (as occurs in the negotiation of meaning) or they can be used when the teacherchooses to abandon his/her role as a language user momentarily in order to functionas an instructor (i.e. to negotiate form rather than meaning). Teachers can play a verydirect role by initiating this negotiation but they can also intervene to support aprocess that students have started for themselves, a technique that involves nudgingthe learners towards a solution. Teachers can also allow or even encourage students touse the same techniques themselves for example, by accepting and responding tostudents queries about form.
34September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Figure 4 describes some of the techniques that can be used by the task participants.Evidence from research (Ellis, Basturkmen and Loewen, 2001) indicates that the useof these techniques, even when quite frequent, need not detract from the primaryfocus on message, which is the defining characteristic of a task. Thus, they serve asimportant process options for reconciling the roles of instructor/learner on the onehand and interlocutor/language user on the other. Furthermore, they potentiallyenhance the acquisitional value of a task by inducing noticing of linguistic forms thatlie outside or at the edges of students current interlanguages.Type of
Interactional device
35September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Repeat performanceSeveral studies (e.g. Bygate, 1996 and 2001; Lynch and Maclean, 2000) indicate thatwhen learners repeat a task their production improves in a number of ways (e.g.complexity increases, propositions are expressed more clearly, and they become morefluent). A repeat performance can be carried out under the same conditions as the firstperformance (i.e. in small groups or individually) or the conditions can be changed.One interesting possibility examined by Skehan and Foster (1997) is that of requiringstudents to carry out the second performance publicly. As their study examined thethreat of such a requirement on learners initial performance of the task, ittechnically constituted a during-task option. However, if students are not told torepeat the task publicly until after they have completed the first performance, itbecomes a post-task option. There has been no research comparing the learner36September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
production that results from a second performance carried out under privateconditions, as in the initial performance, and publicly. Clearly, performing a task infront of the class increases the communicative stress (Candlin, 1987) placed on thelearner and thus can be predicted to lead to a reduction in fluency and complexity.However, it is not without value if students need experience in using English in frontof an audience, as, for example, might be the case with foreign academics training togive oral presentations in the L2. Public performance is likely to encourage the use ofa more formal style and thus may push learners to use the grammaticalised resourcesassociated with this style.
There is also a case for asking students to evaluate the task itself. Such informationwill help the teacher to decide whether to use similar tasks in the future or look for adifferent type. I have suggested that student-based evaluations of tasks can be carried
37September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
out quickly and effectively using simple questionnaires (see Ellis, 1997a for anexample).
Focussing on formsOnce the task is completed, students can be invited to focus on forms, with no dangerthat in so doing they will subvert the taskness of the task. It is for this reason thatsome methodologists recommend reserving attention to form to the post-task phase ofthe lesson. Willis (1996), for example, sees the primary goal of the task componentas that of developing fluency and promoting the use of communication strategies. Thepost-task stage is needed to counter the danger that students will develop fluency atthe expense of accuracy. In part, this is met by asking students to report on theirperformance of the task, as discussed above, but it can also be achieved by a directfocus on forms. It should be noted, however, that this is the not the position taken inthis paper. I have emphasised that a focus on form constitutes a valuable during-taskoption and that it is quite compatible with a primary focus on message content, whichis the hallmark of a task. Furthermore, in some tasks (e.g. consciousness raising tasks)a linguistic feature is made the topic of the task. Attention to form, in one way oranother, can occur in any (or indeed all) of the phases of a task-based lesson. In thepre-task and post-task phases the focus will be on forms while in the during-taskphase it will be on form, to invoke Longs (1991) distinction .
Two obvious methodological questions arise regarding attention to form in the posttask phase. The first concerns which forms should be attended to. The answer is fairlyobvious; teachers should select forms that the students used incorrectly whileperforming the task or useful or natural forms (Loshcky and Bley Vroman, 1993)that they failed to use at all. In other words, teachers should seek to address errors orgaps in the students L2 knowledge. Consideration also needs to be given to howmany such forms a teacher should seek to address. Should the focus be placed on asingle form that is treated intensively or a number of forms that are treatedextensively? Both approaches are warranted and are reflected in the various optionsdescribed below.38September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
The second question concerns how the target forms should be dealt with. There is awhole range of options available to the teacher. It should be noted however that inmany cases the effectiveness of these options has not been investigated.
2. Consciousness-raising tasksCR-tasks constitute tasks in their own right and, therefore, can be used as the maintask in a lesson. But they can also be used as follow-up tasks to direct students toattend explicitly to a specific form that they used incorrectly or failed to use at all inthe main task. Willis and Willis (1996) and Ellis (1997b) offer descriptions of thevarious options that are available for the design and implementation of CR tasks.When used as follow-up tasks, CR tasks can profitably take their data from recordingsof the students performance of the task. For example, students might be presentedwith a number of their own utterances all illustrating the same error and asked toidentify the error, correct the sentences and work out an explanation.
39September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
4. Noticing activitiesA number of suggestions have been made for developing noticing activities as afollow-up to a task performance. Fotos (1994) used dictation exercises that had beenenriched with the target structures that students had tackled initially in CR tasks toexamine whether the subjects in her study subsequently attended to the structures.She found that they did so quite consistently. Lynch (2001) recommends gettingstudents to make transcripts of an extract (90-120 seconds) from their taskperformance as a method for inducing noticing. After transcribing, they are requiredto make any editing changes they wish. The teacher then takes away the wordprocessed transcripts and reformulates them. The next day the students are asked tocompare their own edited transcript with the teachers reformulated version. In astudy that investigated this procedure, Lynch found that students cooperatedeffectively in transcribing, made a number of changes (most of which resulted inaccurate corrections of linguistic forms), and engaged in both self- and othercorrection. Lynch also analysed the types of changes the students made, noting thatthe majority involved grammatical corrections, editing slips (i.e. removal ofredundancies, literal repetitions and dysfluencies) and reformulation (i.e. changesdirected at more precise expressions). Finally, Lynch comments that there was plentyleft for the teacher to do after the students had made their changes.
40September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
However, this caveat does not detract from the usefulness of the design frameworkdescribed above as a basis for planning task-based lessons. Teachers need to decidefirst on the basic format of the lesson. Minimally, it will consist of the during-taskphase but it can also include either or both of a pre-task and post-task phase. Once thebasic structure of the lesson has been decided, the specific option(s) to be included ineach phase of the lesson can be considered. The description of the process options forimplementing the during-task phase of the lesson also provides a guide for thenavigation of the actual task and for the teachers ongoing monitoring of the taskperformance.
Notes:1. Allwrights (1984) use of uptake differs from that of researchers who haveinvestigated corrective sequences in classroom discourse. Allwright uses the term torefer to what learners are able to explicitly report having learned as a result ofparticipating in a lesson.
41September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
ReferencesAllwright, D. (1984). Why dont learners learn what teachers teach? The interactionhypothesis. In D. Singleton and D. Little (Eds.), Language learning in formal andinformal contexts (pp. 3-18). Dublin: IRAL.Aston, G. (1982). Interact. Oxford: Modern English Publications.Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Breen, M. (1998). Navigating the discourse: On what is learned in the languageclassroom. In W. Renandya and G. Jacobs (Eds.), Learners and language learning.Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the development of secondlanguage learners. In J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change inlanguage teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of orallanguage. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (Eds.), (pp. 23-48).Bygate, M., P. Skehan, and M. Swain. (eds). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks,second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman.Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. Candlin and D.Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5-22). Englewood Cliffs N.J.: PrenticeHall International.Candlin, C. and D. Murphy. (1987). Language learning tasks. Englewood Cliffs N.J.:Prentice Hall International.Cullen, R. 1998. Teacher-talk and the classroom context. ELT Journal 52, 179-187.Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the classroom. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Ellis, R. (1997a). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
42September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Ellis, R. (1997b). Explicit knowledge and second language pedagogy. In L. Van Lierand D. Corson (eds.). Encyclopedia of language and education Vol 6: Knowledgeabout language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Ellis, R. (1998). Discourse control and the acquisition-rich classroom. In W.Renandya and G. Jacobs (Eds.), Learners and language learning (pp. 145-171).Singapore: SEAMEO.Ellis, R. (2001). Focussing on form: Towards a research agenda. In W. Renandya andN. Sunga (Eds). Language curriculum and instruction in multicultural societies (pp.123-144). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. and Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESLlessons. Language Learning 51, 281-318.Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Falmer.Estaire, S. and J. Zanon. (1994). Planning classwork: A task based approach. Oxford:Heinemann.Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on secondlanguage performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 299-323.Foster, P. and Skehan. P. (1999). The influence of planning and focus of planning ontask-based performance. Language Teaching Research 3, 215-247.Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language usethrough grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly 28, 323-351.Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Horwtitz, E. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In Wenden,A. and Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.Joe, A. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have onincidental vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics 19, 357-77.
43September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom.Applied Linguistics.Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Richards, J. (1996). Teachers maxims in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 30, 281296.Sangarun, J. (2001). The effects of pre-task planning on foreign languageperformance. Doctoral thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. ELT Journal 53, 149-156.Oxford University Press.Skehan, P. (1996a). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.Applied Linguistics 17, 38-62.Skehan, P. (1998a). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions asinfluences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research 1, 185211Wilberg, T. (1987). One-to-one. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Willis, D. and Willis, J. (1996). Consciousness-raising activities in the languageclassroom. In J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.). Challenge and change in languageteaching (pp. 63-76). Oxford: Heinemann.Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.Willis, J. and Willis, D. (eds.). (1996). Challenge and change in language teaching.Oxford: Heinemann.Yuan, F. and Ellis, R. (2002). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planningon fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics
45September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Bio Data:Francis Mangubhai has been a TESOL teacher, a teacher trainer, and a researcher inapplied linguistics over three decades. His current research interests are in the area ofteacher thinking, learning strategies, beliefs about language learning, andcommunicative approaches to teaching. He is currently at the University of SouthernQueensland.
AbstractIn the last twenty-five years a number of insights have been achieved throughresearch on the processes of second language acquisition/learning. This articlediscusses some of these insights, drawing implications for teachers for theirclassroom practice. In addition, there is a brief discussion on some of the insights thathave been achieved about teachers practical theories or teacher knowledge in thegeneral education field. It is argued that in order for some of the insights to betranslated into classroom practice, teachers and teacher educators have to understandthe ways in which teachers practical theories develop and consequently the types ofbehaviours teachers would wish to exhibit if they are to continue to developprofessionally as teachers.
KeywordsSecond language acquisition, second language teaching, foreign language teaching,teacher development, second language research
IntroductionSecond language acquisition (SLA) has been in existence as a field of study for over25 years, applied linguistics as a field just over 40 years [if we take the influentialbook by Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens (1964) as the beginnings of appliedlinguistics]. It took just over ten years for the first models of second language46September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
These models of second language learning arose out of the research that had takenplace up to that point and they in turn led to further research. Krashens ideas asembodied in the Monitor Model, which eventually became the Input Hypothesis, havebeen described as bold and brash (Brown, 2000), but at the same time Brown hasacknowledged that the ideas have spurred many a researcher to look very carefullyat what we do know, what the research evidence is, and then in the process ofrefutation to propose plausible alternatives (p. 281).
This article looks at our current state of knowledge regarding second languageacquisition/learning and discusses some insights that have been offered by research. Italso looks very briefly at some insights from research into teacher knowledge andteachers practical theories of teaching and suggests how these insights might be usedto ensure that insights from research on SLA are translated into classroom practicemore effectively.
Before beginning with these insights, a word of caution is necessary. These insightsare what have seemed to me to be compelling and may not be accepted by otherresearchers as such. (In this respect, readers might like to read Harrison and Gough(1996), a conversation between the two authors on what makes a piece of researchcompelling for one person but not another.) Others have blazed a trail already and ifthere is anything new in this article, it is because I stand on the shoulders of thesegiants (e.g., R. Ellis, 2005; Lightbown, 1985b, 2000).
47September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
To return to the insight, the claim is that it is not just children who can acquire alanguage but adults (including young children and adolescents) can do so alsoprovided there is a large amount of exposure, or input, to use a term used in the SLfield. Some evidence for this comes from the early work of Elley and Mangubhai(1983) where children (10-12 years old) learning English as a second language (in aforeign language-like context) were provided with extensive input (Book Flood) inEnglish through regular reading (20-30 minutes) in the classroom. These childrenoutperformed the control group who did not have this printed input but continued48September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
with their structural program for the same duration. The superior languagedevelopment through extensive reading has been labelled acquisition by Krashen(1993b). Further examples of acquisition through reading have been documented inElley (1991) and Krashen (Krashen, 1993a; 1993b).
While the above provides some evidence for acquisition through input provided viathe printed word, rich input through oral as well as printed modes is provided in theimmersion programs, of which the most researched are those offered in Canada (see,for example, Genesee, 1987; Swain & Lapkin, 1982).
Another line of research has, however, talked about whether anything can belearned unless it is noticed. One of the earliest writers to talk about noticing in thefield of SLA was Schmidt (Schmidt, 1990, 1992; 1993) who has emphasised theimportance of noticing in second language learning. While he has acknowledged thatthere can be acquisition, he has argued that most second language learners learn thesecond language and hence the concept of noticing is critical in understanding SLdevelopment (Schmidt, 2001). His own view is made explicit in a footnote:My own view is that conscious and unconscious processes probably interact inall domains of language, but that there is little evidence for learning withoutattention (one reading of unconscious) in any of them. (p. 4)Research has not been able to settle this question definitively and it remains of ongoing interest (Ellis, 2002). But Nick Ellis (2005, p. 306) has argued that the bulk oflanguage acquisition is implicit learning from usage. Most knowledge is tacitknowledge; most learning is implicit; the vast majority of our cognitive processing isunconscious. He does agree with Krashen (1982) that implicit and explicit learningare different, but, unlike, Krashen, he sees a role for explicit instruction and thus hecan be seen to subscribe to a weak interface between the two types of knowledges,implicit and explicit.
Most language teachers are unlikely to be overly concerned whether what theirstudents learn is explicit or implicit, except that fluency is better achieved when the49September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Insight 2: Learners need to focus on form also in order to develop a more completegrammatical repertoire in the second languageIn discussing Insight 1, I mentioned the immersion programs in Canada and theirobvious success in teaching a second language, French (quite apart from thediscipline curriculum). As evaluations of these programs occurred it became obviousthat while students seemed to show a great amount of fluency in the use of French,the range of grammatical structures that were utilised in their communication waslimited (Harley & Swain, 1984; Swain, 1985, 1993). This insight, that despite theprovision of large amounts of comprehensible input provided in the immersionclassrooms many students did not acquire the full range of grammatical structures, ledto an assessment of the role of form in immersion classrooms. It led to what is calledform-focussed instruction, defined by Spada (1997, p. 73) as any pedagogicaleffort which is used to draw the learners attention to language form either implicitlyor explicitly. This is a slightly different definition from that of Long (1991) where hetalks about focus on form. The critical difference between the two definitions is thatLong defines focus on form occurring during meaning-based pedagogical tasks whereattention is drawn to language as there is a perceived need rather than the focusoccurring in some pre-determined manner. Long reserves the term focus on formsas referring to the type of grammar teaching that used to be the staple of many foreignlanguage courses: grammar items are introduced and then they are practised eitherorally or in print. Spada, however, sees form-focussed instruction as an approach thatcan occur both spontaneously (as in Long sense) and in pre-determined ways, forexample, as a means of providing some language prior to its use by students in a morecommunicative context.50September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
In focus on form, in the Long sense, the intended outcome is noticing theallocation of ones attentional resource at a particular moment to a form (Long &Robinson, 1998). It may occur at a point in a lesson, say group work, where many ofthe students are making the same type of mistake. A quick lesson on the correct format that particular instance when students need the form might lead to a greater amountof noticing between what their current knowledge is and where they need to be inorder to communicate with grammatical accuracy.
The evidence for the efficacy of focus on form is growing, with learners as youngas 7 and 8 (Harley, 1998), in content-based classroom (Doughty & Varela, 1998), andin reviews of focus on form studies (Ellis, 2001, 2002). There are nevertheless somewho are still not convinced of its effectiveness (see, for example, Sheen, 2003).Evidence from the immersion studies suggest that form cannot be neglected. It isinteresting to note that the book flood studies mentioned previously do not, it seems,show this shortcoming in grammatical development and it is intriguing why thismight be so. Mangubhai (2001) explains this by pointing out that many of the bookflood studies mentioned in Elley (1991), for example, occurred in countries wherethere was a tradition of focus on grammar teaching. It is therefore possible, he argues,that as students became better at extracting meanings from the stories they werereading, they had sufficient attentional resources left to devote to some focus on form.
Another related line of research focuses on the need to provide opportunities forcomprehensible output. This hypothesis proposes that through producing language,either spoken or written, language acquisition/learning may occur (Swain, 1993, p.159). Earlier, Swain had argued that learners have to be pushed to producecomprehensible output that is grammatical accurate and appropriate (Swain, 1985).There are, according to Swain (1993) four ways in which output might play a role inlanguage acquisition/learning: (1) provides opportunities for meaningful practice; (2)could force a learner to move from simply semantic processing to syntacticprocessing also, (3) provides opportunities for hypothesis testing, and (4) ones output51September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
can generate responses from other speakers, feedback that can lead speakers toreprocess their output.
Both lines of research mentioned above emphasise the need to focus on form inaddition to focusing on meaning. In focus on form one can do it more spontaneouslyas Long (1991) suggests or it may be a combination of spontaneous and pre-plannedas Spada (1997) suggests. Swains suggestion implies that teachers need to push theirstudents to produce more language and produce it accurately. In both cases, theemphasis is on a greater focus on form, but this is not equivalent to doing moregrammar exercises in classroom.
Errors that arise out of the use of the rules of ones L1 in the second languagecontext suggest that learners are using all their linguistic resources, including L1resources, to convey their meanings. For example, Why daddy can go with us isacceptable in French but English does not permit wh questions without verb inversion(Spada & Lighbown, 1999). A study of the interlanguage of ESL learners in HongKong found that the surface structure of many of the interlanguage strings orsentences in English were identical or very similar to the usual sentence structure ofChinese (Chan, 2004).52September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
What are the implications of this insight for teaching? If learners make thesesystematic errors will they disappear as they refine their developing grammar of thesecond language? How do we account for a learner such as Wes described bySchmidt (1984). He was able to communicate quite successfully but continued tohave many grammatical inaccuracies in his utterances. If a learners interlanguagebecomes fossilized the task of the teachers becomes one of motivating such learnersto get over this hump - not an easy task. Granted that there is systematicity in theinterlanguage, Insight 2, discussed previously, provides a pedagogical solution toassist learners to move to the next stage in their interlanguage, though not with 100%success (Selinker, 1992).Insight 4: There are predictable sequences in SL acquisition; learners have toacquire certain structures first before they can acquire others as theirinterlanguage develops.Research has shown that there is a pattern and order in which certain grammaticalfeatures are learned, so that later items cannot be acquired until the earlier ones havebeen acquired. For example, the ~ing progressive, plural and copula (to be) have to beacquired before the auxiliary (progressive, as in he is going) and the articles areacquired (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982). Pica (1983) found that learners undergoinginstruction did not manifest a different order of acquisition of grammatical features incomparison to those learning the SL more naturalistically. An extensive studyconducted in Germany with adults acquiring German as a second language found thatthere was a developmental sequence in the acquisition of a number of grammaticalfeatures (Meisel, Clahsen, & Pienemann, 1981). They also noted that there was somevariability in language use, depending upon the linguistic context in which theparticular grammatical item/structure was used. Pienemann has developed these ideasfurther under his Processability Theory (Pienemann, 1998).
Regarding Insight 4, there have been two schools of thought: the zero option(Ellis, 1997) and the other that might be termed non-zero option. The zero option53September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
suggests no teaching of grammar and instead the creation of opportunities for the useof language naturalistically, as found in untutored contexts or childrens developmentof L1 (Krashen, 1982; Prabhu, 1987) The non-zero proponents have tended to arguefrom a cognitivist viewpoint that explicit learning can become implicit throughpractice (Sharwood Smith, 1981) or have argued that while grammar instruction maynot lead to acquisition, explicit rules may allow learners to exploit this knowledge at atime they are ready to acquire that particular grammatical feature of the SL(Lightbown, 1985a; Seliger, 1979).
SL teachers have traditionally rejected the zero option for many different reasons,which we do not need to go into here. Teachers can, however, combine the insights in#4 and #2 and provide focus on form instruction when necessary. It may notinevitably lead to the learning or acquisition of that particular grammatical item underfocus unless the learner(s) are developmentally ready to internalise it. It does reflectin a way Krashens notion of i + 1 (Krashen, 1981) but as with this notion, teachersare unlikely to know which of the students are ready for the next stage.
Insight 5: To become fluent in a language, one must practise using it. (And as acorollary to this insight) To become fluent in a language, one must receive extensiveL2 input.In light of the discussion that has taken place so far, it is evident that the practice inthis insight does not refer to grammatical practice of structures of the type that used tobe standard in structurally based programs or in many foreign language textbooks.Research suggests that language learning occurs best when learners are engaged incommunicative acts (Lightbown & Spada, 1999), or to put it in another way, whenlearners are engaged in encoding and decoding meanings in acts of communication54September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
As a corollary to this insight, one can say that very high levels of proficiency in aSL are unlikely to be developed in times that are normally allocated for foreignlanguages in school systems.
Practice, as conceptualised here, leads to a great amount of input (and output) thatlearners experience. It is therefore underpinned by the same research and argumentsmentioned previously about the necessity of extensive exposure for the developmentof proficiency in a second language. This can be problematic in foreign languagecontexts where language input may be confined to the formal classroom. This doesnot necessarily have to be the case. Teachers might provide practice through makingavailable to their students stories or other printed material in the SL to be read in oroutside the classroom. Other sources of input and hence practice are videotapes ofselected films, audiotapes of selected songs, stories or whatever might capture theinterest of the particular group of learners. Another strategy for foreign languageteachers is to encourage the formation of a Second Language Club, the members ofwhich get together to use the language for purposes of communication andopportunities are seized to invite a speaker of the SL to present a talk or interact withits members. In other words, teachers should have dinning through their head theword input, input, input.
Insight 6: Knowing a language rule does not mean that one will be able to use it incommunicative interaction or in writing.This is one insight that teachers paradoxically know and yet do not seem to know.Anecdotally we know that teachers have had frequent experiences in their classroomswhere their students can recite the rule but still break that same rule when speaking or55September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
writing. Yet, having known this, having this insight, teachers used to and I use thisdeliberately as a way to referring to BCA (before communicative approaches) teachgrammar rules in the hope that they would translate into, what we would now refer toas communicative competence. This insight suggests that the focus in classroomshould not be on learning explicit rules of a language, but on activities that aremeaning focused. On the other hand, we have seen evidence from research onimmersion language teaching that simply focusing on meaning may not draw theattention of learners to the forms in which meanings are encoded. We have also seenthe argument that perhaps the rules that are learned become useful to the learnerswhen they are ready to acquire those particular rules. We are thus led back to ourinsight number 2, which talked about focus on form.
One form of error correction that is frequently used by teachers is, what is called,recast. A student says, Jill go to town, and the teacher says, Yes, Jill went to townin the hope that the student will have noticed the mismatch in the use of the verb byher and by the teacher. But students, it seems, do not always notice the difference.56September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Lyster (1998) has shown that in the immersion language classrooms he studied thatis, in content-based classrooms - it is difficult for students to distinguish betweenfeedback which confirms the content of what has been said, from the feedback meantto provide information on linguistic accuracy or pragmatic appropriateness. This is acaveat for teachers but should not be regarded as deterring them from bringing to thenotice of students the mismatch between what they are producing currently and whatis ultimately required of them.
What implications can teachers draw from this insight? This insight suggests thatteachers can occasionally use materials (both oral and printed) that may, on the57September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
surface, appear quite difficult for the learners but which may still be understood,provided, that the activity or activities associated with such use do not expect learnersto get detailed meanings of the text, but rather the gist of what has been heard or read.The impetus for such uses might lie in the intrinsic interest of the topic combinedwith the planned activities that require oral interaction or written production based onthat particular topic. This is not a plea to use materials that are beyond the abilitylevels of learners, but rather that, where such materials are used, surprising amountsof comprehension may in fact occur which may provide an input into other plannedactivities.
Insight 9: The different rate of learning observed in our students arises out ofindividual differences.In any one class the same curriculum is taught to the same students, frequently by thesame teacher, providing, in theory, the same amount of input. Yet the outcomes at theend of a program are quite variable for the learners. It might be true that the sameamount of input may have been theoretically provided, but as was pointed out manyyears ago by Corder (1967) it is what learners attend to, the intake, that matters.Attention to input may be driven by many factors, including the moderating effect oflearners preferred learning styles, the level of motivation, the ability of learners tocope with degrees of ambiguity, the amount of anxiety, some of which might be morelearner-specific, and so on.
There are a number of studies which show the (mostly) negative effects of anxiety(Dupuy, 1997; Ganshow & Javorshy, 1994; Saito & Samimy, 1996; Young, 1990),the positive effect of motivation (Gardner, 1985; Noels, Pelletier, Clment, &Vallerand, 2003), and relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and SL proficiency(Chapelle & Roberts, 1986). There are other individual differences that have eventualimpact upon the outcomes. In the Mangubhai (1991) study mentioned previously, oneof the students wanted to know the meaning of every word from the very beginningof the lessons, while another was quite happy to chunk things and unpack them later,
58September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
with the result the first students outcome at the end of the teaching sessions wasconsiderably less than the outcome achieved by the chunker.
As teachers, it is not possible to address many of the things that students bring tothe classroom what is sometimes referred to as the presage factors. However,teachers can try to minimise the anxiety factor in their particular classroom, or to varyclassroom activities in ways that might address students different learning styles, ordevelop classroom materials and activities keeping the factor of motivation in mind,in ways that Drnyei (1994) (and others) have discussed.
Teacher Insight 1: The pour into a vessel view of knowledge does not work.Personal knowledge is the teachers filter for interpreting new information. It guidesteacher actions in concrete and specific situations (Brown & McIntyre, 1993).59September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
However, a teacher is not an island, and therefore personal knowledge should not beinterpreted to mean that teachers have their own unique knowledge, not sharing anycommonalities with other teachers. On the contrary, teachers personal knowledge hasa number of shared elements with other teachers because it originates from practicalexperiences with a number of commonalities, formal schooling in the past, initialteacher education or continuing professional training (Calderhead, 1996). However,the interpretation and internalisation of new knowledge is filtered through the sumtotal of knowledge (and experiences) that teachers bring to the task of learning orputting an idea into operation in classroom. Kennedy (1991, cited in Freeman, 2002,p. 6) summed up this issue quite succinctly when he said that [t]eachers, like otherlearners, interpret new content through their existing understandings, and modify andreinterpret new ideas on the basis of what they already know and believe. Andteachers are not likely to change their beliefs about second language learning oracquisition by simply being told about other alternatives or different beliefs (see, forexample, Pajares, 1992). What guides teachers behaviours in classroom is discussedunder the next insight.
What does this insight entail? What would a teacher reading this article take fromthis insight? If teachers were to try to put into effect, say, task based learning in theirclassrooms they would put that approach into action in different ways depending60September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
upon their understanding of the approach, their beliefs about its efficacy and theirevaluation of its likely success in their particular context. Each of these factors couldoperate differently for different teachers because each would be filtered through thepersonal practical knowledge of the teachers. Frequent practice, trial and error andreflection might make the practices more congruent to descriptions given in theliterature.
Teacher development can thus be seen as the development of more complex andricher practical theories. Such developments might be triggered by a conference, aworkshop or seminar teachers have attended, or courses of study undertaken, such asa Masters in TESOL, or indeed by critical events in classroom itself. They, especiallystudy, give teachers tools to test their theories against other theories, to try out newapproaches and as a result of these attempts to enrich their own practical theory. Inthe literature on general education, what teachers come to know what they know, issometimes referred to as new scholarship (Zeichner, 1999).
I have talked about insights about second language acquisition gained from researchand insights we have gained about how professional knowledge of teachers develop.These research insights can remain outside teachers personal practical theories orteachers can try to unpack the ramifications of them for their classroom practice, andin doing so and reflecting upon the results, reframe their own experiences inclassroom into a much richer personal practical theory.
I would like to end this article with a quote from a recent article by Johnson (2006,p. 248) who has paraphrased the well known educator, Dewey of the first half of thetwentieth century:it is through the attitudes of open-mindedness (seekingalternatives), responsibility (recognizing consequences), andwholeheartedness (continual self-examination) that teachers cometo recognize their own assumptions about themselves as teachers,about their students, about the curriculum they teach, and about thenature and impact of their teaching practices.61September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
ReferencesBrown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). WhitePlains, NY: Addison, Wesley, Longman, Inc.Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of teaching. Buckingham: OpenUniversity.Chan, A. Y. W. (2004). Syntactic transfer: Evidence from the interlanguage of HongKong Chinese ESL learners. Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 56-74.Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence aspredictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning,36(1), 27-45.Connelly, F. M., Clandinin, D. J., & Ming, F. H. (1997). Teachers' personal practicalknowledge on the professional knowledge landscape. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 13(7), 665-674.Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. International Review ofApplied Linguistics, 5(4), 162-170.DeKeyser, R. M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledgeand oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501.Drnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom.Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273-284.Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 114-138). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.Dupuy, B. C. (1997). Literature Circles: An Alternative Framework for IncreasingIntermediate FL Students' Comprehension and Enjoyment of Texts in the TargetLanguage. Mosaic, 5(1), 13-16.62September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
63September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (1998). The role of input and interaction in secondlanguage acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 299.Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages. Cambridge, Mass.: NewburyHouse Publishers.Halliday, M., McIntosh, A., & Strevens, P. (1964). The linguistic sciences andlanguage teaching. London: Longman.Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition.In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 156174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and itsimplications for second language learning. In A. Davies, C. Criper & A. Howatt(Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311). Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press.Harrison, C., & Gough, P. B. (1996). Compellingness in reading research. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 31(3), 334-341.Hatch, E. M. (Ed.). (1978). Second language acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley,Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second languageteacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 235-257.Krashen, S. (1979). The monitor model for second language acquisition. In R.Gingras (Ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching.Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning.Oxford: Pergamon.Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language learning andacquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. California: LaredoPublishing Co Inc.64September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
65September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: theory, research, and practice. In C.Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 15-41).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51-81.Mangubhai, F. (1991). The processing behaviors of adults second language learnersand their relationship to proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 12, 268-298.Mangubhai, F. (2001). Book floods and comprehensible input floods: providing idealconditions for second language acquisition. International Journal of EducationalResearch, 35, 147-156.Marland, P. (1998). Teachers' practical theories: Implications for preservice teachereducation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Development, 1(2), 1523.Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmentalstages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 3(2), 109-135.Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role offormulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning,48(3), 323-363.Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clment, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). Why are youlearning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determinationtheory. Language Learning, 53(1), 33-64.Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messyconstruct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under differentconditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33, 465-497.Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development:Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.66September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Sheen, R. (2003). Focus on form - a myth in the making. ELT Journal, 57(3), 225233.Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: Areview of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.Spada, N., & Lighbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, anddevelopmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern LanguageJournal, 83(1), 1-22.Swain, M. (1985). Communication competence: some roles of comprehensible inputand comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.),Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: just speaking and writing aren't enough.The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158-164.Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: a Canadian casestudy. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Twoadolescent French immersion students working together. Modern LanguageJournal, 82(3), 320.Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomyand authenticity. London: Longman.Wanner, E., & Gleitman, L. R. (1982). Language acquisition: The state of the art.New York: Cambridge University Press.Young, D. J. (1990). The relationship between anxiety and foreign language oralproficiency ratings. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 539-553.Zeichner, K. M. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. EducationalResearcher, 28(9), 4-15.
68September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Bio Data:Roger Nunn has worked in EFL for over 30 years in seven different countries,including more than 22 years in Asia. He is currently working at the PetroleumInstitute, a new University in Abu Dhabi, where he teaches communications andresearch skills. He has a Trinity College TEFL diploma, an MA and Ph.D. in TEFLfrom the University of Reading, UK. His Ph.D. study was on teaching methodologyand curriculum development across cultural boundaries in a Middle East setting. Hehas published widely on a variety of topics and is particularly interested ininternational and intercultural perspectives on language teaching. He is also SeniorAssociate Editor of the Asian EFL Journal.IntroductionThis paper will outline the rationale behind the design of units of learning activitiesin the form of interlocking sets of interactive holistic tasks and supportingexercises. The illustrations used to support the argumentation are extracts fromtask-based units designed for a general education English foundation course atKochi University in Japan over a seven-year period, and which are still being usedand developed today. This paper will attempt to describe the theoretical underpinningof the units in relation to their practical aim: to encourage students to develop theirability to learn how to use English as a means of international communication.
helps to situate this debate. He defines exercises as activities which practise partsof a skill, a new sub-skill, a new piece of knowledge. In contrast, he defines tasksas activities which practise the whole integrated skill in some way. Bygatesdiscussion (2001, pp.23-48) lends support to the idea that task-based teaching needsto be situated in a broad curriculum framework, suggesting that isolated tasks are notsufficient in themselves to promote learning. The implication drawn from suchresearch and discussion is that units of learning that involve the strategic use ofholistic repeated tasks and supporting atomistic exercises provide one means ofavoiding narrow ideological positions.
Not surprisingly, SLA research does not lend strong support to either of thepolarized positions discussed by Swan. Ellis (2005) outlined ten principles of SLA ininstructed language learning. Rather than referring to work specifically focusing onTBL, this paper will consider the design of task-based units in relation to these ten70September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
principles. For example, Ellis argues (pp. 19-20) that, the opportunity to interact inthe L2 is central to developing L2 proficiency (principle 8), and that this is morelikely to be provided though tasks than through exercises. However, he alsosuggests (p. 14) that, instruction needs to ensure that learners also focus on form(principle 3). Ellis also highlights the need for extensive input (principle 6) and thenumerous contributions of output (principle 7). In the light of Elliss ten principles, itappears that too much might be expected of tasks, and that a more holistic approach,involving the design of task-based units, flexible combinations of repeated tasks andsupporting exercises, can better respond to Elliss ten principles. Designing taskbased units also allows us to respond more effectively to the holistic nature ofpragmatic and discourse competence without neglecting the need to focus, if notsystematically, at least regularly, on atomistic aspects of linguistic competence andcommunicative enabling skills.
Ellis (2005, p.19) provides support for activities requiring extensive output thatprovide opportunities for learners to develop discourse skills. Two very importantdisciplines for language learning, discourse analysis and pragmatics, are holisticalmost by definition. (See, for example, McCarthy, 1991, Schiffrin, 1994, Kasper,1997, Mey, 2000.) Discourse analysts consider language above the sentence or singleutterance level, analysing relationships between form and function, highlighting theway utterances combine to form coherent spoken or written texts and the way thatwhole texts relate to broader contexts in which the text is produced and used.Pragmatics focuses more on the ways language users cooperate to create andnegotiate meaning in whole contexts. Neither discipline neglects the importance oflinguistic form or of conventional meaning, but both disciplines remind us thatlanguage and language use always amount to something which is greater than the sumof the parts and that using language requires participants to make many appropriatelinguistic choices, which are dependent on what is required in a broader context. AsOatey and Zegarac (in Schmitt, 2002, p. 74) put it, pragmatics investigates howpeople communicate more than what the words or phrases of their utterances mightmean by themselves. Pragmatic and discourse competences are therefore holisticcompetences that take into account relationships between users, utterances in context,whole texts and the parts that constitute texts.
Halliday's systemic linguistic approach (See Halliday and Matthiesson, 2004, for afull systemic linguistic perspective) provides the most comprehensive holistic view ofgrammar in relation to the use of language. Halliday and Matthiesson (2004, p.19),explicitly state that systemic linguistics is: "concerned with language in its entirety;so that whatever is said about one aspect is to be understood always with reference tothe total picture." (p.19). Assuming that discourse, pragmatic and systemicapproaches to language use are reasonable representations of at least some of what isrequired to be a competent user of a language, it seems reasonable to consider 'holism'as an important concept for professionals involved in supporting language learning.
72September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
4. It explores the relationship between diversity and unity, not rejecting the group,but equally valuing diversity, variety and uniqueness.5. It is negotiated, not preordained, and created not found.While they are not concerned directly with language earning, the networkemphasizes the principle of learning and understanding through dialogue, a principlethat has a direct parallel in Elliss SLA theory. The Education Network states that,holism asserts that everything exists in relationship, in a context of connection andmeaning -- and that any change or event causes a realignment, however slight,throughout the entire pattern. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts meansthat the whole is comprised of a pattern of relationships that are not contained by theparts but ultimately define them. The website uses colourful charts, illustrating howholism can be presented as a colourful educational concept, underlining at the sametime the promotional tone of the site.
They provide a forum and a focus for intensive language practice and they assist inlanguage learning. The latter is supported by providing comprehensible input, orobliging students to negotiate to make input comprehensible, but also by providingstudents and teachers with feedback on strengths and weaknesses when exposed tounscripted communication to plan for further practice. The effectiveness of tasks isenhanced by task repetition, (Bygate, 2001), allowing students to focus more onform-meaning relationships and develop fluency.
The design features of the units outlined below can be seen as an attempt to respondto many of these ten principles. In particular, the units provide extensive input,extensive opportunities for interaction and output and provide a framework for76September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
assessing free production. They are predominantly directed at implicit knowledge, butdo provide opportunities for focus on form and developing explicit knowledge. Atlater stages of the units, after extensive teacher input, students too assist in the designof materials for input, providing them with a full participatory role. They focus onmeaning, in particular, pragmatic meaning, which Ellis highlights as an essentialfocus.
In her paper asking, can pragmatic competence be taught, Kasper (1997, p.9)emphasizes that, the language classroom in its classical format does not offerstudents what they need not in terms of teachers input, nor in terms of studentsproductive language use. She advocates student-centred activities, which not onlyextend students speaking time, but also provide practice in: conversationalmanagement, using a wider repertoire of communicative acts, and interacting withother participants to cooperate to achieve understanding. Pragmatic competence alsoinvolves understanding and responding spontaneously and appropriately tounpredictable utterances. The positive and negative results of strategic competenceneeds careful consideration during spontaneous communication, as an important aimof a language lesson is to acquire language, but avoidance strategies are expedientcommunication skills which might even hinder language learning. Holistic activitiesare not always group activities: making a full solo presentation is also an interactiveactivity involving the production of a whole stretch of meaningful language. Thisactivity may even encourage (if not require) students to re-use pre-taught atomisticskills and language in a less controlled environment. Both students and teachers haveto become familiar with a broad variety of discourse roles.
Lowe (2005, p.12) argues against dogma in relation to Task Based Learning, thehard version of which, according to Lowe, says, on no account teach a languageform without performing a task. He suggests that context rather than dogma shoulddetermine whether the task comes first and the language work second or vice versa.There are arguments for doing tasks and exercises at different stages during aholistic learning unit. The task often comes last in the classroom activities described77September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
below, but this is not an absolute requirement. Some units use two or more tasks, andit is possible to use tasks at the start, in the middle or at the end of units. Doing a taskfirst with no preparation can be an excellent diagnostic tool. Practice in the form ofexercises can then be provided before doing the same or a similar task again. Thisapproach is also useful for assessment and course evaluation purposes, rating scalesbeing used by teachers and students to assess performance before and after teaching.The units of learning discussed below use a combination of exercises and tasks inintegrated units of learning. It is only loosely based on Williss (1996) framework fora task-based cycle.
Richards (2005) summarizes the main concern about task-based learning, stating,Learners grammar needs are determined on the basis of task performance ratherthan through a predetermined grammar syllabus. However, whether learners developacceptable levels of grammatical proficiency through such an approach is problematic(p.153). Richards points to research findings that challenge basic premises of TBLsuch as whether it always leads to negotiation of meaning (Foster, 1998 andMusumeci, 1996). Richards also discusses different ways of addressing grammarwithin task work (pp. 160-164) which include pre-teaching linguistic forms useful forthe task, reducing the complexity of the task to allow students to focus more on form,and allowing students adequate planning time before performing a task, enablingthem to coordinate both linguistic resources (such as vocabulary) and non-linguisticresources (such as problem solving strategies). He points out (p. 162) that the teacherhas a key role in determining the extent to which the task is implemented withdifferent emphases on fluency, accuracy and strategy use. Richards concludes (p.164) that there is a need to consider how a greater focus on grammatical form can beachieved during the process of designing and using tasks. The design of task-basedunits, distinguishing between exercises and tasks and looking at ways to enhance theeffectiveness of focus on form during tasks, is an attempt to respond to this need.
Willis (1996, p.54) favours a non-interventionist, monitoring role during the taskperformance itself. It is, however, unwise to make de-contextualized prescriptions78September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
about any classroom approach. Teachers have to make their own decisions as theirclassroom interaction develops. Experience on our long-term project leads to theconclusion that, once task-based learning is well-established in a class, there can be arole for deliberate interruption, though not as a very regular occurrence, even whenthe task is running smoothly. Otherwise students become so absorbed in the task thatthey tend to neglect form, while it seems preferable that even during a task, languagelearners who need to acquire a language system should focus their attention equallyon what they want to say and the best way to say it linguistically. For example, in anegotiation about what different drivers should have done to avoid an accident, a fiveminute pause may be taken, to respond to inappropriate tense use, to generate ifsentences or past modal expressions within the context of their discussion. Studentsgenerate as many utterances as possible such as if the mini-driver had not parked onthe corner, the escort driver would have seen the other car coming, or "the minidriver should've waited longer at the intersection" and then go back to theirnegotiation.
AssessmentMicro-linguistic knowledge and micro-skills are characterized as the enabling skillsand knowledge that support macro-activities, but performing in the macro-activities isthe ultimate course goal. Tests are therefore always macro-activities such as giving apresentation or keeping a conversation going in a small group and are linked to theformative evaluation each student sets in motion in the placement testing prior to thecourse. Common rating scales for self, peer and teacher assessment has now beenfully established to co-ordinate assessment and embody course aims. An example ofone of four scales, the use of which has been developed over many years, is providedbelow. Eight areas of competence were defined for assessment of performance intasks. These generated eight scales that were reduced to four scales, each of whichcombined two skills areas, as illustrated below. (See Nunn, 2000, for a fulldescription.) Once such scales became established, they served as a basis for studiesin intra-rater and inter-rater reliability to be reported elsewhere.
79September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Keeping a
1. Has (almost) no ability to keep a conversation going. Without constant help, the
2. Rarely self selects, but responds minimally to other speakers and sometimes
supports their Contributions. Negotiates rarely and/or only with a very limited
3. Responds fully when nominated, supports other speakers and sometimes self
breaks down.4. Is able to take initiatives, self-selecting and negotiating whenever necessarydrawing on a wide repertoire of expressions and techniques. Helps other participants tojoin in and interrupts politely when appropriate.
supports their contributions. Only rarely nominates other speakers, even when he/shehas the floor. Communication sometimes breaks down without support.3. Responds fully when nominated, supports other speakers and sometimes selfselects. Communication almost never breaks down.4. Is able to take initiatives, self-selecting, holding the floor, interrupting ornominating as the conversation demands. Helps other participants to join in.
2. Sometimes adjusts to the contributions of other speakers, but only rarely negotiates
and then only with a very limited repertoire limiting the effectiveness of the
communication.3. Is able to negotiate when necessary, adjusting to the contributions of other speakersand demonstrating an adequate repertoire for negotiation. Communication is normallyeffective and successful.4. Is able to adjust fully to other speakers` contributions, taking initiatives andnegotiating persistently whenever necessary, drawing on a wide repertoire ofexpressions and techniques. Takes a full share of the responsibility for successfulcommunication.
80September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Preparation StageExtensive and intensive listening and reading activities provide extensive input inboth listening and reading in the topic area. The listening components also model theinteractive tasks that the units highlight.
81September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Providing inputIntroducing topicarea and lexisExtensive readingand listening
Modelling futureactivities
that you can get a job as a ______ member on sailboats going to Australia or NewZealand. I was very lucky to join a _____________ going to Australia. The trip fromFiji to Australia took _________ days, including a one-week stop in a small countrycalled Vanuato. I was ________ for the first week but after that I got used to it and itwas a very good experience for me.I had two jobs on the yacht. In the mornings from 8-12 I taught the three childrentheir school_______. Also, I had to do a night watch from 8 p.m. until midnight. Themost exciting part of the trip was stopping at a small island near New Caledonia towatch the _______sea turtles come up on the beach to _______their eggs.What do you think? Answer these questions in writing and explain your answers.Which part of Darrens trip would you have enjoyed the most?Which part would you not have enjoyed?Now make a group of three students and compare your answers. Be ready to reportyour discussion to the whole class.
Warm-up activities,Focus on form,Practising languageuseful for tasksIntensive readingand listeningpractice
83September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Length of stay
Other information
85September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
A small-group conversationexchanging information on threecountries from an informationsheet provided by the teachercomparing the informationreaching a decision
You are planning to spend about one month in an English speaking country. Eachstudent in your group has information about a different country.
1. Read this sheet carefully. Prepare to speak. Remember these are only notes. Try tospeak clearly and correctly. You may add information from your knowledge orimagination.2. You will need to ask questions to find out information about the other countries.3. You will need to stay in English when you cant understand.4. you will need to remember the information to decide which country your groupwill visit.
Student ACountry
3 weeks
60,000 yen(Includes accommodation, food and activities)
Example:- Where exactly would we go in England?Scarborough - Small seaside town North East England(Have you heard of) Scarborough. (Its) a small, but very attractive seaside town inthe North East of England.
Student BCountryLocation
U.S.A.New York
Many sportsNight clubs
5 weeks
150,000 yenIncludes accommodation, breakfast and eveningmeal, indoor sports at the hostel
Example.Where exactly would we go in America?New York- (We could try) New York. (Its ) a really interesting and lively city.87September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Task repetitionInternet research skillsExtensive readingStudent generated input andinformationAssessment/evaluationof students and unitFinal self-assessmentReaching a decision in ateamReporting a decisionindividually
WeatherLength of stayPriceOther importantinformation
Interesting culturalinformationOptional final written assignmentWrite a letter in English to your parents asking for help to visit the foreign countryyour group has chosen. Start like this:My dear parents,I am writing to you in English to show you that I am working very hard to improvemy English ability.- Explain why you need to visit a country where English is a foreign language andhow this will improve your English in our international world.- Explain which countries you thought about in your group.- Explain why you chose the country you did.- Explain the expenses.- Explain about things like safety, accommodation, etc.- Ask for help and permission.ConclusionsTask-based units, rather than task-based learning per se, have been presentedhere as a flexible curriculum tool that supports the teacher by providing a large poolof possible materials, but which does not impose a linear syllabus for teachers to89September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
follow inflexibly. Decisions about the balance between focus on task and focus onform are ultimately left to the teacher. How much of a unit will be used in a particularclass is also left to the judgement of the teacher. Even the order of materials is notfixed. Worksheets use simple word processing tools and can also be modified byindividual teachers according to their needs. Teachers are also encouraged to designalternative units that match their own teaching style. To ensure fairness in assessmentbetween different classes, the rating scales are used by all classes as common criteriafor all task assessments.
A set of task-based units provides the kind of practice that fulfils many of Ellis's tenprinciples for SLA, such as extensive input, focus on meaning, focus on form,opportunities to interact and extensive opportunities for output. It does not assumethat students should not be thinking of the form of the message, just because they arerequired to focus on the message itself. An underlying assumption is that ways needto be found to encourage students to reflect on the form of the message during theinteractive task phases. The teacher may decide to adopt different roles, during thetasks. In addition to independent, studentled group work, teacher-led performancesby small groups in front of the class can be used to focus on form. During suchsessions the teacher may interrupt or even take a role in the conversation.
In the context where they were designed, after initial innovation difficulties of anadministrative nature, the units have become a standard accepted format, wellsupported by students, who testify to improved ability by the end of the course.Indeed, some students state that these units provided them with their firstopportunities to really use English effectively. However, student feedback is nottaken as irrefutable evidence of progress. Students and teachers use the assessmentcriteria for self, peer and course evaluation. Students are graded in task performanceat the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the course using these commonrating criteria. Teachers are not judged on their students final grades and areencouraged to use assessment to help them find their own ways of improvingstudents' language ability during task performances. This approach has also led to90September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
professional development opportunities for teachers, some of whom are gaining theirfirst experience in the profession, in areas such as, designing and developingmaterials, learning to evaluate spoken performances using rating scales and makingmini-presentations at local academic meetings and participants are encouraged toconduct data-supported research into different aspects of the project such asassessment or classroom discourse studies.
ReferencesBachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in testing. London: OxfordUniversity Press.Block, N. (2004). Holism, mental and semantic. Dept. of Philosophy, New YorkUniversity.http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/MentalSemanticHolism.htmlBygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oralinteraction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, M. Swain (Eds.). Researching pedagogictasks, second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman.Bygate, M., Cook, G., Iannou-Georgiou, S., Jullian, P. (2003). Debate anddiscussion: Tasks are nothing new, theyre just exercises with a new name. In A.Pulverness (Ed.), IATEFL 2003 Brighton Conference Selections, 8(1), 174-177.Bygate, M., Skehan, P., Swain, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks, secondlanguage learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman.Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical basis of communicative approaches tosecond language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.Canale, M. (1983).On some dimensions of language proficiency. In J.W. Oller, (Ed.),Issues in language testing research (pp. 332-342). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Candlin, C. (2001). Afterword, taking the curriculum to task. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan,& M. Swain. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning,teaching and testing (pp. 229-243). Harlow: Longman.91September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
93September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
from adult vocational education, then spread to elementary education and other fields,such as L2 learning and teaching (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Breen (1987) defined alanguage task as a structured language endeavor which has a specific objective,appropriate content, a particular working procedure, and a range of possible outcomesfor those who undertake it. Breen suggested that language tasks can be viewed as arange of work plans, from simple to complex, with the overall purpose of facilitatinglanguage learning. In fact, he asserted, All materials for language teaching . . . canbe seen as compendia of tasks (Breen, 1987, p. 26). In a similar vein, Prabhu statedthat a task is an activity that requires learners to arrive at an outcome from giveninformation through some process of thought, and which allows teachers to controland regulate that process (1987, p. 17). These definitions underscore the idea that atask is a structured instructional plan that requires learners to move toward anobjective or outcome using particular (teacher-given) working procedures orprocesses. Again, a task is imposed from the outside and does not come from thelearner.
distinction can be crucial if we consider that a task may trigger different activitiesacross individuals and in the same individual on different occasions.
activity is what students actually do with these instructions, that is, the behavior(regardless of whether it is overtly observable or purely mental) that occurs whenstudents perform a task that has been presented to them.
Task GoalsPotential task goals fall into three main groups: focus on meaning, focus on form, andfocus on forms (Long, 1997; Salaberry, 2001). These are summarized below and inTable 2. Additional task goals are also described.
Nunan (2004) analyzed tasks in terms of several components, such as: goals (to be expressedas micro-behavioral outcomes), input (spoken, written, or visual; it can be in a range of inputauthenticity, as long as it stimulates language learning), and procedures (related to task types, whichcovers fluency versus accuracy, skill getting versus skill using, and procedural authenticity). Otherfeatures of Nunans (2004) analysis of tasks are teacher and learner roles and instructional settings inwhich tasks occur. See also Oxford, Cho, Leung, and Kim (2004).
97September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
(breakdowns) and causing them to take action to solve the problems. In Longs(1985) view, a focus on form occurs when attention is mostly on meaning but isshifted to form occasionally when a communication breakdown occurs. Manytechniques are used to meet this goal, such as recasts in which the instructor gives acorrective reformulation of the learners incorrect production or understanding. Witha recast, the learner must discern the difference between the correct contextualizedform and the original contextualized form and figure out the underlying relationshipsand rule. Because the learner is involved with language analysis, this is an analyticsyllabus (Wilkins, 1976). In this mode, . . .[T]hree major components define a focuson form . . .[:] (a) can be generated by the teacher or the learner(s), (b) it is generallyincidental (occasional shift of attention) and (c) it is contingent on learners needs(triggered by perceived problems) (Salaberry, 2001, p. 105).
However, as Salaberry (2001, adapted from Johnson, 1996) noted, a different typeof focus on form occurs when the forms are preselected for tasks, rather than arisingfrom learners needs (the communication problem or breakdown during a task). This98September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
mathematics or social studies through the L2 (Honeyfield, 1993; Oxford, Lee, Snow,& Scarcella, 1994) or may relate to cultural awareness and sociocultural competence(Nunan, 1989; Scarcella & Oxford, 1992). Task goals may differ according towhether there is a single, common task goal (convergence) or multiple task goals(divergence) (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).Table 2. Possible goals for L2 tasks: Relationship to various types of syllabi fortask-based teaching and learningGoal and Syllabus
Goal Statement/Description
B. Focus on formAnalytic syllabus
100September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
C. Focus on forms Synthetic syllabus
Task TypesMany types of L2 tasks exist, particularly in the realm of communicative instruction.Here is a listing of some key task types found in the literature: problem-solving(Nunan, 1989; Pica et al., 1993; Willis, 1996a); decision-making (Foster & Skehan,1996; Nunan, 1989; Pica et al., 1993); opinion-gap or opinion exchange (Nunan,1989; Pica et al., 1993); information-gap (Doughty & Pica,1986; Nunan, 1989;Oxford, 1990; Pica et al., 1993); comprehension-based (Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2000;Scarcella & Oxford, 1992; Tierney et al., 1995); sharing personal experiences,attitudes, and feelings (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Oxford, 1990; Willis, 1996a, 1996b);basic cognitive processes, such as comparing or matching (Nunan, 1989; Willis,1998), listing (Willis, 1998), and ordering/sorting (Willis, 1998); language analysis(Willis, 1996a, 1996b, 1998); narrative (Foster & Skehan, 1996); reasoning-gap(Nunan, 1989); question-and-answer (Nunan 1989); structured and semi-structureddialogues (Nunan, 1989); and role-plays and simulations (Crookall & Oxford, 1990;Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
In addition, task types include picture stories (Nunan, 1989); puzzles and games(Nunan, 1989); interviews, discussions, and debates (Nunan, 1989; Oxford, 1990;Richards & Rodgers, 2001); and everyday functions, such as telephone conversationsand service encounters (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Task types also encompasspractice with communication/conversation strategies, learning strategies, and text101September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
handling strategies (Cohen, 1998; Honeyfield, 1993; Nunan, 1989; OMalley &Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990). Additional task types can lead to communicativevideomaking (Talbott & Oxford, 1989, 1991). For more on various types of tasks, seeBygate et al. (2001) and Yule (1997).Many task types involve multiple skills and subskills, such as reading a passage forcomprehension and then doing something with the information that has been read,such as answering questions, discussing the information, making a decision, solving aproblem, and expressing how one feels about a given situation.
TimingThe amount of time allotted for the task can be a major factor (Honeyfield, 1993;Skehan, 1996a), especially for L2 learners who are at the beginning and lowintermediate levels. When a task is speeded, that is, when only a certain amount oftime is given to complete the task, it might become more difficult for some learners.If students are allowed to take all the time they need, i.e., if the task is unspeeded,this takes off some of the pressure. In-class tasks do generally have a time limit,although, depending on the task type and the goals, some tasks that are unfinished canbe done as homework assignments.
Richards and Rodgers (2001) cited a range of input materials for L2 tasks, includingbooks, newspaper, video, TV, and so on. Interest level of the learners in the materialis particularly crucial. If materials are perceived as boring or as too easy or toodifficult, learners will be unmotivated to do the task (Scarcella & Oxford, 1992).Publishers provide materials of wide interest to most students, although culturalfactors such as religion can prevent some materials from being used for L2 tasks inparticular locations.
Linguistic ComplexityAn important task factor is linguistic complexity (Dahl, 2004; Foster & Skehan, 1996;Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Skehan, 1996a), such as number of words in a sentence,103September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
amount of redundancy, degree of use of dependent clauses and other complexitycreating structures, discourse style, sequence complexity, technicality of vocabulary,concreteness or abstractness, sectioning, and other features. As noted by Dahl (2004),linguistic complexity is not synonymous with difficulty but is instead an objectiveproperty of a systema measure of the amount of information needed to describe orreconstruct it. It is the result of historical processes of grammaticalization andinvolves mature linguistic phenomena (Dahl, 2004). Gibson (1998) indicated thatlinguistic complexity is a function of the integration cost and the memory costassociated with keeping track of obligatory syntactic requirements, such as centerembedded dependent structures, placement of large phrases earlier (heaviness effect),and ambiguity effects.
Salaberry (2001) mentioned the following issues involved with task languagefeatures: frequency and saliency; and linguistic categories, such as vocabulary,phonology and phonetics, morphosyntax, discourse, pragmatics/speech acts, andsociolinguistics. All of these contribute in various ways to the degree of linguisticcomplexity.
Linguistic complexity is not the same as difficulty. The persons familiarity withthe material, the topic, or the language properties mitigates some of the difficultyeven when the linguistic material is complex. The difficulty is also affected by thenumber of language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) and subskillsrequired to do the task.
Cognitive complexity is yet another characteristic, but it relates not just to the taskbut also to the person. Analysis of cognitive complexity has been defined as "anaspect of a person's cognitive functioning which at one end is defined by the use ofmany constructs with many relationships to one another (complexity) and at the otherend by the use of few constructs with limited relationships to one another(simplicity)" (Pervin, 1984, p. 507). Therefore, cognitive complexity involves aperson component (unobservable cognition and observable behavior) and a taskstructure component. If a computer is involved, there is also an interactive systemcomponent (Rauterberg, 1992).
However, interaction and output might not be essential, depending on the taskpurpose. For learning the use of relative clauses, Tanaka (1996, in Ellis, 2003a) foundthat practicing with input proved to be more efficient than practicing with output(using relative clauses in traditional production-practice tasks). Input practice taskshelped students understand relative clauses better, and their ultimate productionability was just as strong with input practice tasks as with traditional productionpractice tasks.
When production practice is the goal of the task, complexity of the output becomesa task factor. Output complexity relates to the complexity of language the learner usesand the cognitive sophistication of the output, both of which depend on the learnerswillingness to take risks in restructuring forms and concepts (Foster & Skehan, 1996;Skehan, 1998b).
Sometimes when learners are allowed an opportunity to plan, this makes the taskseem easier, but at other times the allowance of planning sends a signal that this is adifficult task, which makes certain learners anxious. The way the planning isintroduced and implemented influences the value of planning.
TimingThe amount of time allotted for the task can be a major factor (Honeyfield 1993;Skehan 1996a), especially for L2 learners who are at the beginning and lowintermediate levels. When a task is speeded, that is, when only a certain amount oftime is given to complete the task, it might become more difficult for some learners.If students are allowed to take all the time they need, i.e., if the task is unspeeded,this takes off some of the pressure. In-class tasks do generally have a time limit,although, depending on the task type and the goals, some tasks that are unfinished canbe done as homework assignments.
Richards and Rodgers (2001) and Scarcella and Oxford (1992) mentioned thefollowing task roles for teachers: selector/sequencer of tasks, preparer of learners fortask, pre-task consciousness raiser about form, guide, nurturer, strategy-instructor,and provider of assistance. Cultural and linguistic backgrounds and teaching stylesinfluence the roles teachers feel comfortable taking (Oxford, 2002; Oxford, Massey,& Anand, 2003; Scarcella & Oxford, 1992). The amount and kind of help providedby the teacher was singled out as a task-related teacher factor by Honeyfield (1993)and Scarcella and Oxford (1992).
The learner can take control of the taskthat is, be responsible for his or herperformance on the taskby considering the task requirements and employinglearning strategies to accomplish the task more efficiently and more effectively(Cohen 1998; OMalley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford 1990). On the part of the learner,this involves a serious commitment, motivation, confidence, clarity of purpose, andwillingness to take risks (Drnyei 2001; Drnyei & Schmidt, 2001; Honeyfield, 1993;Oxford, 1996; Skehan, 1998b; Willis, 1996a, 1996b, 1998), but these may bedampened by language anxiety (Arnold, 1998; Oxford, 1998; Young, 1998).
Learning styles are likely to affect choice of strategies for accomplishing tasks (seeOxford, 2001). Learning styles also make a difference in which tasks are perceived asdifficult by individual learners. For example, face-to-face communication tasks mightbe viewed as easier for a person with an extroverted learning style than an introvertedlearning style. Learners whose learning style is highly analytic, concrete-sequential,108September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
109September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
schema building,controlled practice embedded in a context (unlike traditional controlledpractice),authentic receptive skills work,a focus on form (lexical and/or grammatical),freer practice (communicative activities), and at lastthe (communicative) task itself.
It is interesting that Nunan, unlike Ellis (2003) and Long (1985, 1991, 1997),waited until the very end of the process to include the communicative task. In2
Hallidays (1985) macrofunctions are as follows: (a) the ideational or referential function,representing the external world, thoughts and feelings, and logical relations existing amongexperiences and processes; (b) the interpersonal function, encompassing relations between addressorand addressee in discourse situations or speech acts; and (c) the textual function, concerning the waylanguage makes links with itself and the situation to produce linguistically cohesive and semanticallycoherent text.
110September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Nunans model, the task is a culmination of all other work. In this sense, as noted byFeeney (2006), this is not too far from the PPP format, except that Nunans controlledpractice occurs within more of a communicative context than is usual with the PPParrangement. Nunans focus on form occurs before both freer practice and the task,whereas Williss (1996b) model employs a focus on form after the task.
Longs (1985, 1991, 1997, 2005) task-based language teaching model presents afocus on form, which involves meaning, structure, and the context of communication.The model follows the following sequence of task development, implementation, andassessment/evaluation:
Ellis (2003b) distinguished between (a) unfocused tasks (e.g., ordinary listeningtasks or interactions) and (b) focused tasks, which are used to elicit a particularlinguistic feature or to center on language as task content. He cited three principaldesigns for focused tasks: comprehension tasks, consciousness-raising tasks, andstructure-based production tasks. Elsewhere (Ellis, 2003a) presented a sequence oftasks for helping learners become more grammatical, rather than for attaining theelusive goal of mastery. The sequence includes:
Listening task, in which students listen to a text that they process for meaning)."Noticing" task, in which students listen to the same text, which is now gapped,and fill in the missing words. Consciousness-raising task, in which students discover how the targetgrammar structure works by analyzing the "data" provided by the listening text. Checking task, in which students complete an activity to check if they haveunderstood how the target structure works. Production task, in which students have the chance to try out or experimentwith the target structure by producing their own sentences.Johnson (1996), Skehan (1998b), and Willis (1996b) discussed sequencing of tasksaccording to methodological task features, such as extent of communication(negotiation of meaning), task difficulty, and amount of planning allowed. Othershave discussed how to sequence tasks to reflect the developmental sequence oflanguage acquisition. Skehan (199b) suggested targeting a range of structures ratherthan a single one and using the criterion of usefulness rather than necessity as asequencing criterion.
Salaberry (2001) argued that a successful task sequence leads learners to: (a)communicate with limited resources, (b) become aware of apparent limitations intheir knowledge about linguistic structures that are necessary to convey the messageappropriately and accurately, and finally, (c) look for alternatives to overcome suchlimitations. Building on the work of McCarthy (1998), Salaberry offered a112September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
pedagogical sequence of four stages, which for the learner would be involvement,inquiry, induction, and incorporation. For the teacher the corresponding four-stepsequence is introduction of the topic, illustration, implementation, and integration.See Table 3. This sequence is very detailed and includes multiple tasks at each stage.Table 3 Four stages of teaching/learning showing sequence of tasksTeacher
1.Introduction of topic
1. Involvement (motivationto participate in the task)
2. Illustration
3. Implementation
4. Integration
Salaberrys example
Teacherillustratesparticularfeatures; students rate variousmovie reviews written by moviecritics on a scale from the mostpositive to the most negative.2. Inquiry (communicative Teacher reads a movie narrativeand asks students to identify eventsanalysis of language incommunicative context; in the plot (in infinitive form);students separate main events frommostly initiated bylearners, not the teacher) minor events; students reconstructstory in writing in present tense.Studentsdoalistening3. Induction (developmentcomprehension task: place picturesof hypotheses aboutof main movie events in correctstructure and functionsorder. Then they listen to the tapeof the language)again to write down as many plotevents in past tense as possiblewhile tape is played to reconstructwhole plot, including minor events(modified dictogloss). Studentshave not yet had a formalexplanation of past tense endings,but teacher can informally give pasttenses of various verb types fromstudent narratives in #2.During the [essential] debriefingstage students may be given theactual script that was read to themso that they can compare it to theirtranscription; this is crucial forallowing students to verify, modify,or reject their hypotheses (frominduction). Learner controls thelearning process.Students produce their own movie4. Incorporationscripts(incorporation).For(assimilation ofinstance, they can be asked to writeknowledge about newa dialogue for a series ofL2 features in a wayproductive to the overall (scrambled) pictures that recount apossible eye-witness account of anL2 system)event parallel to the movie plot(#3). They act out the scene(concrete outcome).
It is evident that no consensus yet exists about the best way to sequence tasks or tosequence elements within tasks. This is one of the key areas of research needed in thefield. The next section offers a set of implications for research.
From these questions and from the whole article it is clear that task-based teachingand learning as a field is an exciting field that is experiencing much ferment at thistime. Task-based teaching and learning potentially offer great riches if explored byteachers in their dual roles as instructor and action researcher. Professionalresearchers can provide additional answers to the questions raised here. The answerswill enhance the teaching and learning of languages around the world. The ultimate114September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
beneficiaries will be the students whose needs will be more fully met if the questionsare clearly raised, explored, and answered.
ReferencesArnold, J. (1998). Affective language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Barnhart, R.K. (1988). Dictionary of etymology. Edinburgh: Chambers.Breen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin and D. Murphy(Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 23-46). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M. (eds.) (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks.New York: Pearson.Chamot, A.U. and OMalley, J.M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing theCognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.Cohen, Andrew D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language.Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman.Coughlin, P. and Duff, P.A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of SLAtask from an Activity Theory perspective. In J. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds.),Vygotskian perspectives on second language research (pp. 173-193). Norwood,NJ: Ablex.Crookall, D. and Oxford, R. (1990). Simulation, gaming, and language learning.Boston: Heinle/Thomson.Dahl, O. (2004). The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Studies inLanguage Companion Series, 71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Drnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. London: Longman.Drnyei, Z. and Schmidt, R. (eds.). (2001). Motivation and second languageacquisition. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.115September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
116September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Ikeda, M. and Takeuchi, O. (2000). Tasks and strategy use: Empirical implicationsfor questionnaire studies. JACET Bulletin, 31, 21-32.Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Long, M.H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-basedlanguage training. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling andassessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Long, M.H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teachingmethodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreignlanguage research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52).Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Long, M.H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R.L. Lambertand E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy (pp. 179-192).Amsterdam: Benjamins.Long, M.H. (1997). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. Fourth AnnualMcGraw-Hill Satellite Conference.http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/foreignlang/conf/task1.htmRetrieved 2 Sept. 2005.Long, M.H. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.Long, M.H. & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design.TESOL Quarterly, 26(10), 27-56.Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. InC. Doughty & J. William (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second languageacquisition (pp.15-41). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.McCarthy, M. 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. New York:Cambridge University Press.117September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
(Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34).Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Plough, I. and Gass, S. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects oninteractional structure. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and languagelearning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 35-55). Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMatters.Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Rauterberg, M. (1992). A method of a quantitative measurement of cognitivecomplexity. In G. van der Veer, M. Tauber, S. Bagnara, and M. Antalovits (Eds.),Human-computer interaction: Tasks and organization (pp. 295-307). Rome: CUDPubl.Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse.Language Learning, 45, 99-140Salaberry, R. (2001). Task-sequencing in L2 acquisition. Texas Papers in ForeignLanguage Education, 6(1), 101-112.Scarcella, R.C. and Oxford, R.L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: Theindividual in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on therole of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention andawareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-65). Manoa: University of HawaiiPress.Skehan, P. (1996a). A framework for implementing task-based instruction. AppliedLinguistics, 17, 38-62.Skehan, P. (1996b). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction.In J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. (pp.17-30). Oxford: Heinemann.119September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
120September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
121September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Bio Data:Darren Lingley is an Associate Professor in the Department of International Studies atKochi University, Japan where he teaches Intercultural Communication, ComparativeCulture and English as a Foreign Language. He is currently involved in curriculumdevelopment, discourse studies, elementary school English education and thedevelopment of gender studies materials for EFL learners. He has taught in Japan formore than 13 years.
AbstractThis paper offers a task-based methodological framework for introducing Canadianculture and content to intermediate level Japanese learners. There are very fewcommercially prepared materials dealing with Canadian culture currently on themarket in Japan, and what is available is informational, generalized and staid innature and often focuses on only one skill such as reading or listening. Materials andmethodology presented in this paper are designed to address a wider range oflanguage skills and are issues based, meaning that students must comprehenddifferent perspectives of target content materials, synthesize and consolidate theseperspectives and produce language (meaningful output) demonstrating anunderstanding of the target issues in question. Example issues presented in this paperinclude bilingualism and French immersion education. The materials and frameworkdraw from several established definitions of tasks but were originally prepared usingNunan's (1989) definition of a communicative task as "a piece of classroom workwhich involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting inthe target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather thanform" (p.10).
IntroductionEFL teachers work in an incredibly wide range of contexts ranging from morestructured language programmes to situations where language teaching is relegated toadjunct status. While the most common form of language teaching requires teachersto work with students on the four skills, other teachers are often charged withteaching courses leaning in the direction of content-based instruction. These includesubjects like Intercultural Communication and Comparative Culture where theteacher must achieve some unspecified balance, often different from class to class, ingetting important content aims across to students while at the same time helping themto develop their language skills. These content and language aims usually intersect atvarying points along a spectrum, and are constantly negotiated and re-negotiated byfactors such as curricular needs, student abilities and teacher beliefs. This paperdescribes how a task-based approach was used to develop materials and methods for acontent-based course in Canadian Studies for second-year students in a Japaneseuniversity. The teaching methodology and supplementary materials presented heregive special focus on input/output tasks that encourage students to interact withopposing viewpoints of several Canadian cultural issues.
thus determined that the main part of the materials developed for the second-yearbridging seminar on Canadian Studies be student-centered communicative tasks inwhich students used the language to exchange content-related meaning. In contextslike this, methods and materials often need to be developed and re-designed, in manycases from year to year, to match the particular needs of an individual group oflearners. This has the positive effect of constantly infusing new tasks and materialsinto a bank of materials that the teacher can then choose from to match teaching aimswith a given set of learners. However, because students self-select into this course,interest in both communicative language learning and the Canadian course contentcan be assumed as a starting point.
At this point, rather than committing to whether a task need be more form centeredor more meaning centered, it is perhaps more constructive to suggest that the shapeand role of tasks needs to be flexible enough to fit not only the various contexts inwhich EFL is taught but also within a single teaching context and even within anindividual course. Bygate, Skehan and Swain (2001) help in this regard by offeringthat definitions of task will need to differ according to the purposes for which thetasks are used (p.11). When placed within larger units of instruction, loosedefinition tasks can serve both the learner and the teacher more effectively when aparticular context calls for flexibility and negotiation in what materials are to bepresented, how they are to be taught and how classroom roles between teacher andstudent necessarily evolve in a given learning situation. Nunn (2006, this volume) hasproposed a task-based framework based on units of instruction that leads studentsthrough tasks and exercises which may or may not focus on form through to holisticoutcomes in the form of written reports, spoken presentations and substantial smallgroup conversations that lead to decision-making outcomes (p. 70). The same unitbased model can be successfully applied to more content centered courses in the formof flexible staged tasks which allow for instruction to be adapted to fit situationalneeds.
In a Canadian Studies unit where students are asked, for example, to develop acritical understanding of bilingualism in Canada, these tasks may include anintroductory lecture listening task where the teacher's role is more central. It mightfurther call for lectures to be supplemented or preceded by Dictogloss-style (Wajnryb,1997) dictation form-focused tasks based on the subject material and profiling subjectrelated vocabulary items where a small group of learners may work together toreconstruct a shorter dictated text as accurately as possible, or a pair-basedcollaborative note-taking task (see, for example, Nunn and Lingley, 2004, p. 16)based on the lecture itself in which students support each other in identifying the mainpoints of the lecture and any key vocabulary, phrases and expressions. This lecturelistening task might alternatively follow a later-stage holistic communication task again, the key aspect is flexibility for the teacher in determining when a specific task125September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Defining tasksThe varying definitions of tasks have been well covered in the literature in generaland in this volume in particular, and need not be revisited here in any great detail.Ellis (2003) has summarized these nicely and has added his own concise definition asfollows: Tasks are activities that call for primarily meaning-focused language use(p. 3). But what is more helpful here in assessing whether a set of tasks for classroomuse adequately meets the requirements in fulfillment of a task-based approach arewhat Ellis (2003, pp. 9-10) has identified as the critical features of a task. Thesefeatures are 1). A task is a workplan, 2). A task involves primary focus on meaning,3). A task involves real-world processes of language use, 4.) A task can involve anyof the four language skills, 5). A task engages cognitive processes, and 6). A task hasa clearly defined communicative outcome. We shall return to this list of features laterin assessing whether the materials and approach presented herein can be considered126September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
as comprising a fully task-based approach. However, for the purposes of this paper,what constitutes a task draws primarily on Nunans (1989; 2004) definition ofpedagogical tasks as a piece of classroom work that involves the learners incomprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language whiletheir attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order toexpress meaning, and in which the intention is to convey meaning rather than tomanipulate form (2004, p.4).
As noted, there are few commercially prepared Canadian resource materials on theJapanese market available for EFL students. What is available provides only a verygeneralized understanding of Canada and mainly employs single-skill languageexercises as opposed to a multi-skills approach based on content. After a lengthy127September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
search only two textbooks, both published in the early 1990s, were found that dealwith Canadian culture and both were set up, as most textbooks are, in a very linearway and focused on comprehension of a reading passage with supporting fill-in-theblanks activities and manipulation of language form. One textbook relied heavily onlisting Japanese translations of key words in the passages and neither provided anymeaning-centered communicative tasks. Topics included standard fare suchgeography, history, food, sports, environment, houses and shopping. Given the dearthof Canadian content materials available, a task-based approach using authenticmaterials is suggested as best matching the language and content needs of learners.
Guariento and Morley (op cit) have noted the importance of using authenticmaterials to maintain and increase learner motivation by suggesting that they givethe learner the feeling that he or she is learning the real language; that they are intouch with a living entity, the target language as it is used by the community whichspeaks it (p.347). In a content-based teaching context, the use of authentic materialsseems the obvious tack but in an EFL situation, some simplification is often necessaryboth for spoken and written texts. As we are using a flexible interpretation of tasksand how they can be used to either focus on form or meaning depending on need, italso seems appropriate to keep an open mind regarding authenticity. Although thesample texts provided here were written with the aim of helping students come toterms with different perspectives of the target content, they were nonetheless writtenwith the understanding that the reader would be an EFL student. In other words, somesimplification has been used in the short texts although every effort has been made tomake the texts seem as authentic as possible the language is natural, the meaning isclear and directly relevant to the content and the tasks. The texts for the FrenchImmersion content were simplified from an article written by Cummins (2000), anauthority on the subject. The texts for Canadian bilingualism are largely simulated perhaps quite low on the continuum of what constitutes authenticity but neverthelessauthentic. Spoken lecture discourse can also be simplified and controlled by thespeaker but still the activity simulates authenticity when the lecture is not delivered atnatural speed. We can add here that, as Guariento and Morley (op cit) note, even128September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
when spoken and written texts are fully authentic, partial comprehension of text isno longer considered to be necessarily problematic, since this is something whichoccurs in real life (p. 348).
authentic way, or with tasks, activities or exercises that address content and languagesimultaneously. To keep flexibility at the forefront, we should even consider doingboth, allowing for maximum recycling of the vocabulary items.
Even with intermediate level Japanese learners with good communicative commandof English as assessed using institutionalized rating scales (Nunn, 2000) it can beassumed that students will have only a surface understanding of Canada and the manyissues confronting contemporary Canadian society. Pedagogical responsibility in theteaching of EFL content-based courses demands that the teacher reconcile to the bestof his ability the linguistic needs of the student with an approach to the content thatchallenges the intellectual abilities of the learner. Finding this balance and makingdecisions about what might need to be sacrificed either in terms of language orcontent remains the individual responsibility of the teacher who weighs any numberof factors before settling on an approach. In the end, as Srole (1997) points out, Allgood teachers know that they must reach their audience (p. 105), and balancebetween content and language will naturally work itself out in each teaching context.
in the general sense will include still other content obligatory concepts such asadditive bilingualism, subtractive bilingualism and relative competence.
While the penultimate and final stages of the task-based approach presented hererequire holistic use of language by students in the form of information exchange tasksand individual presentations with specific communicative outcomes, form-focused ormicro-linguistic tasks are usually needed to familiarize students with the contentobligatory vocabulary and serve as a necessary foundation step in working throughthe staged progression of tasks that become more meaning focused. When the teacheraims to have students come to terms with meaningful content material, which in aCanadian Studies courses would include tackling issues such as Quebecs place inCanada, multiculturalism, language policy in unilingual Quebec, First Nations landclaims, regional identity and immigration policy, foundation materials emphasizingpre-task listening and reading activities, language exercises and more form-focusedtasks serve to strengthen what can be accomplished in the later meaning-focused tasks.Again, it is noted here that these language-centered tasks may also be re-incorporatedat various stages of the unit, even revisiting them during the more holistic stages,where the teacher may interrupt a task to correct or clarify language items, or modelaccurate language use through interaction with students. This is also a feature ofNunns (this volume) unit-based framework.
content. It is a fully authentic text, altered very minimally by deleting one word. Theteacher reads the texts three times, twice by speaking slowly and once at naturalspeed. Students write down as much as can and then, working in groups of three,students try to collaboratively reconstruct the text with one group writing it out on theboard. The teacher can then profile target vocabulary and language forms, as well asdiscuss pertinent content, explaining certain parts in more detail and fieldingquestions from the class.Authentic dictation text for Canadian Bilingualism topicRecently released data from the 2001 census reveals the deep divide in Canada'slinguistic duality. The census found that 17.7% of Canadians describe themselves asbilingual. The 2001 figure was up from 17% in the 1996 census. But the big growtharea in bilingualism was among Canada's francophones, of whom almost half saidthey could speak both French and English. That compares to less than 10% ofanglophones. Considering francophones make up only about 23% of Canada'spopulation, and their numbers are falling, the trend is not positive. Among Englishspeakers outside Quebec (Canada's major francophone province) only 7.1% said theywere bilingual. Indeed, only Quebec and New Brunswick, another province with asignificant francophone population, exceeded the national average of bilingualcitizens.From Guardian Weekly, February 20, 2003After doing two or three such communicative dictation activities and other microlinguistic language exercises, students work in pairs with each given a differentperspective about the target content issue in the form of a short reading text. Thestudent is required to read through and be prepared, without looking at the text, toexplain the gist of the content of the text to his/her partner. The teachers role in thistask is to monitor the task, circulating among the students to check for understanding.While it is a meaning-focused task, students may have questions regarding formwhich the teacher may have to address. The pair is then asked to consolidate theinformation provided in both readings by first explaining to their partner the gist oftheir text and giving examples. As an interactive task, some negotiation of meaningby asking and answering questions and seeking clarification is required. When bothstudents have fully explained and understood each others text, they are then asked towork together to consolidate the differing positions of the brief texts and, finally, to132September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
133September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
will be able to perform the tasks adequately but also the general belief that learnerscan be central, and will want to be central, to their process of learning language. Thegeneral learning context described in this paper provides minimal classroomopportunity for student-centered language learning based on using the L2 as thelanguage of instruction. Therefore, some activities in which the teacher is central canserve dual preparatory functions with both teaching language form and in establishingthe expectation of a greater student role because even the activities described ashaving a central role for the teacher very much involve the learner actively. Rolesnoted in Table 1 (below) suggest the variety of roles teachers perform, including acentral role, in support of student centered learning.Table 1 Classroom roles during Canadian content task stagesTask stage
Student role
Teacher role
Early stage(form)
Listening I: soloListening II: small group accuratereconstruction of dictation textReading (solo) comprehension, gist
Early stage(meaning)
Later stage(meaning)
Later stage(meaning)Early or late(meaningand/or form)
Brief presentation of aCanadian issueActive listening(individual, and pair-basedcollaborative note-taking)
Final stage(meaning)
AssessmentCentral (lecturing, recycling ofcontent/vocabulary.)
much needed communicative language skills and teaching target Canadian content.The tasks, especially the later stage tasks, involve a primary focus on meaning in thatthe target content is always central to the tasks. While the overall balance of the unitof tasks is meaning/content centered, form and language development is by no meansignored and is profiled where necessary. Authenticity of these classroom tasks andtexts has been justified in terms of the real-world applications students may needthe language and content for. Each of the four skills is practiced, usually in wayswhich call for students to employ different skills at one time. Another of Elliss taskfeatures is that a task engages cognitive processes which is obviously what happenswhen students work through the penultimate interactive task stage of the lesson inwhich they work in pairs with short texts representing different perspectives of asingle issue comprehending, manipulating, producing and consolidating sharedmeaning through interaction is virtually cognition defined. The last of Elliss taskfeatures refers to a clearly defined communicative outcome which is exactly what thelatter meaning-focused task stages do in the form of an assessed two-part holistic andcommunicative language operation.
ConclusionsThis paper has introduced a set of materials and a methodological framework for atask-based approach to CBI in an EFL context. Because of the difficulties in teachingcontent courses like Canadian Studies in EFL situations, a flexible approach to theuse and function of tasks in content-based teaching in the context described is central.It calls for tasks that ultimately require students to produce meaning-centeredcommunicative outcomes to be supplemented at the teachers discretion bypreparatory form-focused tasks and language exercises when needed. The frameworkpresented is based largely but not solely on Nunans (1989, 2004) definition of tasksand is further situated in relation to Brintons five principles of CBI and Elliss (2003)features of tasks.
based teaching can be used to meet divergent student needs. The approach andmaterials have been developed for a specific teaching context and are offered not as amethod for all contexts but as an example of how method can be adapted andmanipulated to meet the needs of a specific group of learners, and to show thatteachers can create ways to use authentic materials to teach target content aims incontent-based EFL courses. The methodology as described here attempts as much aspossible to fulfill language and content aims in as balanced a way as possible butstops short of valuing one over the other. Each teacher (and student) will ultimatelyfind their own balance in such an approach with the tasks used differently by eachgroup of learners.
ReferencesBernier, A. (1997). The challenge of language and history terminology from thestudent optic. In M.A. Snow and D.M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-basedclassroom (pp. 95-103). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Bruton, A. (2002). From tasking purposes to purposing tasks. ELT Journal, 56(3),280-288.Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (eds.) (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks,second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman.Cheadle, B. (2003, February 20). Statistics cant dent bilingual ideal. GuardianWeekly. Retrieved May 20, 2006 fromhttp://education.guardian.co.uk/tefl/story/0,,898042,00.htmlCummins, J. (2000). Immersion education for the millennium: What we have learnedfrom 30 years of research on second language immersion. Retrieved May10, 2006from http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/immersion2000.htmlDuborg, C. and Isted, G. (1994). Across Cultures: Canada. Tokyo: Eichosha.
137September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
138September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Snow, C., Met, M. and Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for theintegration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOLQuarterly 23, 201-217.Srole, C. (1997). Pedagogical responses from content faculty: Teaching content andlanguage in history. In M.A. Snow and D.M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-basedclassroom (pp. 104-116). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Sugimoto, S. (1990). Canadian life: from A to Z. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Wajnryb, R. (1997). Grammar dictation: The dictogloss procedure as a means toexplore and shift learners hypotheses about language. The Language Teacher,21(9), 63.Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, Essex: AddisonWesley Longman.Willis, J. and Willis, D. (2004). The ABC of ELT ... TBL. IATEFL Issues, 180, 12.
139September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
very fruitful. The paper reports in detail on the objectives of the project, the planningand implementation phase, the difficulties faced during the implementation of theplan, and the insights gained from this project.
1. IntroductionEvery language teacher today realizes the importance and the relevance of thestudent-centered, hands-on, practical and flexible approach (Shank and Cleary,1994), and the worldwide demand for Communicative Language Teaching whichhelps to understand the language in context and to use it effectively in situationsoutside the classroom. As a result, changes have been taking place in many areas ofeducation. The field of second language teaching is no exception in this paradigmshift. But for ELT, it has become a challenge to accommodate the changes due tovarious reasons. The most important factor is that one can not ignore the practicalaspect of every existing education system. For example, completing the syllabususing the prescribed text books, preparing students for examinations are part of manyclassroom realities. In spite of the honest intention of tailoring a needs-based flexiblecourse, every teacher is required to function within a large, systematized, controllededucation system. This is inevitable in large institutions as in India where the numberof learners in a particular course could exceed several hundred. The entire machineryacquires a certain regimentation forced by the demands of time, place and funds. Thispaper argues that if a teacher is resourceful, s/he can still find ways to overcome thedifficulties associated with the systematized and controlled education system in orderto make learning more meaningful.
Section 2 below discusses some theoretical aspects that underpinned the feasibility ofrecreating the prescribed textbook as a series of meaningful tasks, and the outcome oftask-based learning.
2. Theoretical backgroundA project was undertaken in Bangalore, India, to see how a shorter learning systemcould be embedded within the larger prevailing system and thereby make the best use141September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
of the situation. So it became necessary to see how the merits of different languagelearning frameworks like Communicative Language Learning, Task-Based Learningand Present- Practice-Produce(PPP), can be put together to achieve the best result.
As Joanne Pettis, quoting Henry Widdowson comments, If you say you areeclectic but cannot state the principles of your eclecticism, you are not eclectic,merely confused (Pettis, 2003). Roger Dunne from Universidad Veracruzana,Mexico rightly states, In any event, most language teachers are probably influencedmore by course books than by manuals and training courses and most popular coursebooks are decidedly eclectic in their approach. It is probably these pragmatic marketforces that will determine the future direction of language teaching in many parts ofthe world rather than a fight to death between academic fundamentalists (Dunne,2003). So it was found necessary to discuss the principles on the basis of which theproject was developed.
143September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
A focus on form is beneficial in two phases in the framework. The planning stagebetween the private task and the public report promotes close attention to languageform. As learners strive for accuracy, they try to organize their reports clearly andcheck words and patterns they are not sure of. In the final component, languageanalysis activities also provide a focus on form through consciousness-raisingprocesses. Learners notice and reflect on language features, recycle the task language,go back over the text or recording and investigate new items, and practisepronouncing useful phrases.
144September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
2.3. ConstructivismTheres no intellectual growth without some reconstruction, some reworking(Dewey, 1938, p.64). The notion of constructivism was another base which indicatesthat all learning involves relearning, reorganization in ones prior representations ofthe world. So it was assumed that whatever English is learned in the earlier years bythe students in the experimental group would also play a part. They will sort out thesystem that operates in the language with which they are presented (Williams andBurden, 1997, p.13). Also, one of the assumptions of constructivism iscontextualized learning. As the main goal of the project was to exploit the mandatedtext book, contexts provided in various units of the book formed the background ofthe central task. One of the intentions in doing so was to demonstrate that a languageteacher need not give up in a material driven or text book driven course.
by simply
understanding input that is a little beyond the learners present level he definedthat present level as i and the ideal level of input as i +1. There were two reasonswhy it was found necessary to take this hypothesis as one of the bases. First of all,after a few lessons the pattern of teaching can become predictable and hence boring.So it is necessary to set tasks at (i+1) level to keep them motivated. Secondly thelinguistic experience of the students in the project group was found suitable to makethe tasks challenging. The meaning focused tasks formed the centre of the learningactivity. Except for very little incidental explanation of exceptional uses, studentswere left to understand and form their own grammatical principles and rules. Alsoaccording to N. S. Prabhu, students may learn more effectively when their minds arefocused on the task, rather than on the language they are learning (Prabhu, 1987).
had a lot to do. Effort was made to follow as many tenets as possible. By empoweringthem it was possible to get better participation in the tasks they were doing and itmade them more motivated. Students also felt their efforts were better appreciatedand respected in this system. It increased their confidence and hence theirinvolvement in the whole process.
Bergin and Lafave (1998) say, Whole Language proponents assert that given choiceand meaningful tasks in an appropriate environment, students will be motivated toread and write. With this in view, tasks which aim at the development of all theskills, were designed and were set in contexts or environments as close to the onesstudents are likely to find themselves in.
Whole Language emphasizes the importance of guidance from the teacher andparticipation in the learning process. This is based on Vygotskys (1962) concept ofzone of proximal development. The group and pair work which were an essentialprerequisite of the tasks in our project, was included to provide assistance at theZone of proximal development by both the peers and the teacher.146September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Bergin and Lafave (1998) say, Cognitive psychology also endorses the ideas thatlanguage must be learned as a whole and taught as a whole. Also Goodman says,Whole language identifies three phases in Language development, perceiving - inwhich the learner through listening and reading attends to certain aspects ofexperience, ideating through which the learner reflects on the experience, andpresenting - in which the student expresses new knowledge through speaking andwriting (1986). With these phases in mind the tasks were designed to guide thestudents along the entire teaching and learning process. As the project progressedstudents could see the difference between the traditional classroom situations inwhich they had learned English in the earlier years and found how in their presentlearning situation meaning occupied an important place. Steve Graham and Harris(1994) drew a distinction between the traditional classroom and the Whole Languageclassroom.
Traditional Classroom1
of writing
The system of education in which the project was run, believes in teacher-centredlearning. But as other bases of the project were using Communicative LanguageTeaching method and focusing on the Whole Language, the project shifted theresponsibility of learning onto the students. The teachers were facilitators of learningand not presenters of information. Lea et al. (2003, p. 322) give the following tenetsof the student-centered learning.
With the support of these theories of teaching and learning, the project was designedand carried out to see what positive results accrue if more learner participation isensured through using tasks in teaching English as a Second Language. The details ofthe project and the insights gained through this project will be discussed in thefollowing section.
3. The ProjectTaking into consideration the concept of whole language, principles ofcommunicative approach to language teaching, and the principles of the task-basedteaching/learning, a teaching project was undertaken to teach a set of students fromclass 1X .
1 to X in both English and the medium of Kannada to more than 2000 students. Therewere 53 teachers working in this school and they were teaching various core subjectslike mathematics, science and languages like English, Hindi and Kannada.
Out of the 31 students, parents of 12 students were educated and employed, fourwere businessmen, 11 were farmers, and two attenders, one electrician and one wasemployed in a private factory. Kannada is the first language of 28 students. Onestudent was from Andhra Pradesh (Telugu as first language) and two fromMaharashtra (Marathi as their first language). Most of them subscribe to a Kannadanewspaper and 18 students do general reading in Kannada. One boy reads story booksin English, and the English newspaper The Asian Age. Only three students listen tonews in English and watch English programmes on television.
3.5. HypothesesBased on the findings of the informal discussions and the questionnaire, the followinghypotheses were formed:1. Task-based teaching enhances the language proficiency of learners2. Tasks encourage learners to participate more in the learning processes
149September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
To test these hypotheses, it was decided to take up task-based teaching for class lXstudents at The Basaveshwara Boys High School, Bangalore.
3. 6.1. MaterialsBefore taking up this project, the investigators analysed the materials used forteaching English for classes Vlll, lX, and X. The text books contained 10 units (forreading and writing) and 6 poems. It was found that class lX reader was inappropriatein many respects. For example, reading passages were too long and loaded withdifficult vocabulary. And grammar was given very little importance. Not manyexamples or activities were provided. Therefore, it was decided to recreate theprescribed textbook materials into meaningful tasks and provide ample opportunitiesfor maximum learner participation.
3.6.2 TasksAfter deciding the use of task based teaching methodology, the definition of a taskand the components of a task were examined.
220.127.116.11 DefinitionsAn activity which required learners to arrive at an outcome from given informationthrough some process of thought, and which allowed teachers to control and regulatethat process, was considered a task (Prabhu, 1987). An activity or action which iscarried out as the result of processing or understanding language, i.e., as a response(Dictionary of Applied Linguistics).
150September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Teachers role
Students role
From the above diagram, a task can be viewed as a piece of meaning focused work,involving learners in comprehending, producing and/or interacting in the targetlanguage.
Before taking up the task of converting the textual content into various tasks, thefollowing points were noted and kept in mind by the investigators:
The task must equip the learners with the ability to apply classroom learningin new situations.
3.7.2 Pre-testTo ascertain the linguistic level of the students, a pre-test was designed andadministered. A brief introduction to the nature of the test was given a day prior to thetest. All instructions were given in English and were also translated, orally, intoKannada. The data obtained through this pre-test were analysed for preparing tasksand activities (to follow i+1 hypothesis).
3.7.3 MethodologySix units of the prescribed text book were represented as a series of tasks. Care wastaken to accommodate all the four basic skills of language learning in these tasks(Appendix 2). In addition to the two investigators teaching on this project, twoteachers of English from the school were encouraged to work on this project. They152September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
used to sit in the classes and observe, take notes in a diary, reflect and discuss withthe investigators. They also assisted us in preparing, typing and photocopying worksheets and so on. Input was introduced and discussed during the pre-task stage.Students were told what they should do while working on tasks. During the post-tasksession, tasks were discussed and feedback was given by the teachers. To begin with,students were put into groups to work. Then they worked in pairs. Finally tasks wereset for individual work. Whereever necessary, students were asked to repeat some ofthe tasks.
126.96.36.199 An exampleUnit 1Day 1To introduce the concept of Swayamvara, a passage was written. It was used forlistening task.Pre-task: what is swayamvara? (Students discussed with peers and gavesome answers)Who could announce swayamvara? Is it still practised? Is it a good idea?Why /Why not?Task 1: Your teacher will read out a passage. Listen to the passage carefullyand complete the blanks (Blank completion worksheet was given to students).Task 2: Your teacher will read the passage again. This time listen to thepassage carefully and choose the correct answer and circle it (Worksheetbased on multiple choices).Post-task: Discussed the concept of swayamvara, and introduced somevocabulary.Role-play: Five role play cards were prepared and a lot of information abouteach role was provided in each card.
153September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Pre-task: Each role was introduced and some time was given to students tothink about these roles. Then volunteers were given the role play cards toprocess the information.Task: Students enacted their roles, the rest of the class listened to them.Post-task: A number of questions were asked about these roles and theteacher and some students together answered the questions.Some information from the reading passage was taken from the prescribed text, andbased on the information the listening tasks were designed. Then, the remaininginformation from the prescribed text was re-written in the form of a monologue andeach monologue was assigned a role. These monologues were used for speakingactivities:Day 2A dialogue:The remaining information of the first unit from the prescribed book was rewritten in the form of a dialogue.Pre-task: The speakers in the dialogue were introduced and a part of theirconversation was also explained.Task: Two students came forward to participate in the task and the rest of theclass took notes and after the dialogue, the whole class answered somecomprehension questions.Post-task: The structures used in the dialogue were explained and studentswere given a worksheet to do. The worksheet was based on IF clause typeone.Day 3Students were asked to bring their prescribed text book to the class. They wereput into six groups of five tudents.Pre-task: Each group was asked to read 3 paragraphs, identify 10 new wordsthey learnt, and summarise the information, and report it to the whole class154September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Task: Students read the assigned paragraphs. They did not encounterdifficulties with the theme or the vocabulary in the paragraphs, as they wereintroduced through various tasks in the previous two days.Post task: Students introduced the vocabulary and also reported the summary.Day 4Text-based exercisesPre-task: Students were put into two groups. They were told what theyshould do.Task: Group A asked the comprehension questions given in the text. Group Banswered the questions without using the text.Group B was given ten statements and they read them out. Group A saidwhether these statements were right or wrong and also correct the wrongstatementsPost-task: Students did the writing exercises given in the book (as requiredfor the end of year examination).Day 5Language games- Vocabulary games and grammar games.
3.7.4. FindingsThe pre-test scores revealed that most of the students had average proficiency inEnglish and that they were particularly weak in speaking and writing (productiveskills). The final test was administered on both the experimental and the controlgroups on the same day, at the same time under similar conditions. In theexperimental group, 12 out of 28 students got 10+ marks more than what they got intheir pre-test. Thirteen students received 1 to 9 marks more than what they got in theirpre-test. One student had no change in his scores. Out of 28 students only 2 got below35% as against 9 in the pre-test.
155September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
# of students
Differences in
+10 to +23
+1 to +9
-1 and -8
No change
The means of the final test scores of the two groups were computed to measure thedifference in their performance.Groups
Experimental group
Control group
There was a difference in the means of the two groups. All other factors beingcommon, the task-based teaching was the only variable. Therefore, the difference inmeans is due to the treatment given to the experimental group.
Students showed interest in learning English. The reasons they gave were,classes are full of activities and play.
Students started using English for various purposes like greeting their friendsin English, seeking permission before entering the class, apologizing forcoming late to the class, asking questions in the class. For example, Teacher,what do we do next? Is it right? Can you help me in writing this letter?.
Teachers involved in this project showed interest in using tasks for teaching.This was noticed in their diaries.156
Another interesting observation made was that two students who are brothersshowed a steady progress. Their father is a farmer from whom they never gotany help in learning English. They were highly motivated by the tasks andwere encouraged to participate in doing the tasks.
Another student, a son of a businessman, had a very clear goal for learningEnglish. He expressed that he wanted to learn English to improve his speakingskills because he wanted to become a lawyer. During the project time, he wasvery eager to complete any given task before others.
Two students said that their writing skills improved because of the feedbackthey got from the teacher and the challenging nature of the tasks given to them.
188.8.131.52 Insights
Any given text may be re-created into various tasks and activities.
188.8.131.52 SuggestionsTeacher trainers at both, pre-service and in-service training level are called on toimpress upon the trainees, the need for training in designing tasks to make teachingmore effective.157September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
ReferencesAltwerger, B., Edelsky, C., & Fores, M. (1987). Whole language: whats new?The Reading Teacher, 41, 144-154, EJ.Bergin, D.A. & Lafave, C. (1998). Continuities between motivation research and wholelanguage philosophy of instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, September, 1998.Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster.Dunne, R. (2003). A question of definitions: An investigation through the definitionsand practices of communicative and task based approaches. In TESL-EJ, 7(3).Graham, Steve & Harris, K. (1994). The effects of whole language on childrenswriting: A review of literature. Educational psychologist, 29, 187-192Goodman, K. (1986). Whats whole in whole language? Portsmouth, NH: HeinemannHowatt, A.P.R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
158September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Appendices1. QuestionnaireDear Student,I am your new English Teacher. I would like to know about you. So please fill in theinformation.159September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
1. Your NameClassSchoolLanguages you learn in the school2.Qualification of your parentsFatherMotherOthers (Brother / Sister if any)3. Occupation of your parentsFatherMother4. Your Address5. Language you speak at home.6. Newspapers you get at home.7. Newspaper / Magazines / Story Books you read in English.8. Help you get from your parents (tick the right choice)(a) a lot of help (b) minimum help (c).no help9. Language you use while talking to your friendsa. In schoolb. Outside school hours.10. Do you want to improve your English? Yes / No11. Give at least 2 reasons why you want to improve your English?12. What do you want to do to improve your English?13. Do you listen to news in English? Yes / No14. Do you watch English programs on TV? Yes / No15. Do you use a Dictionary when necessary? Yes / NoThank you dear student for providing this informationI. MEENA LOCHANA (Project Coordinator)
160September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
2. Sample tasksLISTENING TASK
Your teacher will read the Passage aloud. Listen to the passage carefully, andsay whether the following statements are true (T) or false (F)
1. King Shantanu was not happy to see his son grow to manhood.2. Bhishma was very intelligent.3. Bhishma was dark in complexion.4. Bhishma married Sathyavathy.5. Sathyavathy became the queen of Hastinapura.6. Bhishma did not care to become a king.7. Bhishma wanted to make their race strong.8. Shantanu got a gift from his son.9. Bhishma can die, whenever he wants to die.10. Bhishma also got a gift from his Father.
3. Speaking taskRole play (Text based) Unit - I1.I am Ganga. I will tell you about mylife.
2.I am Satyavathy.- married Shantanu.- two sons.- first son died in battle.- 2nd became King.
161September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
4. Writing tasks1. Class will be divided into two groups.Group
12 questions
Group BAnswer the questions with out looking into the text
12 answers
162September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
5. Reading tasksStudents are given short story books to read. They were given two days time to read.After 2 days, a story telling session was arranged and students narrated the storiesthey had read.Some students narrated only half of the story, and others were asked to guess theending and complete the story.(story telling sessions were very well received by the group and a lot of language wasgenerated besides developing the skills and sub-skills of reading and speaking)6. Grammar task.
STORYRead the story.Ramesappa is a young farmer. He never attended any school. He has a poultry farm.He has great hopes to become very rich. One day he was going to the market with abasket full of eggs. He was dreaming like this.If I sell these eggs, I will get a lot of money. If I get a lot of money, I will buy abeautiful house. If I have a beautiful house, I can buy good clothes, I will lookhandsome. If I look handsome, a beautiful princess will love me. If a princess lovesme, I will marry her. If I marry a princess, I will become a prince. If I become aprince, I will be going in a car. If I go in a car, I will drive like this dash!! heremoved his hands from the basket! And what happened? The basket fell down andall the eggs were smashed.What is the moral of the story?If I sell these eggs, I will get a lot of money.Underline all the verbs.Look at the if sentences.Look at the resultant sentences.Students are put into pairs. One asks the questions and the other answer.If you meet Dr. Rajkumar, what will you ask him?If you get Rs. 100/-, what will you buy?163September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
If you get a first class, what will your father give you?
164September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Bio DataTheron Muller lives and teaches in Nagano, Japan. He received his MA inTEFL/TESL from the University of Birmingham in 2004, and is currently a Japantutor for the program. His interests include task-based learning and culture differences.He is a contributor to Teachers Exploring Tasks, edited by Jane Willis and CoronyEdwards, which won a 2005 British Council Innovation Award. He can be reached email@example.com.
AbstractThere has been talk in TBL of the dangers of giving students target language beforeor during the pre-task because students may use the subsequent task to practice targetforms and not focus on communication (Ellis, 2003, p. 246). Textbooks are oftenconsidered culprits in this predetermination of language forms (Willis, 1990), asmodel dialogs lock students into particular grammatical forms and restrict studentvocabulary, thus reducing the communicative value of a task. This research addressesthe concern of supplying learners with target language forms during the pre-taskphase. Suggested phrases from the textbook were introduced before the task, butstudents were encouraged to also use their own ideas in task completion. Whetherstudents deviated from or remained bound by the suggested forms and vocabularyduring task completion was analyzed. Thirty-six student performances on a task wereanalyzed. Preliminary results indicate students use textbook language as a scaffold,employ unique vocabulary not included in the textbook, and do not vary grammaticalforms.
Keywords: Task-based learning, focus on form, target forms, pre-task language focus
165September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
IntroductionTask-based researchers have long discouraged teachers from sharing target languageduring the pre-task phase of a task-based lesson. Summarizing the concerns of many,Ellis writes:There is also a danger in directing pre-task training based on a model atspecific aspects of language or language use; learners may respond bytreating the task they are subsequently asked to perform as an exercisefor practicing the strategies/features that have been targeted. (2003, p.246)Despite these calls for caution, there is little or no literature that deals with the issuedirectly through research. Thus this study was conceived as a preliminary explorationof how learners use the language focused on before a task during task performance.
LiteratureThere are two aspects to the danger of focusing on language forms before taskperformance.1. The language, as predetermined by the teacher, may not match native speakermodels.2. The students may look upon the rest of the task as a production phase, where theyare expected to use the pre-specified forms previously introduced.
The second point can be seen as contrasting TBL, where student focus is supposedto be on communication, and PPP, where students are expected to practice target166September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
forms. Criticism of PPP has become widespread and Skehan offers a concisesummary of its shortcomings:The beliefthat learners will learn what is taught in the order in whichit is taught no longer carries much credibility in linguistics orpsychology. (1996, p. 18)The point Skehan (1996) is making is that PPP, which selects certain forms which arefirst practiced through drilling before students are expected to produce the forms,ignores the fact that learners dont learn this way. Instead learner acquisition isdependent on internal factors, such as the current state of their internal L2 frameworkand the level of language pattern they are able to notice. Tasks, initially proposed asan alternative to PPP, are considered an improvement because rather thanpredetermining and drilling language forms, they offer a means of allowing learnersto use the language currently available to them for genuine communication. Duringthe course of this genuine communication learners experience a need to convey theirintended meaning then after the task learners are encouraged to expand their languageproficiency through consciousness raising (Skehan, 1996).
My contextWhile proponents of TBL make eloquent arguments against pre-specifying languageforms, it is still necessary to adapt the theory of TBL to specific teaching contexts. Inmy own context at a private womens junior college in Nagano, Japan, there are twofactors which potentially interfere with the implementation of a pure task-basedlesson.1. The syllabus for the course must be based on a textbook, and I am only a minorplayer in the textbook selection process.2. A paper test on the contents of the course must be administered at the end of thesemester.
across the curriculum. Regarding the second point, since the material in the textbookforms the basis of the end of semester exam, it is important to ensure that the contentin the textbook is covered in class.
MethodsAs this study was intended as a preliminary inquiry, students written work wascollected and analyzed. Completed written tasks from the top two streams of threefirst-year classes were chosen for this research. Since full tasks are often long andinvolved the activities in this research are more accurately pre tasks. Students wereasked to write their responses on a worksheet then they shared their answers in smallgroups of five or six. While one member of the group spoke, the other members wrotethe speakers response on their own sheets. For a sample worksheet, please seeAppendix 1. The task was performed twice and both performances were analyzed forthis research.
Data was collected over the course of the 2004 semester but one particularlysuccessful task will be analyzed here. In this task students first complete the picturetask, where they chose a picture in their textbooks and explained why the person inthe picture was studying English. Next students completed the personal task, wherethey explained why they studied English. A total of 36 students in two classes
168September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
ResultsTable 1 summarizes the results of student task performance.Table 1: Results of student task performanceUsed textbook
Used original
Picture task
Personal task
In one sense the concerns of the TBL literature were verified, in that no studentsvaried their grammatical forms from the examples in the textbook. They used one ofthe two sample forms below in all instances.1.
I study English to
DiscussionThe data is encouraging in that it seems to indicate students both used originallanguage and manipulated textbook forms, meeting institutional expectations andrealizing my desire to practice genuine communication during class. The use oforiginal language and genuine communication, a prerequisite for successful taskimplementation, is encouraging. Also encouraging is the fact that students are169September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
manipulating and being exposed to the textbook forms which will be tested at the endof the semester. Furthermore, it was evident from student answers that they enjoyedthe activity and at least some students strove to be original and interesting. Somesample student language is included below.
to be in the movies
to go junior college
Contrast these with the textbook vocabulary students were exposed to before the task(Richards, 1998):1.
to travel abroad
to pass an exam
It was also interesting to note that even when using textbook language forms, errorstended to creep into student writing. This may indicate that even though students areusing
ConclusionThis study was intended as a preliminary investigation into what TBL literatureconsiders the danger of supplying students with sample language before a task. Theneed for introducing such language arose when attempting to adapt TBL theory toinstitutional requirements. While the sample of students for this research is small andonly one task has been included, the data seem to indicate that the low proficiencylearners in my classes tended to be influenced by sample grammatical forms butcould and did use unique vocabulary to complete the task. Before broader conclusionscan be drawn, it will be necessary to analyze student speech during task performanceand to expand the scope of research beyond my own local context.
While the task described in this research was successful in that students varied theirlanguage beyond that available in their textbooks, this is one of the few suchsuccessful tasks employed during a semester of study, indicating a number of factorsmust be successfully balanced in order to ensure a variety of language use.Unsuccessful tasks included:1.
In the above tasks student language tended to adhere strictly to the sample languagein the textbook and when language did vary, the vocabulary used was ofteninappropriate and the intended meaning obscure. Several factors which inhibitedstudent creativity and which should be kept in mind when designing similar tasks inthe future include:1.
Difficulty of textbook
Difficulty of concept
171September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
It is hoped that additional research into the issue of introducing sample languageforms before task performance will confirm the observations of this preliminaryinvestigation. If it does, then the attitude of TBL researchers toward pre-taskintroduction of sample language can hopefully shift from concern over potentiallyinhibiting learners to thinking of pre-task language as a tool to help liberate learnersto be confident they have a scaffold to ensure successful task completion when theirinterlanguage framework fails them. Such a shift would hopefully ease the difficultyof implementing TBL in second and third ring countries as teachers could beconfident they were meeting institutional requirements while at the same timefacilitating the development of genuine communication skills among students.
ReferencesEdwards, C. (Undated). Activity Cycle 2: What counts as a task? Retrieved on April28, 2006 from www.delphi.bham.ac.uk.Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Richards, J. (1998). Springboard 1 Oxford: Oxford University Press.Willis, J. (1990). The lexical syllabus. London: Collins COBUILD.Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Longman: Essex.
172September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
173September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Bio Data:Ahmet Acar is a research assistant at Dokuz Eyll University, Turkey, where heearned his M.A. degree and is currently a doctoral student. He has been to SyracuseUniversity with a Fulbright scholarship, where he studied TESOL, theoreticallinguistics, sociolinguistics, and taught Turkish as a foreign language to students atSyracuse University, Cornell University and Colgate University at the same timethrough multipoint videoconferencing, which was carried out the first time in theUSA and was accepted as a successful pilot project. Acar's research interests are therole of culture in language teaching, bilingualism, foreign and second languageteaching methods, teaching languages from distance, ELT syllabus design andtextbook evaluation.AbstractIt is now a widely accepted phenomenon that English has spread to become a worldlanguage or a global lingua franca. Based on the increasing diversity in users anduses of English in cross-cultural settings at the present time, the assumptions ofcurrent approaches in ELT are currently being re-examined in literature. This paperaims to examine the theoretical assumptions and practices of task based languageteaching and learning within the framework of English as an international languagepedagogy taking into consideration the issues of innovations in the nativizationprocess, the use of native norms as a point of reference, the status of non-nativenorms and the choice of a pedagogical model. Given the increasing importance ofmutual intelligibility and accomodation in international interactions amongEnglish users from different backgrounds and of the studies in reconceptualization ofcompetence in relation to EIL, the place of tasks in the curriculum is re-examined.IntroductionThe global spread of English has a number of consequences both for the nature ofEnglish and its teaching. In many non-native contexts where English is used quite174September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
intensively and extensively in the daily lives of people, English has taken variousforms reflecting the cultural and linguistic backround of the speakers. In the globalcontext, on the other hand, English functions as an international language. At thepresent time, non-native speakers outnumber native speakers and these non-nativespeakers use English for a variety of purposes, including, very often, interculturalcommunication. One significant feature of such communication is that it mostlyoccurs among non-native speakers in international contexts. Such being the case,native speaker norms, in such interactions, may not only be unnecessary but alsoinappropriate. These and the related factors have recently led some researchers (e.g.,McKay, 2002, 2003) to re-examine common ELT assumtions and has given way to anew approach characterized as English as an International Language Pedagogy. Theconsequences of the global spread of English as investigated from local tointernational contexts raised the issues of models, norms and goals in languagepedogogy as key areas of discussion. This paper deals with these issues with respectto both local and international contexts and language pedagogy. Furthermore theassumptions of task based language teaching and learning are re-examined withinthe framework of English as an international language pedagogy. With the rise oftask based language teaching and learning the traditional distinction betweensyllabus design and methodology becomes problematical. Taking the issues ofmodels, norms and goals for EIL pedagogy as a point of reference, the place of tasksin the curriculum is reframed.
World EnglishesNelson (1992, p.327) argues that when approaching a language transplanted to anew cultural and linguistic context- as, for example, English in India- one is broughtto various realizations about the notion of language and the varieties that a languagemay develop. Indeed, the global diffusion of English has resulted in varieties ofEnglish in different sociocultural contexts. Kachru (1985, 1992) presents thissociolinguistic profile of English in terms of three concentric circles: The innercircle, the outer circle and the expanding circle. The inner circle represents thetraditional basis of English, where English is the primary language. The countries in175September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
this circle are the USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zeland. The outer circlecomprises the institutionalized non-native varieties of English in such countries asIndia, Nigeria and Singapore. These countries have a colonial history with the usersof the inner circle. English is used quite intensively and extensively in the domesticdaily lives of the people and has established new norms shaped by new socioculturaland sociolinguistic contexts. Finally, the expanding circle comprises countries whereperformance varieties are used. In such countries as China, Israel and Turkey,English functions as an international language.
codification (in the restricted sense, putting the innovation into a written form in agrammar or pronuncing dictionary, coursebooks or any other type of referencemanual) and acceptability (the ultimate test of admission of an innovation).Among these factors, Bomgboe argues, codification and acceptability are the mostimportant since without them innovations will still be viewed as errors.177September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Aside from the codification problem, proficiency tests for the inner circle varietiesare well etablished, which is not the case for the outer circle varieties. This naturallyleads to testing non-native speakers according to the norms of inner circle users.These tests, however, hold strict association of English with the western culture andhence learning English means learning western cultural values and communicativenorms. Kachru (1985: 21) calls this western cultural spread along with language inpedagogy prescriptivism and argues thatWith the spread of English we also expect the learners to acquire thenorms of behavior appropriate to the users of the inner circle. Theexpected behavior pattern characterizes what one might call aneducated Englisman (or American). This hypothesis is based on theassumption that language spread entails spread of cultural and socialnorms, or what has been termed in pedagogical literature anintegrative motivation for language learning.Above all, in most cases, inner circle models are associated with power andprestige, which make them more preferable as pedagogical models. Quite often,178September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
people know of features of non-native varieties and can even see the utility of suchfeatures in sociocultural situtions, yet they are reluctant to accept the logicalconclusion that such recognition implies the replacement of the native norms theyhave come to ador (Bomgboe, 1998, p. 5). Thus the native speaker accent isgenerally found fascinating by non-native speakers though they recognize theviability of their accent and wish to keep it. In short, the speakers of outer circlevarieties have a less positive attitute to their own varieties than to inner circlevarieties.
While there is general concensus on the fact that language pedagogy in the outercircle should no longer be informed by native speaker models, such factors make itdifficult to adopt outer circle models in language pedagogy in these contexts. In theexpanding circle, where English functions as an international language, relatedissues need further examination.
Though there is not yet a global variety of English, the global spread of English inthe expanding circle still has important implications in pedogogy, the mostimportant of which is that most communication in English now occurs among non179September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
native speakers in non-native contexts and these non-native speakers need not adoptthe communicative norms of the inner circle users when they use English as aninternational language. Rather, Smith (1983, 1987) argues that native Englishspeakers should study English as an international language if they plan to interact inEnglish with non-native speakers who use a different national variety (in Hassal,1996, p. 422).
In these discussions, while the validity of the inner circle norms in learningEnglish as an international language is successfully questioned, there arises the issueof what norms and models should be followed in EIL pedagogy.
180September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
specifiying the phonological features that do not cause intelligibility problems andthey are included in the common core. Quirks Nuclear English (1981 in Jenkins2003) calls for a simplification in morphology and syntax.
However, such attempts, more or less, fall in the domain of prescriptivism in thatsuch ways of standardization ignore the natural development of a language as it isused quite intensively and extensively in the domestic daily lives of individuals. Inthe expanding circle countries, for the most part English has no specialadministrative status, while linguistic creativity is more commonly realized in massmedia, advertising copy, slogans and catch pharases, and names for shops andproducts, for instance (Berns, 2005: 87). Such a variety of English as aninternational language has not developed yet and the imposition of standards in atopdown manner cannot escape the charges of prescriptivism. Even the empricalefforts, though they seem to have some merit, seem to be an early attempt in thedescription of English as an international language since English in the expandingcircle has not yet been institutionalized unlike the outer circle varieties of English.
For the most part English functions as an international language in such domainsas science, commerce, technology, and tourism and those bilingual speakers will useEnglish for cross cultural communication. Widdowson (1997) proposes that Englishas an international language comprises varieties of Engish for specific purposes,autonomous registers which guarantee specialist communication within globalexpert communities (p. 114). Griffler (1998, p.382), on the other hand, opposessuch a stance by claiming that register does not supersede the category oflanguage. It subdivides it. As such, registers remain registers of a language, andthey cannot thereby be called autonomous. Furthermore, Le Ha (2005, p. 5) findsWiddowsons use of the term register unrealistic when Widowson suggests ESP(English for Specific Purposes) away from the issues of community and identityand viewing it in terms of communication and information. While Widowsontakes the domain of use of English as an international language as a point ofdeparture in his conceptualization of EIL, he neglects the cultural and linguistic182September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Indeed, Cook (1999) argues for going beyond the native speaker as the model inlanguage teaching. He claims that because L2 users differ from monolingual nativespeakers in their knowledge of their L2s and L1s and in some their cognitive183September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
All these studies prioritizing L2 users and their competence or proficiency indicatethe importance and necessity of defining competence in relation to English as aninternational language. Nunn (2005, p.65) argues that EIL competence, then cannotbe reduced to a single, limited, monolingual or monocultural concept. It is composedof a set of interlocking and interdependent competences that sometimes compensatefor each other, sometimes counteract each other and sometimes reinforce eachother. Alptekin (2002) has already indicated that the traditional notion ofcommunicative competence is an unrealistic goal for EIL learners and Nunn (2005,p.65) further argues that transitional views of competence are inapproprate in so faras they imply replacing one monolingual competence with another, whereas SL, FL,IL learners are adding to and maintaining their existing competences (Baker, 2000and 2002). Thus pragmatic, rhetorical, strategic and discourse competences thatfocus on mutual intelligibility, raise important components of the knowledge ofbilingual speakers. Linguistic comeptence, on the other hand, remains an importantissue in teaching English as an international language. Quirks Nuclear English(1981), which calls for a simplification in the morphologoy and syntax, aims toprovide a common standard in linguistic competence but beside its prescriptivenature, as Nunn (2005, p.62) argues there is a danger of international becoming abyword for reduced linguistic competence. Following Strevens (1992) I argue thatthe core grammar and vocabulary of the educated inner circle varieties (British orAmerican) are the best possible models of linguistic competence for English as184September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Thus the concept of competence holds an important place within the discussions ofEIL pedagogy. This issue, along with the others, necessitate a re-examination in thecommon assumptions of one of the most commonly discussed ELT traditions,namely, task based language teaching and learning. The issues that remain to beaddressed are; what should be the place of tasks within the curriculum, should tasksbe viewed as the center of the syllabus or as methodological procedures, and whatshould tasks emphasize in teaching practice.
rise of task based language teaching the traditional distinction between syllabusdesign and methodology becomes problematical.
design. Taking learning tasks as a point of reference in syllabus design would thenmean ignoring such determinants in EIL pedagogy.
Indeed, neglecting essential language content in task based syllabus design, theissue of focus on form, has caused problems in task based language teaching itselfand the attempts to solve this problem did not go beyond the terminological changes.The most important characteristics of a task is its communicative purpose in whichthe focus is on meaning rather than form. However, some researchers (e.g., Estaireand Zanon, 1994, pp. 13-20) distinguish between two main categories of taskcommunication task, in which the learners attention is focused on meaningrather than form, and enabling tasks, in which the main focus is on linguisticaspects (grammar, vocabulary, prounciation, function, and discourse (inLittlewood, p. 320). However, Ellis (2003) calls for a distinction between tasksand exercises. He classifies tasks as activities that call for primarily meaningfocused language use and exercises as activities that call for primarly formfocused language use (Ellis, 2003, p. 3). Thus, what Estaire and Zanon classify asenabling tasks are exercises for Ellis.
definition of tasks do not seem to fill the gap in the treatment of language content intask based language teaching. Furthermore, Ellis emphasizes that
the overall
purpose of tasks is the same as exercises, learning a language- the difference lying inthe means by which this purpose is to be achieved (Ellis, 2003, p.3). Thus withinthe framework of EIL pedagogy it would be inappropriate to replace tasks with someimportant reference points like EIL competence, topic, context and aim in learningthe language. This would, then, lead us to consider tasks as methodologicalprocedures to practice the specified content for a specific aim (such as tasks aimingto develop strategic competence to enhance accomodation and mutual intelligibility).Thus I recognize the value of tasks as useful methodological procedures in EILpedagogy since they promote meaningful language practice. However, tasks wouldbest be viewed as a means to an end rather than an end itself.
187September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
ConclusionWith its global spread, English has now gained the status of an internationallanguage. The number of non-native speakers exceed the number of native speakersand most communication in English now occurs among non-natives. In terms ofpedagogy, this reality of English has resulted in a re-examination of the traditionalELT assumptions which take native speaker competence as a point of reference.Thus L2 users or bilingual users have been increasingly recognized as English usersin their own right, which necessitates a focus of attention on these English usersknowledge of language as well as their aim in learning the language. This paper reexamined task based language teaching and learning within the framework of EILpedagogy. The consideration of the above factors necessitates taking EILcompetence and learners purpose in learning the language as a point of reference inEIL pedagogy. Thus, it is suggested, the place of tasks in the curriculum be reframed.Tasks are still valuable pedagogical tools but they should be best viewed asmethodological procedures to practice the specified content.
ReferencesAcar, A. (2005). The communiative competence controversy. Asian EFL Journal,7(3), 55-60.Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELTJournal, 56(1), 57-64.Bamgboe, A. (1998). Torn between the norms: innovations in world Englishes.World Englishes, 17(1), 1-14.Berns, M. (2005). Expanding on the expanding circle: where do WE do from here?.World Englishes, 24(1), 85-93.188September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
190September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
191September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Bio Data:Dr. In-Jae Jeon has taught English as a foreign language for 18 years in Koreansecondary schools and now works as an EFL instructor at Mokpo national university.His major concerns are curriculum development and textbook material evaluation inEFL context.AbstractThe purpose of this study is to explore Korean EFL teachers perceptions of taskbased language teaching (TBLT) in a Korean secondary school context. The data forthis study were collected through questionnaires from a total of 228 teachers at 38different middle and high schools in Korea. The survey was conducted from Augustthrough October of the 2005 academic year, and the data were analyzed quantitativelyand qualitatively. The overall findings of the survey show that the majority ofrespondents have a higher-level of understanding about TBLT concepts, regardless ofteaching levels, but that there exist some negative views on implementing TBLT withregard to its classroom practice. Additionally, some useful implications are proposedbased on research findings in order to help teachers and teacher trainers to constructand implement TBLT more effectively.Key words: Task-based language teaching (TBLT), teachers perceptions, classroompractice, task-based activities, task performance, small group work
IntroductionThe task-based view of language teaching, based on the constructivist theory oflearning and communicative language teaching methodology, has evolved in responseto some limitations of the traditional PPP approach, represented by the procedure ofpresentation, practice, and performance (Ellis, 2003; Long & Crookes, 1991). Thus, it192September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
2005). In light of this, this studys aim is to explore Korean EFL teachers perceptionsof task-based instruction based on investigating their understandings of TBLTconcepts, positions on TBLT implementation, and reasons they choose, or avoid,implementing TBLT in the classroom. This will provide insight for teachers to designand implement any real communicative tasks, which are critically important for EFLlearners in order to experience meaningful language use. It will also contribute tofacilitating EFL teachers practical use of TBLT techniques, thereby improving thelearners communicative abilities.
Research DesignThe Research Questions1. How well do teachers understand TBLT concepts?2. What are the aspects of teachers views on TBLT implementation?3. For what practical reasons do teachers choose, or avoid, implementing TBLT?
194September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
The ParticipantsThe population for this study was Korean EFL teachers working at the secondaryschool level. From the 38 different schools, a total of 228 teachers participated in thissurvey. Specifically, the 228 participants were composed of 112 middle school teachers(49.1%) and 116 high school teachers (50.9%). All of the participants have had at leasttwo or more years experience teaching English as a foreign language. 153 teacherswere female (67.1%) and 75 teachers (32.9%) were male. The teachers ranged in agefrom their twenties to fifties and 51.8% of them were in their thirties and forties. Thenumber of years they had taught English varied, ranging from less than 6 years (15.4%),6 to 10 years (19.7%), 11 to 19 years (43.0%), and more than 20 years (21.9%).
The data analysis process consisted of two methodologies, Likert-type and openended item analysis. The Likert-type items, which were designed to identify teachersunderstandings of TBLT conception and teachers views on TBLT implementation,were given a numerical score (e.g., strongly disagree =1, disagree =2, neutral=3,agree=4, and strongly agree=5). Open-ended items, which were constructed to capturethe reasons teachers choose, or avoid, implementing TBLT in their classrooms, werefirst categorized and then coded by the researcher in terms of the teachers responding195September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
rates. SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 11.0 for Windows wasused to analyze the data.
disagree/ Disagree (%)
Strongly agree/ Agree (%)
meaning.3. A task has a clearly defined outcome.
196September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
In responses to item 1 through 3, which asked for some key concepts of task, the vastmajority of respondents understood that task has a communicative purpose (MT 72.3%,HT 68.1%), a primary focus on meaning (MT 63.4%, HT 70.7%), and a clearly definedoutcome (MT 67.9%, HT 70.2%). In response to item 4, most teachers (MT 61.6%, HT63.8%) considered task as a kind of activity in which the target language is used by thelearner. This implies that most Korean EFL teachers generally agree with the definitionof task as discussed in the section on theoretical background. In response to item 5, aclear majority of teachers (MT 71.4%, HT 67.2%) reported that they believed in therelevance between task-based instruction and communicative language teaching. Thispartially indicates that teachers approving of the communicative approach are likely toadopt the basic nature of TBLT in their own language classrooms. The findings initems 6 and 7, related to the instructional philosophy and stages of task-based learning,suggest that most teachers (MT 66.1%, HT 68.1%) held a conviction for studentcenteredness, and that more than half of the teachers (MT 57.1%, HT 55.2%)recognized three different stages including pre-task, task implementation, and post-task.
items 12 and 13, which explored the teachers role and preparation time inimplementing TBLT, revealed a common feature regardless of teaching level. Morethan half of the teachers believed that TBLT will give teachers an undue psychologicalburden as a facilitator (MT 50.9%, HT 56.9%) and that it would require much morepreparation time (MT 52.7%, HT 54.5%). The findings for item 14 indicate that fewteachers (MT 22.3%, HT 31.0%) believed TBLT is proper for controlling classroomarrangements. For item 15, most teachers (MT 56.3%, HT 55.2%) answered that TBLTmaterials in textbooks are meaningful, purposeful, and based on the real-worldsituations.Table 2 - Teachers Views on Implementing TBLT (n=228)StronglyQuestionnaire Items
/ Disagree (%)8. I have interest in implementing MT 49.1
SD=standard deviation
Teachers Like to Use TBLT for Its Group Work Basis and Motivational TraitsIn response to whether or not teachers implement TBLT in the classroom, while 117teachers (51.3%) among a total of 228 respondents answered they were currently usingtask-based methods or techniques in their classrooms, 111 teachers (48.7%) respondednegatively. Table 3 presents the aspects of teachers responses to the open-endedquestion asking them to identify some reasons why they decide to use TBLT inclassroom practice. Data analysis revealed that the three major reasons teachers usedtask-based methods concerned appropriateness to small group work (70.1%),improving learners interaction skills (67.5%), and encouraging learners intrinsicmotivation (54.7%). In contrast, few respondents agreed that TBLT creates acollaborative learning environment (39.3%) and promotes learners academic progress(27.4%). The others category (11.1%) concerned classroom arrangements, promotionof target language use, controlling large classes, and so on.
Total (Percent)
82 (70.1)
79 (67.5)
64 (54.7)
46 (39.3)
32 (27.4)
13 (11.1)
In response to the specific reasons teachers gave for using task-based techniques inthe classroom, there were some meaningful differences according to the teaching level.While most middle school teachers, for instance, valued its appropriateness to small199September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
group work, most high school teachers placed an importance on improving interactionskills and encouraging intrinsic motivation. This partially implies that as aninstructional method, TBLT is currently preferred for its group work potential inmiddle school settings, and its motivational aspects in high school settings.
In response to the specific reasons teachers avoid using task-based methods in theclassroom, it is noticeable that there existed a clear feature regardless of teaching level:more than 70% of the teachers among a total of 111 respondents believed that they hadlittle knowledge of task-based methods and limited target language proficiency.
84 (75.7)
81 (73.0)
71 (64.0)
200September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
51 (45.9)
34 (30.6)
24 (21.6)
12 (10.8)
DiscussionThe findings of items 1 through 7 showed that teachers had a comparatively clearunderstanding of the linguistic features of task, thus approving of the pedagogicalbenefits of task in second language learning classroom. More importantly, it is believedthat teachers, regardless of teaching levels, convey a considerable amount of practicalunderstanding about the key concepts of TBLT. This could result from the fact that thecurrent Korean national curriculum for English, which was first introduced and appliedwithin secondary schools in 2001, has been characterized by a definite shift toward theapplication of task-based learning and activity-oriented language use aimed atimproving learners communicative competence.
The findings of items 8 through 15 indicated that despite the comparatively higherlevel understanding of TBLT concepts, many teachers actually hesitated to adopt TBLTas an instructional method in classroom practice. This may result from the fact thatmost Korean EFL teachers still use the traditional lecture-oriented methods, which theyare accustomed to, and more than that, they have the psychological pressure of facingsome new disciplinary problems in using TBLT. In relation to task participants rolesand classroom arrangements, it might be true that Korean EFL teachers have becomeaccustomed to working in teacher-centered classrooms, thus adopting a one-wayinstruction method rather than two-way interaction. A teacher, however, needs to beflexible and dynamic in controlling the language learning environment, because thenature of language learning substantially demands that learners actively participate inlanguage use activities.
201September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
The findings of the two open-ended items revealed that teachers may have differentreasons for choosing or avoiding the implementation of TBLT. While some teachersdecided to use task-based methods as a basis for group work, or because of itsmotivational potential, others had fears of being confronted with problems on accountof a lack of knowledge and confidence. Yet many problems that teachers face inimplementing TBLT can be successfully reduced when teachers make an effort tounderstand its pedagogical benefits and increase positive attitudes toward TBLT as aninstructional method. In light of this, it is first of all necessary for teachers to have theopportunity to learn both the strengths and weaknesses of a task-based methodology,and understand its basic principles, as well as its various techniques.
Now lets turn to the challenges teachers may encounter in trying to use task-basedmethods. Given the fact that difficulty in assessing learners task-based performance isone of the major reasons teachers avoid implementing TBLT, attention needs to begiven to performance assessment. In relation to assessment for group work, for example,awarding equal grades to all members of the group may serve as one of the crucialweaknesses for ensuring a level of fairness in assessment, particularly in high achievinglearner groups. Therefore, the teacher needs to consider both inter-group and intragroup evaluations together in terms of enhancing the participation and quality ofinvolvement in task-based cooperative work (Lourdusamy & Divaharan, 2002). Whilethe inter-group assessment involves using the groups products as part of the courseevaluation and thus giving equal grades to all members of the group, the intra-groupassessment involves individual evaluation.
For learners not trained in task-based learning, one of the reasons they avoidparticipating in task-based activities may be related to a lack of confidence inperforming tasks. This is why it is necessary for the teacher to help learners buildconfidence by encouraging them to learn how to deal with tasks and use collaborativeskills in task-based performance. Once task participants realize that learning in tasks isonly one of several ways of learning in the class, they will be able to overcome suchchallenges as fear of assessment, competition, and the difficulty of the task. Thus, the202September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
improved confidence of less assertive learners may lead to more equal participation andsharing of the workload (Burdett, 2003).
For task-based materials, few teachers answered that materials in textbooks were oneof the reasons they avoid using task-based techniques in their classrooms. This partiallyindicates that the current EFL textbooks in Korean secondary school settings, all ofwhich allegedly follow the principles of the communicative theory of language learning,properly reflect the task-based syllabus which chiefly concerns communicative skillsand social interaction. It also reveals that teachers are often required to redesignindividual work-oriented materials in textbooks to be in accordance with the principlesof promoting interaction and collaborative learning.
Finally, for large classes, which have often been considered to be problematic withregard to disciplinary situations in task-based group work, the teacher needs to takegroup formation and presentation procedure into consideration. Basically task-basedtechniques can be used the same way in large classes as in small ones, except that largeclasses need more time and preparation.
The overall findings of this study revealed that despite a higher level of understandingof TBLT concepts, many Korean EFL teachers retain some fear of adopting TBLT asan instructional method because of perceived disciplinary problems related toclassroom practice. It also turned out that teachers had their own reasons to use or avoid203September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
implementing TBLT. Based on the overall findings, three important implications forteachers and teacher trainers are proposed. First, since teachers views regardinginstructional approach have a great impact on classroom practice, it is necessary for theteacher, as a practical controller and facilitator of learners activities in the classroom,to have a positive attitude toward TBLT in order for it to be successfully implemented.Second, given the research finding that teachers lack practical application knowledge oftask-based methods or techniques, teachers should be given the opportunity to acquireknowledge about TBLT related to planning, implementing, and assessing. To this end,it is suggested that teacher education programs, which aim at in-depth training aboutlanguage teaching methodologies, should properly deal with both the strengths andweaknesses of TBLT as an instructional method ranging from basic principles tospecific techniques. Third, when taking into account that one of the major reasonsteachers avoid implementing TBLT is deeply related to a lack of confidence, muchconsideration should be given to overcoming potential obstacles that teachers maycome across in a task-based classroom. It is also recommended that teachers consideralternative solutions for classroom management such as leveled tasks, peer assessment,and a variety of various task types including two-way information gap activities as wellas one-way activities, such as simple asking and answering.
ReferencesBreen, M. P. (1987). Learner contribution to task design. N.J.: Prentice Hall.Burdett, J. (2003). Making groups work: university students perceptions.International Education Journal, 4(3), 177-191.Candlin, C., & Murphy, D. (1987). Language learning tasks (Eds.). Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice Hall International.Carless, D. (2002). Implementing task-based learning with young learners. ELTJournal, 56(4), 389-396.Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers re-interpretation of a task-based innovation inprimary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 639-662.204September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
206September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Keywords: Communicative English Teaching, Japanese English learners, projectbased language learning (PBL)
207September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
I. IntroductionCommunicative Language Teaching (CLT), which emphasizes interaction as opposedto grammar instruction, has been an influential approach in English education inJapan (Cross, 2005). Introduced to Japan in the 1990's in response to the poorperformance of Japanese English learners, the curriculum guidelines for secondaryEnglish education defined the goals of English education as "to develop students'ability to understand and to express themselves in a foreign language, to fosterstudents' positive attitude towards communication in a foreign language, and toheighten their interest in language and culture, thus deepening internationalunderstanding" (Wada, 1994). In 2003 the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,Science and Technology (MEXT) announced an Action Plan to Cultivate "Japanesewith English Abilities" (MEXT, 2003). CLT is so dominant in language teaching that"no one is willing to assert that they do not belong to the family (Nunan, 2004).Among various realizations of CLT1, project-based language learning (PBL) seemsto have the potential to provide foreign language learners with essential conditions forlanguage learning. PBL is a goal-oriented teaching method effective in enhancingstudent motivation. It can offer English learners exposure to authentic materials,opportunities to use the target language, and motivation to learn, which are allconsidered to be essential conditions for language learning (Willis, 1996). Mossreported PBL helped ESL learners develop various skills because PBL createssituations where learners need to communicate to get the job done (Moss & VanDuzer, 1998).However, there is a lack of evidence to support the positive effect of PBL in thefield of foreign language education. There are only a few studies that dealt with theeffect of PBL on EFL leaning. For example, Machida et al reported improvement ofEnglish abilities and increased exposure to English materials among Japanese Englishlearners after an English video production project in a Japanese university (Machida(Torikai), Watanabe, & Shimazaki, 1991). Onoda also reported that an English newsprogram production project enhanced students' listening ability and critical thinking208September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
(Onoda, 2000). Although these studies reported positive effects of PBL in the contextof EFL, the subjects of their studies did not include low level students, nor consideredcharacteristics of EFL that might minimize the above mentioned potential of PBL:less exposure to authentic materials due to the monolingual environment of EFLcountries and temptation to use L1 to complete tasks in classroom where the studentsshare the same L1.The purpose of this study was two-fold. The first was to describe an English coursethat focused on English magazine production projects at a Japanese university in theFall Semester of 2005. The second was to examine the effect of the magazine projectson the learning of low English level students.II. Overview of the English Magazine Production Projectsa. CourseTwo English magazine projects were undertaken in an English course called EnglishIVB. English IVB is a compulsory course taught by five English teachers at theUniversity of Shimane, a small-scale public university in Japan. There were 245sophomores in 2005 and they were placed into 10 classes from A to J with threelevels: low 20%, middle 60%, and high 20%, based upon their placement test scoresat the beginning of Spring Semester in 2005. The students met twice a week for 45minutes over a period of 15 weeks. The average number of the students in one class isapproximately 24 to 25, and each teacher is in charge of approximately 49 students.The goal of English IVB is loosely defined as developing students' speaking andwriting abilities in English using authentic materials from mass media. Each teacherhas freedom to select teaching methods and textbooks.b. ParticipantsThe participants of the classes where English magazine projects were carried out werethe 44 sophomores placed in the lowest classes: E & J. There were initially 48209September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
students in the two classes, but 44 students successfully registered in English IVB.There were 22 registered students in E and J classes, respectively. Their estimatedTOEIC scores were between 200 to 350. Some of those students have little love oflearning English and take English courses simply to earn credits to graduate. Table 1is the students' demographics of this study.Table 1Class
However, their low English proficiency and motivation do not mean they are lessintellectual. Majoring in Policy Studies, their academic strength lies in understandingsocial and historical issues. The University of Shimane is considered to be a goodpublic university in Japan, having 98% of graduates achieve employment in the yearof 2005.
The students in those classes were taught by the same teacher in the previoussemester in 2005. It is customary for one teacher to be in charge of the same studentsthroughout the whole academic year at the University of Shimane, because the faculty,especially native English teachers, consider that one year commitment of a teacher tothe same students facilitates teacher-student relationships.
c. ResearchersThe first author took the initiative of the projects, designing the course and researchmethods. She has taught Creating an English Magazine in her English IVB since theFall of 2003 at the University of Shimane. Having been an editor-in-chief of acampus magazine when she was a university student in Tokyo, she has skills ofmagazine publishing, designing graphics and using desk-top publishing software. She210September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
has taught a variety of general English courses at Japanese universities for fifteenyears.
The second author is a Ph.D. student of the Graduate School of Social Science ofHiroshima University. He helped the first author develop the questionnaire surveysand conducted data analysis using MS Excel.
Since there was not a good textbook suited for production of a magazine for EFLlearners, the first author prepared handouts to cover topics and sample conversationsnecessary for EFL learners to produce magazine articles. The handouts covered topicssuch as the definition of "magazine," kinds of magazines, production processes, rolesof reporters, laying-out techniques, basic English writing rules as well as modelconversations to perform the tasks, and samples of magazine articles that they wereexpected to imitate.
The participants were able to complete two magazine projects in Fall Semester in2005: Project 1 and Project 2. Project 1 took two months to complete, starting inOctober and completing in November. The students met 16 times until they finallysent their final WORD files of their articles and pictures to the teacher. Out of the 44registered students, 39 students were able to turn in their final files to be included inthe magazine. The teacher then combined their WORD files using AcrobatProfessional in PDF and printed their articles by a color printer and binded them in abook of 24 pages. The product was published as Real Reporters Campus &Community No. 6 on December 6, 2005.
Project 2 took one month to complete, starting in December and finishing on thesecond week of January, during which there was a two-week winter break. Thestudents met only 8 times, since they learned the steps of magazine article writing inthe previous project. 38 students out of the 44 registered students were able to turn intheir final WORD files. The teacher again combined their WORD files in PDF andprinted by a color printer and binded them in a book of 24 pages. The product waspublished as Real Reporters Campus & Community No. 7 on January 16, 2006.
The first author considered the two projects satisfactory. The completion rate of thestudents was 88% for Project 1 and 86% for Project 2. Not all the students turned intheir papers, but it is normal for a small percentage of the lowest group of students todrop out of the course. Given that they belonged to the lowest group, their212September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Fig. 1
working with my partner," and "I enjoyed using computers." Learning was measuredby their responses to two statements: "I learned something," and "I learned English."English Use was measured by their responses to a statement "I used English in class."
A Likert rating scale was employed to indicate the subjects' responses to thesestatements with 5 "Strongly Agree", 4 "Agree," 3 "Neither Agree of Disagree," 2"Disagree," and 1 "Strongly Disagree."
a. Attitude to EnglishThis concept was measured by the students' answer to the statement of "I likeEnglish." Approximately 40% of the students have a positive attitude to English bothin Survey 1 and Survey 2. The students who had a negative attitude to English werereduced to 3.1%. 36.1% of the students answered "Neither Agree or Disagree" to thestatement of "I like English" in Survey 1 after Project 1, but 53.1% of the studentsanswered so in Survey 2 after Project 2. The slight increase could be interpreted thatthe students who had a negative attitude to English changed their mind to a moremoderate attitude to English, although this does not seem to have statisticalsignificance.
214September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
215September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
c. LearningThis concept was measured by the answer to the statement of "I learned something"and "I learned English." Approximately 60% of the students answered they learnedsomething in Survey 2. However, less than half of the students answered that theylearned English (6.3%+37.5%). More than half of them are not sure if their Englishability has increased or not.216September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
d. English UseThis concept was measured by the answer to the statement of "I used English." 46.9%of the students (6.3%+40.6%) reported that they used English in Survey 2, showingincrease of English use from 27.8% (2.8%+25%) of those in Survey 1. However, thestudents who did not use English also increased from 22.3% (16.7%+5.6%) in Survey1 to 28.2% (18.8%+9.4%) in Survey 2.
217September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
During the series of the tasks, there were a few lessons where the students initiateda lot of questions to the teacher spontaneously. It is rare for Japanese students toinitiate interaction in classroom except asking for test coverage or excusingthemselves for going to bathroom. They were lessons in which the students used theirPC's. They raised their hands asking the teacher how to use WORD, such as how toinsert a section marker, how to change the margin, etc. The interaction of the studentsand the teacher was genuine. For example, a student needed to rotate a picture at 90degrees to the right, but he did not know how to do it, or how to say "rotate" inEnglish. He asked the teacher how to rotate an image in Japanese. The teacher said tohim: "You can rotate it this way," when the teacher observed a flash in his eyes that218September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
indicated his understanding the word and the technique. Doing something using a PCdefinitely increased the number of spontaneous genuine utterances among thestudents.
b. English UseThe students' spontaneous utterances in English were rarely seen in the classroom.Despite the teacher's English directions, model conversations, and English handouts,they did not use English when they needed to use those examples. They repeatedmodel conversations after the teacher, but they lapsed into Japanese even when theyhad opportunities to use the models. When they spontaneously asked questions, theydid not use any of the models and spoke to the teacher in Japanese. Some studentsinsisted the teacher to answer in Japanese, which she found hard to refuse, becausethey knew she knew Japanese.
In terms of writing, they first wrote sentences in Japanese and then translated theminto English. The influence of the translation-method on Japanese English learners isdeep-rooted. Since they were taught to translate English into Japanese in junior andsenior high school English classes, they wrote Japanese translation in the handouts.They depended on English-Japanese dictionaries when they looked up words. Theyalso used Japanese to send their files on-line to the teacher, which the teacher foundso disappointing because she showed how to send email to professors in English inthe previous semester. Figure 9 is what most of the students wrote when they sentemail to the teacher. Only two students wrote messages in English.
219September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
VI. DiscussionThe limited effect of the projects on students' learning English is re`lated to thedifficulty of using English in the EFL class that is composed of the same L1 withlimited contact among natural English speakers. The difficulty stems from priority oftask over tool in the homogeneous classroom as well as lack of natural contact toEnglish
considered to encourage learners to use the target language without worrying aboutmaking mistakes, by having them focused on the content of communication.Therefore, in the goal-oriented projects, language becomes somewhat less importantthan the goal of communication.
However, priority of task over tool creates a serious problem in the classroom ofEnglish as a foreign language. When a class consists of homogeneous learners whoshare the same L1, the L2 becomes a very inefficient tool of communication.Speaking English is like using an old computer when a new one is available. Why useEnglish when they can finish the job in their native language in a snap?
The tendency to use L1 is especially apparent when the students' English level islow. Since both of them are not good at English and share the same L1, they lapseinto using their L1 in their pair work to satisfy their communicative needs. Thus, theview of language as a tool of communication by CLT is a dilemma in thehomogeneous classroom whose participants share the same L1.
221September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
The small circles written as "L2" are impressionistic representations of one's targetlanguage. In EFL countries, English (L2) use is most likely to occur in the personaland local spheres when learners do their homework at home and attend English class.The area of English use is limited and the boundary with the surroundings is definite.On the other hand, in ESL countries where English is spoken everywhere, theboundary of the English use is indefinite and ESL learners have natural contact to thetarget language.
The global environment is the sphere of communication beyond the local level suchas mass-mediated communication. "L1" and "L2" are written in the respective globalenvironment, but it is not limited to L1 or L2 only, because other languages are usedin the global environment. Today it is possible for language learners to exposethemselves to their target languages in the global environment using mass media andIT technology. Seeking exposure to the target language through mass media is an222September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
indication of a good language learner. However, not all students of foreign languageare willing to take full advantage of their exposure to the target language unless theyare forced to do it.
VII. ConclusionBased on the results of the questionnaire surveys and observation of the students'classroom interaction and email samples, it can be concluded that the Englishmagazine projects were positive in terms of their satisfaction, but the projects did nothave a significant effect on English learning for low level students, due to theirextensive dependency on their mother tongue to achieve the goals or tasks. Thefindings of this study shed light on the issues of PBL English teaching in EFL:priority of task over tool in the homogeneous EFL classroom and lack of naturalcontact to native English speakers outside of their classroom.
ReferencesCross, J. (2005). Taking the first step--CLT teacher training in Gifu, Japan[ElectronicVersion]. Asian EFL Journal, 4 Retrieved fromhttp://www.asian_efl_journal.com/pta_may_05_jc.php.Machida (Torikai), K., Watanabe, A., & Shimazaki, M. (1991). Video bangumi noseisaku--Jiji eigo kyoiku no kokoromi (Production of video programs: an approachto mass media English). Current English Studies, 30, 91-108.MEXT. (2003). Regarding the establishment of an action plan to cultivate "Japanesewith English abilities". Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/03072801.htm.Moss, D., & Van Duzer, C. (1998). Project-Based Learning for Adult EnglishLanguage Learners. ERIC Digest. Washington DC: National Clearinghouse forESL Literacy Education, ED427556.Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Onoda, S. (2000). Media English kyoiku ni okeru productive na katsudo no torikumi-group project no do-nyu (Productive activities in media English education--anintroduction of group projects). Current English Studies, 39, 87-102.Sidman-Taveau, R., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2001). Constructivist Inspiration: Aproject-Based Model for L2 Learning in Virtual Worlds. Texas Papers in ForeignLanguage Education, 6(1), 63-82.224September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
225September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
work in genre analysis by Swales (1981, 1990) and others. However, teaching andlearning around text genres has become increasingly influential in mainstream ELT ina number of situations, including primary, secondary, tertiary, professional andcommunity teaching contexts involving native speakers of English as well as ESLand EFL learners, and in countries as diverse as Singapore, South Africa, USA,Italy, Hong Kong, Australia, UK, China, Canada, Sweden and Thailand(Derewianka, 2003). Nevertheless, their influence in EFL in East Asian countriessuch as Japan and Korea still appears limited, as a trawl through ELT-related journalsin the region indicates. For instance, between 2001 and the present, one finds onlyone article (Kim & Kim, 2005), in the Asian EFL Journal discussing or alluding in adirect way to genre-based teaching in these countries.
This paper gives a brief overview of genre-based language teaching, and thendocuments one initiative in extending it to the East Asian EFL context, specificallywithin a Japanese university context. It describes the third-year writing programdeveloped by the author while at the Nagoya University of Commerce and Business,and explains the theoretical and practical considerations involved. In so doing, thepaper aims to suggest how and why genre-based teaching may be introduced insimilar contexts.
To begin with, genre-based approaches begin with the whole text as the unit infocus rather than the sentence. The preoccupation is thus the creation of meaning atthe level of discourse and not the acquisition of syntactical forms: (r)ather thandealing with discrete instances of language, there is recognition that meaning227September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
accumulates and evolves over a stretch of text (Derewianka, 2003). Here, a textrefers to a piece of language in use, which is a harmonious collection of meaningsappropriate to its context and hence has unity of purpose (Butt et al. 2001, p.3). Inother words, texts are stretches of language that may be considered complete inthemselves as acts of social exchange. Length and mode of communication areimmaterial: each text may be long or short, written or spoken. Thus, a brief exchangeof greetings as two acquaintances pass each other is as much a text as is a 600-pagenovel.
Closely related to this, genre-based approaches are concerned with the socialmacro-purposes of language, and not just the semantic micro-functions of individualwords and sentences: the genres in focus are generally defined according to the broadsocial purposes of communication. The classification and labeling of genres may vary,depending, among other things, on the theoretical influences behind each approach.For example, in some instances, writing genres are defined in terms of familiar broadcategories such as Narratives, Description, Persuasion and Argumentation and soon. Another approach, elaborated on later, makes a distinction between six or so textprototypes called text types, and more specific genres that employ each orcombinations of these text types. Whatever the differences, categorization is based onwhat the discourse seeks to achieve or to do socially, for example, to tell a story(Narratives in many typologies) or to argue an opinion (Argument in sometypologies, Exposition in others).
Finally, the focus on whole texts implies recognition that there is a higher level oforder and patterning in language than just the sentence grammar at the level ofdiscourse organization and meta-patterning of grammatical features. Genre-basedapproaches emphasize that this higher order must be attended to for effectivelanguage use: all texts conform to certain conventions, and that if a student is to besuccessful in joining a particular English-language discourse community, the studentwill need to be able to produce texts which fulfill the expectations of its readers inregards to grammar, organization, and context (Kim & Kim, 2005, citing Muncie,228September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
2002). It must be noted that sentence-level grammar is not seen as unimportant: rather,its importance is seen in terms of the part it plays in the overall patterning of wholetexts (e.g. what sorts of sentence patterns tend to pre-dominate in a particular genre).Indeed, close attention is paid to sentence- and word-level grammar in many currentapproaches, but without such grammar being treated separately from the business ofcommunication, unlike in older grammar-focused approaches or in many forms ofcommunicative language teaching. Thus, genre-based approaches can be seen asbeing at once both whole-to-part and part to whole.
text type Instructions) or they may be a blend (for example, sermons often includestretches of narratives or recounts, as well as explanations, while usually expositoryin intent). Genres may also be written or spoken.
The rationale for adopting a genre-based framework is that it facilitates clear linksto the students purposes for writing beyond the writing classroom. Thus, the primaryfactors in curricular selection are ensuring a balance of text types, to enable studentsto perform a broad range of social purposes for writing in English in future, andselection of specific genres based on the students most immediate academic needs.With respect to the latter, the programme seeks to support the writing of a graduationessay, an extended research-based thesis that is a university-wide requirement forgraduation, and that, for the English majors, is the most major piece of writing inEnglish demanded of them. Since the research essay is a genre that potentiallyincorporates sections in its various sections all the main text types apart fromNarratives, the curriculum covers all the text types except Narratives, which isalso excluded because few students are likely to ever need to tell stories in English.Thus, the six units covered (three in each semester) comprise the following:English Writing V (1st Semester): Information Reports (Survey & Interview Reports) Factual Recounts (Company Histories) Instructions (How to Essays)English Writing VI (2nd Semester): Explanations (How or Why Something Happens) Information Reports (Classification & Categorization) Exposition (Arguing for a Position)It might be noted that the specific genres realizing each text type are, where possible,those that approximate potential sections of the graduation essay. For example, onegenre of Information Reports selected, Surveys and Interview Reports, canevidently be adapted for the Findings section, while the specific genre of Recounts,Company Histories, might be used by students doing research on a business in theBackground section of their essays. These possible applications to their graduationessays are made explicit to the students in the introduction to each unit.230September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
The teaching and learning material for each unit are fully written up in a form akinto textbook units, printed, and distributed to the students. They are also madeavailable online through the universitys Blackboard Learning System. Each unitfollows a similar pattern and learning cycle, and is completed over three to four 90- or100- minute lessons. The principles on which this cycle is based, as well as adescription of what a unit of learning includes, is described in the sections that follow.
To supplement the work done in the genre-based units, students are also required tosubmit a one-page response or comment on newspaper articles of their choice once afortnight. This is to provide sustained opportunities for free writing by the students.
Much of ELT in the last few decades has been based on largely cognitivist theoriesof Second Language Acquisition (or SLA as the field is commonly known) that viewlearning as pre-dominantly psychological in nature, dependant largely on whathappens in the mind. For Vygotsky, however, learning is both social andpsychological in nature. Mediation through the use of tools plays the key role at every231September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
point, with sign systems being the primary tools, and language being the key signsystem, and hence, key tool for mediation. Vygotksy proposes the notion of Zones ofProximal Development (ZPDs), zones between what he calls actual development(what the learner can do independently) and potential development (what the learnercan do in the future, with the help of others now). Every act of learning occurs withina ZPD, building on what the learner already knows and can do, and is first interpsychological (social) before it is intra-psychological (psychological). Learningbegins by being object-regulated, and then is others-regulated, before it is selfregulated. As the stages of object-regulation, others-regulation, and self-regulation arecrucial to understanding the pedagogical design of the NUCB third year courses, theyare further elaborated below.
For the potential development manifested by what the learner is able to do with thehelp of others to be translated eventually into actual development, self-regulation isvital. This is the stage in which the learner processes and manipulates by himself orherself the knowledge and understanding gained, and/or begins to be capable ofworking independently. As opposed to the Piagetian view of the phenomenon of selftalk by young children as indicative of ego-centricity, whose reduction as the childbecomes increasingly aware of others is what is responsible for its eventualdisappearance, self-talk is seen by Vygotsky as a manifestation of self-regulation. Itsdisappearance as children grow up is simply a matter of it becoming internalized andsilent: this internal self-talk, again made possible only because of language, continuesto be a vital part of learning through self-regulation.
Each lesson unit or cycle has as its central focus a chosen text type or genre, andconsists of a fixed sequence of stages. Descriptions of the cycle (e.g. in Derewianka,
233September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
1990 & Butt et al, 2001) vary in minor ways, but four phases essential for developingcontrol of a genre may be identified, namely:
1. Context Exploration2. Text Exploration based on Model Texts3. Joint Construction of a Text4. Individual ApplicationThis is captured in Figure 1:
DevelopingControl of aGenre
3. JointConstructio
2. TextExploration
Every cycle begins with context exploration, context referring to the possiblecontexts of situation in which the chosen text-type or genre may be used. This phaseresembles the pre-listening/reading/speaking/writing phase that has come to betypical in communicative language teaching, and the activities that may be carried outdo indeed resemble typical pre-activities in skills-based teaching. However, wheretraditional genre-based activities have aims ranging from mere warming up toactivation of mental schema, one primary aim of the genre-based Curriculum Cycle isto help students to become aware of and understand the social purpose of the chosen234September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
genre, as well as other contextual factors influencing the production of the texts thatthey will examine as models, and the texts that they may be required to produce inspeech or writing. Based on Vygotskian principles, another important aim of thecontext exploration phase, from the teachers point of view, is to establish thelearners actual development or starting point.
The next stage, text exploration, is the first of two perhaps distinctive key phases inthe Curriculum Cycle that demonstrates how a genre-based approach founded onVygotskian principles is set apart from other forms of communicative languageteaching. The aims of this phase are to familiarize the learners with the target texttype or genre, and to draw attention to organizational and linguistic featurescommonly found in texts belonging to it. Model texts play a crucial role in this phase,providing, in Vygotskys terms, the necessary object-regulation. Using such modeltexts, pedagogical activities to make explicit the features of the text-type are carriedout. These may include a gamut of established communicative activities, such as there-assembling of jigsaw texts or information gap exercises, but the tasks aredeliberately constructed in such a way as to highlight the salient lexical andgrammatical features. Thus, the tasks aim to be at least implicitly analytical innature, and not just to facilitate interaction as an end in itself. Of course, moreexplicitly analytical work is also possible: for example, students may be asked tohunt for and highlight all instances of a specific grammatical form. Direct teachingby the instructor is also an option, in order to make the features obvious to thelearners. How the formal features work to help the text-type or genre achieve itspurposes are also discussed or explored, the teacher playing a key role in othersregulation throughout this phase.
new text). This can take forms varying from teacher-fronted whole-class coconstruction of a single text on the board, to small-group or pair construction with theteacher helping each group or pair by turn, to teacher conferencing with individualstudents. In the case of writing, as with process approaches, the texts may go througha few rounds of drafting, editing, and re-drafting. The model texts continue to provideobject-regulation, while others-regulation comes from not only the teacher but alsofrom other students, as more expert peers guide others, or as students refer each otherto features in the models, and to points raised in the text exploration stage.
What is to be noted in both the text exploration and joint construction phases is thatwhile there is much oral interaction taking place, its nature and intention is differentfrom that of most forms of communicative language teaching. Where the interactiveactivities in the latter are often designed to simulate real life interaction, directed atproviding opportunities for talking in the language, the talk here is about usinglanguage, and is focused on a collaborative effort to learn to accomplish a purpose inthe language.
The last stage in the Cycle, individual application, as the name suggests, requireslearners to work individually and independently, for example, in the case of writing,to produce individual essays. Ideally, this is carried out only after the students havesuccessfully produced a jointly constructed text or understanding of a text. This phasethen provides the opportunity for self-regulation, the crucial final stage in Vygotskysmodel of learning. What each learner produces can, of course, be further re-cycledthrough further others-regulation (e.g. peer editing, teacher feedback), until thelearner attains a desired level of attainment.
236September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
The entire lesson unit is completed over the course of three to four 90-minutelessons, the pace depending on the students progress, and was designed to servesecondary purposes of allowing the instructors insights into the students attitudes toand extent of writing in English, and getting the students to reflect on their ownattitudes and learning strategies.
The Context Exploration stage that begins the unit opens with the students workingin small groups to simulate a survey. Using a prepared questionnaire on Attitudes toWriting (see Figure 2 below) provided to them, the students interview each other,collate the results in their groups (calculating the percentages for each response), andthen report what they think are the most significant figures, through appointed grouprepresentatives. Still working in their groups, the students then discuss and writedown answers to the following questions: Why did your teacher ask you to do thissurvey? Who would be interested in knowing the results? Why? Where are someplaces where the results can be reported? What are the most important points toinclude? On the basis of their answers the instructor then explores with the class whysurveys are carried out, draws attention to the fact that the results need usually to bereported in writing, and then discusses possible purposes and audiences that surveyreports may be written for.Survey: ATTITUDES TO WRITINGName of Interviewer: ______________________________________Name of Respondent: ______________________________________Date of Interview: _________________________________________
237September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Text exploration begins in earnest with the organization of the text. A jigsawactivity on another survey report similar to the model text is used to heighten thestudents awareness of the possible parts of survey reports, and how they may beordered. Once the students have re-assembled the new report, they are asked tocompare it with the model text, and identify the organizational features common toboth. These features include both the macro-structure of the texts, as well asorganization of content at the level of the paragraph.
Exploration then moves downwards to the lexico-grammar, that is, both grammar atthe level of cohesive devices, the sentence, and the word, as well as vocabularycentral to the text. One of the features explored in this unit is the use of reportedspeech, which is often prominent in survey reports. The instructor gives examples ofreported speech sentences, and teaches the basic syntax of reported speech sentencesexplicitly. Following an example by the instructor, the students are then directed tolook for and highlight all instances of reported speech in the model text, marking outthe reporting clauses (e.g. 80% of the students said) and the reported clauses(e.g. that they could not understand most of the magazines and articles) clearly.238September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
This draws their attention to the common use of reported speech in the genre, as wellas provides them further examples of the syntax of reported speech sentences. Thestudents are also further asked to circle all the reporting verbs (i.e. verbs used in thereporting clause) and classify them as either Saying (e.g. said, explained) orThinking/Feeling (e.g. felt, thought) verbs. Thus, the vocabulary explored hereis that of possible reporting verbs.
After this is done, the instructor leads a discussion on the functions of the observedfeatures that is, how do they help the writer to achieve his or her purposes in thetext? For example, why do writers of survey reports use reported speech? Why aresome findings reported using Saying verbs, and others using Thinking/Feelingverbs? It is important to note that the discussion should explore possibilities ratherthan make dogmatic interpretations as to the writers intentions. What it seeks is toshow that the grammar used is a motivated choice to help achieve communicativepurposes, rather than a matter of prescription for the genre. Reported speech, and therange of reporting verbs, are, in other words, a set of resources that writers of surveyreports can use. To help the students master this possible resource, they are then givesentence writing practice, using concocted figures for some of the items on theAttitudes to Writing questionnaire used in the context exploration phase. Figure 3shows part of this exercise:
Exercise 6Below are statements based on the questionnaire on writing that you havecompleted. The percentage or number of students who have agreed with eachstatement is given in brackets. Write a reported speech sentence for each statement.Use a different reporting verb for each sentence.ExampleStatement (from Q1): (I write in English) when I am writing in my diary.(60%)Reported speech: 60% of the students said that they wrote in English whenthey were writing in their diaries239September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Apart from reported speech and reporting verbs, quantifiers for reporting numbers(e.g. Most of the students, 80% of the students) as well as vocabulary often foundin most survey reports are also explicitly highlighted and taught. The instructor can,of course, employ a variety of different activities and tasks for this, and has discretionas to the range of lexico-grammatical features to cover, but always, the teaching ofthe grammar and vocabulary is related to their function and use in the genre. Inaddition, the meta-language or grammatical terminology is also always introducedand used, as this facilitates discussion both during this phase and during thecollaborative work in the joint construction stage. The students can also be asked, ashomework, to look at more examples of survey reports (either provided by theinstructor or to be found by themselves), and take down more examples of the variouslexico-grammatical features at work.
Equipped now with an awareness of the organizational possibilities and lexicogrammatical resources at their disposal, the students are now prepared to carry outjoint construction of their own survey reports. This they do in pairs or small groups,using their findings from the mini-survey in the context exploration stage.Alternatively, each student may write his or her first draft individually, then workwith a partner to improve this draft. To provide scaffolding, the students areencouraged to constantly refer to the model text and their grammar work as they write,and the instructor plays an active role by circulating around the classroom andguiding the students in turn or when they are in need, reminding them constantlyabout the text organization, appropriate use of reported speech, how they can vary thereporting verbs, and so on. Each piece of writing goes through more than one draft,
240September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
before it is submitted to the instructor, who then provides further feedback for a finaldraft to be submitted for grading.
Following the Curriculum Cycle, the students should then be given an opportunityfor individual application. This can be done through students carrying their individualmini-surveys on a topic of their choice, using their own questionnaires, then writingindividual reports. However, due to time constraints, the individual application is notcarried out within the writing course. Instead, the course assumes that this is carriedout in the students writing of their graduation essay, which may include a sectioninvolving a survey. As mentioned, the possible application to their graduation essaysis made explicit by the instructor, who may, in addition, advise individual studentshow the learning in the unit may be used. Efforts are also made to inform instructorssupervising the graduation essays of the work done in this unit in the writing class.
To begin with, grammar is not taught in isolation from the communicative functionsof the language. It is also neither taught as an end in itself, nor as the central focus ofinstruction, but as a means to an end achieving the social purposes of the genre thatis the overarching focus of teaching. The most traditional forms of grammar teachingfocus on sentence analysis and the learning of prescriptive grammar rules, with theemphasis on producing correct form at the level of the sentence, and little referenceto the communicative functions of language. The structuralist approaches thatdeveloped in the late 1950s and early 1960s, emphasized sentence pattern drills,with less or no recourse to explicit teaching of rules. However, while based on moredescriptive linguistics, they continue this formal focus and emphasis on accuracy,although later forms of these approaches include attempts at fairly artificial241September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
communicative practice around the chosen patterns. While of a broad church, thecommunicative approaches that followed, on the other hand, generally focus on theuse of language, emphasizing communicative practice, with grammar either believedto be just learned implicitly in the course of receiving language input or throughinteraction, or taught as a separate matter. This is reflected in the ongoing debates thatstill persist today in ELT and SLA (second language acquisition) literature about whatthe balance should be between focus on form and focus on function. The genrebased material in the NUCB course, on the other hand, views grammatical form asintrinsically linked to communicative function, and seeks to help students understandthe links between particular aspects of English grammar and their functions.Moreover, the focus does not remain focused at sentence level, but moves beyond tohow sentence-level patterns fit into natural whole texts in communication. In all thesesenses, the teaching of grammar is functional.
To know a language then, is to know the set of grammatical resources e.g. therange of sentence patterns or word-level grammatical features that one may choosefrom, in a particular situation, to achieve a particular purpose. Thus, what is mostimportant to know and teach about grammatical patterns or features are theirfunctions and use in discourse their meaning potential, what each can achieve incommunication, in what contexts, both situational and cultural, and for what purposes,242September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
and, conversely, when and where each might be used. While accuracy of formremains a legitimate concern, the more critical focus then is to help learners developknowledge of the range of specific grammatical resources that they may employ forparticular tasks. This is illustrated in the focus on reported speech in the lesson unitdescribed earlier: reported speech is often a resource used in such reports to attributeopinions to others (the respondents to the survey) in order to emphasize objectivity.
It should also be noted that the grammar instruction within the approach describeddoes not seek to be comprehensive what is taught is dependent on what is neededfor the genres selected. Instructors are encouraged in their feedback to studentswriting to focus mainly on the use of the features highlighted in each lesson unit, andaim at helping students master these aspects, rather than try to attend to all aspects ofthe students grammar in their writing. Assessment criteria in mid- and end-ofsemester examinations also focus on these as well as the larger organizational aspectstaught, and this is made known to the students.
The tasks and exercises for grammar learning draw on established methods andtechniques, in recognition that they have their place and worth. For instance, in someunits, substitution tables to practice particular sentence patterns are used. This, ofcourse, draws on a technique influenced by structuralist approaches, the differencebeing that the sentence patterns are now learned in the contexts of their natural use inparticular genres, and the aim is for the students to put them into immediate use inproducing writing in the selected genres. In addition, teachers also explain thefunctions of such patterns in achieving the purposes of the genres.
Finally, the instruction ideally aims at emphasizing that most of the grammaticalfeatures taught are likely and very useful, but not mandatory, resources for each genre.However, given that the students are relatively low-level EFL learners, there isinsistence that they use the features taught in each unit in the production of their owntexts. This is less out of dogmatic prescriptiveness, then of pragmatic considerationthat the learners would otherwise not be in possession of appropriate grammatical243September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
resources. Moreover, for those who do possess other grammatical resources forachieving the genres purposes, the insistence extends the range of resources they arecapable of using. Nevertheless, what is emphasized in the course of instruction is thatlearning the grammatical features will help them produce writing in the target genre,rather than that failure to use the features constitutes wrong writing in itself.
ConclusionThus far, the courses have affirmed many of the claims of the merits of genre-basedapproaches, found, for example, in Paltridge (2001, pp. 7-10). The students, in theirassignments and examinations, produce good coherent writing in the genres taught,usually relying on the model texts provided. The writing of the best students evenunder examination conditions is impressive, showing ability to adapt the featureslearnt for their own communicative purposes. Informal feedback from the studentsand instructors involved has been very positive. Students have reported that the thirdyear programme has given them more confidence and security in their own abilities toproduce independent writing than their previous writing courses have. In particular,they point to the use of model texts and the teaching of particular grammaticalfeatures as very helpful in knowing how to go about writing texts of similar genres.Some have reported that specific learning units have helped them in writing theirgraduation essays, showing their ability to transfer the learning to other contexts. Theinstructors, on the other hand, appreciated the consistency of the pedagogical cycle,which at the same time allowed for a variety of tasks and activities. They alsoexpressed much satisfaction at the visible progress of the students towards producingrelatively competent writing in the genres taught.
that casual conversation in English does follow schematic structures and genericpatterns of openings and closings, turn taking, topic management and such, realizedthrough particular grammatical features in the same way as written genres. Throughusing the Curriculum Cycle model, students may be helped in a similar way tomanaging particular genres of spoken conversation.
There are, of course, potential difficulties and limitations associated with genrebased approaches. Some of these are highlighted in various chapters in Paltridge(2001), and illustrated in Lin (2003), in relation to the implementation of the genrebased English Language syllabus in schools in Singapore. Among these is thepotential for instructors to extend rigid prescriptivism to the level of the text, insistingfor example, that all instances of writing in a particular genre must conform to onespecific structure and set of grammatical features. This can tend to stifle individualexpression and possible linguistic innovation. However, it has not been the intentionof this article to explore genre-based teaching in full: hence, these issues will not beexplored, although readers are reminded that like all approaches to ELT, genre-basedapproaches are not a panacea or final revelation, and the article does not pretend thatthey are. Rather, it is hoped that through its description of a writing programme andthe considerations involved in its construction, the article has pointed a way towardshow effective language instruction may designed through application of what isbelieved to be sound theory.ReferencesButt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S. & Yallop, C. (2000). Using functionalgrammar: An explorers guide. Macquarie University: NCELTRCurriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education, Singapore.(2001). English Language Syllabus 2001 for Primary & Secondary Schools.Singapore: Ministry of Education. (Also available on the Internet at the followingurl address: http://www1.moe.edu.sg/syllabuses/doc/English.pdf)
245September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. NSW: Primary English TeachingAssociation.Derewianka, B. (2003). Trends and issues in genre-based approaches. RELC Journal.34(2), 133-54.Eggins, S. & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.Foley, J. & Thompson, L. (2003). Language learning: A lifelong process. London:Arnold.Halliday, M A K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. (2nd edition).London: Edward Arnold.Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects oflanguage in a social-semiotic perspective (2nd edition.). Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar.3rd Edition. London: Arnold.Kim, Y. & Kim, J. (2005). Teaching Korean university writing class: Balancing theprocess and the genre approach. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 7(2), 69-90.Ladbrook (2005). Writing recipes. The Language Teacher, 29(4), 23-27.Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.Lin, B. (2003). English in Singapore: An insiders perspective of syllabus renewalthrough a genre-based approach. RELC Journal, 34(2), 223-46.Mann, W.C., & Thompson, S.A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward afunctional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243-281.Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor: TheUniversity of Michigan Press.Rodgers, T. (2001). Language teaching methodology(http://www.cal.org/ericell/digest/rodgers.html, ERIC Digest, September 2001)246September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Grammar &Vocabulary
Method ofresearch
Aim of survey:2 Questions
Q1 2nd answer:
Vocabularyfor surveys &interviews:conducted,survey,questionnaire,interviewed
Topicsentences:Start with thetopic (Thebiggestproblem,Anotherproblem,Concerningwhat theywould like toread)247
Q2 1st answer:Biggest answer first
Q2 2nd answer:Next biggest answer
CONCLUSION: Summarize
whatfindings suggest makerecommendations
sentencestructure (e.g.X said that) &reportingverbs (said,reported,felt,asked etc.) Quantifiers toindicate no. ofrespondents(80% of thestudents,Only onestudent etc)
Use firstly,secondly etcto listUse modals(should,needs to)
248September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Bio Data:Neil Heffernan, Ph.D., has taught EFL in Japan since 1995 and is currently a lecturerat Hiroshima Shudo University. His research interests include testing/evaluation,CALL and materials development. He is the author of two textbooks for Japaneselearners of English.
AbstractThis paper outlines an academic writing course that was taught in Japan to 100students who took the course as a precursor to a study abroad program at theUniversity of British Columbia, Canada. The steps taken to ensure that the studentswould be properly prepared for their academic life in Canada and their study abroadexperience as a whole are also delineated. The results demonstrate that upon returningfrom an 8-month stay in Vancouver, the students showed a dramatic improvement intheir writing abilities. Indeed, they displayed not only high writing abilities, but theability to maintain solid grades in their other courses while in Canada. Finally,overall enjoyment of the course was deemed to be extremely high, further adding tothe students satisfaction with the program.
IntroductionTeaching academic writing to Japanese EFL learners can be a tricky task: oftenneither the teacher nor the students are fully committed to it. Problems that exist inteaching academic writing to EFL university students include a general lack ofknowledge of the requirements of writing research reports in English. This paperdeals with some of the methods used to teach an academic writing course to 100249September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Japanese university students. Chiefly, this paper will address how to structure anacademic writing course for learners who may not have the language skills andmotivation to deal with a program of this nature. Although the course was conductedin Japan, it should not be considered exclusive to the Japanese setting. Indeed, thetactics employed here can be successfully used at other Asian universities.
The underlying reasons for teaching academic writing to Japanese students may beas varied as the techniques employed by teachers in such a course. The onesdescribed in this paper were employed to benefit students going on an eight-monthstudy-abroad program to the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver,Canada, as part of their four-year degree program at a top-tier private Japaneseuniversity. The steps outlined in this paper can be utilized by teachers at otheruniversities to ensure they approach teaching academic writing courses with theirlearners specific needs and goals in mind.
BackgroundIt is well known that reading and grammar are given more importance than speaking,listening and writing in Japanese junior and senior high schools (Aiga, 1990). Thisposes a problem for students when they enter university, as they do not have thenecessary skills to cope with the writing courses that will be part of the universitycurriculum. In fact, due to the great emphasis placed on writing at U.S. and Canadianuniversities (Fujioka, 2001), the conduct of writing classes in Japan needs to bereevaluated. Most Japanese learners learn how to write in junior and senior highschool from Japanese teachers of English by using grammar and translation-basedmethods (Hirayanagi, 1998); methods that later pose problems for students when theyenter either a Japanese or Western university. What results is that learners arewoefully unprepared for the rigors of conducting research and putting together a wellbalanced piece of academic writing that would conform to the standards of Westernuniversities.
250September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
In order to adequately prepare our students for the rigors of a study-abroad program,or merely for the opportunity to learn how to write an academic style paper, writingcourses at Asian universities should reflect this type of instruction. In fact, if studentsare to become fully proficient in the target language, they need to successfully acquireall four language skills (Brown, 2000).
A specific exampleThe students involved in the course outlined here were required to take an academicwriting course in preparation for an eight-month study abroad program at UBC.While at UBC, the students were enrolled in regular classes with other Canadianstudents, studying the same courses, and evaluated in the same manner as theirCanadian (and international) counterparts. In preparation for this, if the studentswanted to be successful at UBC, they also had to perform at a high level in the predeparture writing course. The students were chosen for the UBC program based on anumber of factors: a lengthy application process that included writing an Englishessay on why each student wanted to participate in the program; an interview withboth a Japanese and a native English-speaking teacher; and a TOEFL score of at least500 on the Paper Based Test. In all, more than three hundred applications arereceived annually for the program. However, only 100 applicants are successful inmaking the final cut, thus progressing on to the actual academic writing preparationcourse. The stated goal of this writing course was to prepare students to write wellresearched academic papers that could stand up to the scrutiny of the standards usedby the instructors at UBC.
251September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
The course ran twice a week for two 90-minute classes over a fifteen-weeksemester. One of the requirements for passing the course (and thus participating inthe trip to Vancouver) was that students had to attend 90% of the classes, successfullycomplete three expository papers and make one oral presentation on the topic of thefinal paper. The purpose of completing these tasks was to prepare students for two ofthe courses they would actually be taking at UBC that would utilize similar methods.
From the beginning, students were encouraged to think outside of the traditionalJapanese style of organization while writing. This style is known as the ki sho tenketsu style of writing, and has marked differences between writing in English andwriting in Japanese. It is an inductive style of writing that reflects the way Japanesestudents think and write in Japanese (Kaplan, 1996): illustrations and examples arepresented in a paragraph before the main idea (Hirayanagi, 1998). Further, theJapanese style of writing is quite ambiguous in nature (Takagi, 2001), and thus, quitehard to understand for native speakers of English.
specific examples and evidence. Secondly, support means that the essay has specificevidence or examples to illustrate the main ideas. Finally, a convincing essay mustdemonstrate logic and organization in its arguments in order to be successful.
The course described here used methods that ensured learners would rememberhow to properly structure their essays. First, students were asked to select a topic thatwas of interest to them. Naturally, it is easier for writers to write about what they areinterested in, so students were encouraged to choose a topic in this manner. Second,students were taught to limit their topic so that they addressed a suitable theme orproblem that needed to be dealt with. Students were encouraged to narrow their topicsufficiently so that it would be an interesting and useful addition to the body ofknowledge that already exists on that topic.
Teachers on the course faced challenges in guiding students toward selecting thesisstatements. The criteria for doing so should be outlined by instructors so that studentsfully understand how to choose one that matches their topic. Specifically, studentsfocused on thesis statements that were of interest to them and their target audience(their classmates). Some examples of thesis statements students in this course wrotewere:
Research methodsOne key facet of teaching and learning academic writing is learning how to conductboth primary and secondary research. The former involves action research done bythe students themselves. This entails designing, testing and administering aquestionnaire and/or an interview to a number of people with the intention of testingan original hypothesis or thesis. The latter involves conducting research in a library oron the Internet of work that has been previously published. The point of both is to getstudents writing and researching in support of the thesis of their essay. Whenconducting either type of research, students were advised to be careful about thenature of information found on the Internet, as clearly, not everything one finds on theInternet is a reliable source. In the case of the course outlined here, secondaryresearch was taught prior to primary research. If learners are capable of conductingsecondary research first, they will be better prepared to carry out their own primarymethods of research, which could then add some knowledge to their field of study.
The main elements in teaching how to conduct primary research included planninga questionnaire survey, selecting the survey sample, developing the survey design,constructing the questionnaire, and collecting and analyzing data. The learners on thiscourse (and subsequent courses to it) needed to be given a step-by-step outline of howto perform the different types of research and the best method of analyzing the datacollected from them.
TroubleshootingBecause of the inherent difficulties associated with teaching an academic writingcourse, teachers should be aware that problems are likely to arise. Strategies oferadicating problems can be formed before the course begins, so as to avoid causingconfusion in class.
deciding on a topic and thesis statement that was limited, unified and exact;narrowing the thesis statement; choosing materials that fit their topics and thesisstatements; choosing support statements and examples; and using the correct methodsof paraphrasing, summarizing, quoting and referencing. This last point is critical, asmany Japanese learners are unaware of how to correctly paraphrase, summarize,quote and reference. Students in this course took a great amount of time in learningthe finer points of how to accurately carry out these tasks. Teachers on the coursenoted that they spent quite a bit of class time actually practicing how to do each,giving the students specific examples and checking all work to ensure they fullyunderstood these concepts.
EvaluationFinally, students were required to give a 15-20 minute oral presentation on the topicof their third paper. The purpose of the presentation was to give students a chance topractice talking about the results of their study to an audience. Students wereencouraged to give an organized and clear presentation on their findings, while usingthe usual array of visual aids if necessary.
The marking scheme for the course was based on attendance, the three essays andone presentation. Naturally, the students did numerous versions of each paper and hadthem all edited by the teacher, so the teacher was well aware of the amount of workeach student put into the class.
255September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
ResultsUpon their return to Japan, student grades were obtained from UBC and discussedwith the students in relation to their overall satisfaction with the program. This provedto be an interesting element of the program, as the learners did surprisingly well intheir studies at UBC (Heffernan, 2006b). Indeed, 47% of the students whoparticipated in the program maintained a B average in all of their courses while atUBC. Further, 36% of the students managed to achieve an A average, while 11% hada C average and 3% failed their classes. This final category included students whodropped out of the program midway through it, and students who admittedly did notgive a full effort while in Canada.
Also upon their return to Japan, the students were given an exit interview. Thepurpose of the interview was to garner student attitudes toward the program and tomeasure their satisfaction toward the program. The interviews obtained someessential information on the workload expected of the students at UBC. Generally, thelearners stated that the pre-departure writing course was very successful in preparingthem for life at UBC. Most of the students were initially surprised to learn thatwriting academic papers was an integral element of all classes at a Canadianuniversity. Since Japanese universities do not place a heavy academic burden onstudents, most of the students stated that although the preparation program gave themthe necessary knowledge to get by in their life at UBC, they were still surprised bythe amount of work at UBC. In fact, over 85% of the students in the programresponded in this manner. This suggests that teachers should spend enough timepreparing their learners for study abroad programs in order to better equip them forthe rigors of academic life abroad.
ConclusionTeachers in Japan and indeed across Asia who wish to conduct academic writingclasses at their universities - must approach the task with the specific needs and goalsof their learners in mind. As this course was a preparatory one for students going tostudy at UBC, it focused on how to write in an academic style and on primary and256September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
secondary research methods. This course overcame the specific problems encounteredby the students, while adapting a step-by-step approach to teaching how to write in anacademic style. It also centered on successfully preparing students for thecomplexities of living and studying in Canada alongside their Canadian counterparts.In the end, the program was a success, but there is always more work that can be done.
Finally, the students showed marked improvement in their writing styles and weresuccessful during their 8-month stay in Canada. This implies that the preparationprogram was a qualified success; the goals of the learners were reached and they weresatisfied with the outcome of the program.
Therefore, with the right amount of preparation, the end results can be rewarding,as students who have the motivation and willingness to learn about the form andprocess of academic writing will certainly benefit from competent, informativewriting instruction.
ReferencesAiga, Y. (1990). Is Japanese English education changing? Cross Currents, 17(2),139-145.Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). WhitePlains NY: Addison Wesley Longman.Drake, D. (1997). Integrating Study Abroad Students into the University Community.The Language Teacher. Retrieved August 22nd, 2005 from: http://jaltpublications.org/tlt/files/97/nov/drake.htmlFujioka, M. (2001). Asian students English writing experience. The LanguageTeacher. Retrieved July 29th, 2005 from: http://www.jaltpublications.org/tlt/articles/2001/11/fujioka/Heffernan, N. (2003). Building a successful TOEFL program: A case study. TheLanguage Teacher, 27(8), pp. 2-8.257September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
258September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
IntroductionThis study investigates the history of English education in Japan by describing andcritically analyzing the historical changes over the past 150 years. It addresses thegeneral history of English education in Japan and is organized according to thevarious eras of the Japanese Imperial Calendar, similar to literature which refers tothe Victorian age or Kennedy years in British and American contexts. Lookingback through history, I will attempt to trace the complex influences upon languageeducation over the years and show how they may shape the current situation. It is259September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
In terms of the structure of this paper, it is divided into three parts. Firstly, therelationship between globalization and English language education will be explainedfrom a wider perspective including not only in Japan but also all over the world. Thesecond part will look at the world history from the aspect of the Great NavigationPeriod (Urabe, et al., 1995) and the colonial period from the end of 15th century inEurope. It also describes how Asian countries were influenced by Europe during thisperiod of time. Finally, the third part will move on to the history of English educationin Japan which mainly focuses on the following four eras: Meiji (1868-1911), Taisho(1912-1925), Showa (1926-1988) and Heisei (1989-today). Each era contains somesignificant social events which are not only domestic but also international in originand investigates how those macro events influence English education in Japan.
century when Europeans began to map colonize the world. This process ofcolonization was accompanied by the globalization of the English language whichPhillipson (1992) terms as linguistic imperialism. However, Brutt-Giffler (2002)recently contradicts this connection between colonization and the enforced spread ofEnglish:colonial language policy was not necessarily related to language spread, andthat the spread of English was just as much a product of the struggle againstimperialism (Brutt-Griffler, 2002 as cited in Park, 2004, p. 87).Taking this alternative stance, the history of English language education in Japanmay be viewed as being partly based on Brutt-Grifflers idea of a struggle againstimperialism, but also, I would argue, as a struggle for imperialism in which English,and its teaching, have been at various times in history regarded as positive andnegative influences on society. To explain this apparently complex struggle, it isnecessary to outline how English education was introduced to Japan and how it hasbeen operating in this country from the mid 1800s with respect to the inter-connectionbetween world, macro events and local Japanese micro events. Consequently, sucha detailed and reflective account of the history of Japanese language educationrequires, as Phillipson (1992) and Pennycook (1994) advocate, the supplementarydescription of a variety of macro and micro social, political and economic issues allinfluential upon language education. This creates a descriptive framework for theinterpretation of the varying states of English language education through time, aseemingly inter-connected mesh of events which show how educational trends andpolicy decisions have been porous to national and international events.
Nakano (2004) traces the historical relationship between Japan and westerncountries around this period. The Japanese government had banned commerce withother countries except Holland and China for almost 210 years from 1603 to thebeginning of 1800. The government, called Tokugawa Bakufu (1603-1867), ruledJapan for more than 250 years, determining the political and economic stance, that ofisolation of the country, towards the rest of the world. Due to various reasons,including pressure from the West, it returned this power to the Emperor, Meiji, in1868. Although there had been relative domestic peace and stability in the TokugawaBakufu period in Japan, there were few opportunities to import innovations in scienceand technology from Europe and the United States. In contrast, while Japan wasisolated from the world, the Industrial Revolution occurred in Britain at the end of the18th century and after Britain started to export industrial machinery from 1825, thismovement spread to other European countries and the United States (Urabe, et al,1995).
Urabe et al (1995) also describes that in the 19th century, after European countriesembarked upon their own Industrial Revolution, they began to invade Asia to findnew markets. In South East Asia, for example, the colonization by Holland, Britainand France proceeded and only Thailand kept independence at that time. In East Asia,China lost the Opium War (1840-1842) with Britain and then the Arrow War (18561860) with Britain and France. Thereafter, China was forced to sign treaties withEuropean countries which were fundamentally detrimental to their political andeconomic sovereignty. This is concisely described by Urabe et al (1995) who statethat the most recent turning point in the modern history of Asian countries is thenineteenth century resistance against the European invasions and the subsequentstruggle to overcome crises which were a result of that resistance. In essence, thisperiod of resistance meant that Asian countries needed to adopt European civilizationand reform their own traditional systems. Japan was faced with a similar situation to262September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
other Asian countries at the end of the Tokugawa Bakufu period, a time in whichsocial, political and economic systems needed to undergo drastic internally-drivenreform, yet were predominantly motivated by pressure from external, that is, foreigngovernments. The next section will describe English education in this period.
To investigate the relationship between social, political and economic events (themacro events) and English education in Japan, a table has been formed containingthree items: (1) the year according to the western calendar, A.D., (2) its equivalentJapanese Era, (3) events related to English Education in Japan and (4) social, politicaland economic events. This table is an adaptation of Imura (2003) from the Japanese,simplified according to my purposes. Before the Meiji Era (1868-1911), there was acrucial incident in 1853 for the Tokugawa Bakufu government. Nakano (2004)describes how Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry came to Japan bringing a letterfrom American President Millard Fillmore asking for the establishment of acommercial relationship with Japan. The technology and the military power of theUnited States seemed to be far more advanced compared to Japan at that time. Thehuge gap between the two countries can be imagined from the following quotation:There was Perry with his four black ships of evil, thundering anominous salute at the Japanese coast by firing his cannon. And therewere the Japanese, lined up on the shore, armed with swords and oldfashioned muskets. (Buruma, 2003, p. 11).
263September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
The gap between the two countries can be also seen in the presents which theyexchanged after Commodore Perry was allowed to come ashore. The gifts from Japanto America were finely worked treasures such as rich brocades, porcelain bowls,lacquer boxes and fans (Buruma, 2003, pp. 12-13), whereas the presents fromAmerica to Japan were a telegraph and a miniature train (Buruma, 2003, p. 13).Buruma (2003) compares these presents and comments:The Japanese gifts were clearly those of a partially enlightened people,while the American presents showed the success of science andenterprise of a higher civilization (Buruma, 2003, p. 13)Ishikawa (1997) considers the visit of Commodore Perry to have been a trigger to theopening of Japan, since in 1854 he succeeded in concluding the treaty. However,Gakken (1999) states that this treaty was unilateral, favoring the United States andcontaining many disadvantages for Japanese international trading rights. Someexamples of this were that Japan was not authorized to determine the customs dutiesby itself. Also, westerners residing in Japan were exempt from local prosecution ifthey committed a crime due to a clause in the treaty stating extraterritoriality forforeign nationals. In 1858, Japan concluded similar treaties with Britain, Holland,Russia and France but, after the change of government in Japan, it was quicklyrealized that a renegotiation of the original terms was necessary for the long-termdevelopment of the Japanese economy. In order to revise the treaties, the Meijigovernment sent selected Japanese to Western countries to study because it wasimportant for Japan to have a similar standard of technology, politics and education(Gakken, 1999), as well as linguistic competence. Foreign language education inJapan itself was closely related this project as well since foreign languages wereintroduced to the university curriculum and subjects themselves were taught inEnglish.
backlash to the English boom. The detailed description of each stage is explained inthe next part.
The first stage of the Meiji Era contains the first English boom in Japan and isclosely related to government policies. In 1868, Tokyo was adopted as the capital ofJapan from Kyoto and the Meiji Era started. Buruma and Margalit (2004, p. 3)highlight the feature of this era as being a radical transformation in society, politicsand commerce. This transformation is called the Meiji Ishin, or Meiji Restoration,which was mainly directed by the government (Gakken, 1999). It entailed the wholecountry embarking on a process towards westernization, referred to as Bunmei Kaika,Civilization and Enlightenment (Buruma and Margalit, 2004).
Table 1: The First Stage of English Education History in the Meiji EraImura, 2003, p. 288, translated and adapted by Fujimoto-AdamsonA.D.
Meiji 1
Social, politicalandeconomiceventsTokyo became thecapital of JapanMeiji RestorationEnglish boom
In terms of education in this era, the Ministry of Education was established in 1871,one of their first decisions affecting English language education being to sendstudents abroad. Significantly, this move towards acquiring foreign knowledge also265September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
entailed sending female Japanese abroad, among whom was an eight-year-old girlcalled Umeko Tsuda, the future founder of a famous Japanese university later in herlife. Around this time, English language education entered into its boom periodbecause of the government policies. In addition, in 1872, a report called The use ofEnglish as the official language in Japan was written by Mori who was the firstMinister of Education in Japan. At that time English became the medium ofinstruction for all subjects in Kaisei School which is the current Tokyo University. Ina move which further showed the governments desire to catch up with educationalpractices in the West, David Murray (1830-1905), a mathematics professor from theUnited States, was invited to Japan to be the consultant of the Ministry of Education.
According to the Kojien Dictionary (as cited in Imura, 2003), many otherwesterners were invited in Japan in the beginning of the Meiji Era to teach about theiradvanced knowledge such as technology, science, architecture, and medicine. Thetotal number of the invited westerners was almost 3,000 in total in the Meiji Era.Imura (2003) suggests that in the education field, for example, approximately onethird of the budget of Tokyo University when it was founded was spent on thesalaries for western lecturers. After eight years in 1881, six foreign language lessonsper week were taught in junior high schools.
However, in the second stage of the Meiji Era, the stance towards English graduallychanged and a backlash towards English education arose. Two years later, in 1883,Japanese became the teaching language in Tokyo University because, according toImura (2003), around this time, many of the students sent by the government towestern countries came back to Japan to teach in the university. He also stresses thatthe academic books written in European languages were translated into Japanese, so itwas no longer necessary to teach the subjects in English (Imura, 2003). Imura (2003)also suggests that this then led to a sense among Japanese that English was no longerthe required means to gain access to western culture and knowledge. Consequently,the status of English changed to that of a normal school subject, Japanese replacing itas the access to knowledge of the outside world.266September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Moreover, the Japanese Imperial Constitution which took its model from thePrussia Constitution (current Germany), was established in 1889 to show the outsideworld that Japan was catching up with the West since it had its own constitution.Then they renegotiated a revision of the unilateral treaty with western countries andsucceeded in repealing the extraterritoriality of foreign forces in Japan in 1894 justbefore the Japan-China War. Still, however, Japan could not achieve the recovery ofthe right to determine the level of customs duties at that time (Gakken, 1999). Interms of the establishment of the constitution, it ironically also encouraged patriotismwithin Japan. This nationalistic fervor led to the foreign wars of 1894, with China andwith Russia in 1904. The victory in these two wars, especially the Japan-Russia Warwould be a significant influence upon revising the treaty (1911), whereby the right todetermine customs duties on imported goods was finally granted. It was believed thatthis was achieved due to Japans advances in technology and its ever-increasingstrengthening military presence in the region. After this revision of the treaty, Japanreceived equal trading rights almost 60 years after it had opened its country to theoutside world (Gakken, 1999).
Education from this point stressed a return to learning the value of Japanese and itslinguistic origin of Chinese, a movement which was energetically led by theEducation Minister, Inoue (Ministry of Education, 2002). This turn-around in thestatus of English was relatively quick, a result of both the practical consideration ofreturning Japanese lecturers from abroad wishing to teach Western knowledgethrough Japanese, and of the perhaps more politically-driven government initiative toregard the Japanese language as the language of instruction for nationalist purposes.This was a combination of educational pragmatism in terms of the transfer ofknowledge from the West and perhaps a more sinister political movement which laterultimately led to ultra-patriotism, in essence occidentalism (Buruma and Margalit,2004), an Eastern rejection of western values and knowledge. In brief, the new erawas one of greater closeness to the outside world, yet one in which the Japanese sense
267September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Table 2: The Second Stage of English Education History in the Meiji EraImura, 2003, p. 288, translated and adapted by Fujimoto-AdamsonA.D.1883
Returning to the events related to English education in Japan at the end of the MeijiEra, two enduring streams in foreign language education started around this time: onebeing the governments policy to import modern methodologies, and the other calledjuken-eigo which is English education to prepare for the entrance examinations ofuniversities and secondary schools. An example of the former was in thegovernments invitation to the scholar, Swan, from the UK in 1901 to spread theGouin Method, a forerunner to the Audio-Lingual Method. As an illustration of thepopularity of juken-eigo, there was a new body of literature focusing on theexamination practice, notably through the publication by Nanbi (1905) of How toanalyse English sentences specifically written for students taking entranceexaminations. Sakui (2004, pp. 155-163) notes how these two forms of curriculumstill exist today: one is the national curriculum made by the government and the other268September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Social, politicaland economicevents
First radiobroadcasting
Looking at the social, political and economic events in the Taisho Era, the FirstWorld War started in 1914 in Europe. Although it was war time in Europe, theJapanese government invited Palmer from the U.K. as consultant to the Ministry ofEducation. The following year, he established the English Teaching ResearchInstitute. According to Imura (2003), Palmer made great efforts to spread the OralMethod in Japan for more than ten years. In 1924 the first conference for EnglishLanguage Teaching was held but whilst there was an increasing awareness about themethodology of teaching English and linguistic analysis, there was, at the same time,a growing movement advocating the abolition of teaching English. Imura (2003)suggests that this anti-English feeling was closely linked with the new immigrant lawin the U.S. which forbade Japanese immigration. The law led to widespread politicaland social antipathy toward the U.S. and, in turn, to calls to abolish English languageeducation in Japan. The following year, in 1925, the first radio broadcasting started inJapan, a huge technological advancement which later was seen as helping educationdespite anti-English language sentiment.
The first stage was from 1926, starting with the Primary English Programme onradio just after the first radio broadcasting started in 1925. This appeared to be thepeak of the anti-English language period at that time. In 1927, Fujimura, a professor270September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
In terms of the wider political events of that time, there was the Manchurian Incidentwas occurred in the same year (1931), which was the start of aggression upon Chinaby the Japanese military (Gakken, 1999). The Japanese Prime Minister, TsuyoshiInukai tried to stop the expansion of the military action but he failed and wasassassinated in 1932. Afterwards the military took over the government and Inukaibecame the last democratically elected prime minister of the government before theSecond World War (Click 20 Seiki, 2005). Due to the Manchurian Incident, Japan271September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
withdrew from the League of Nations in 1933 (Buruma, 2004). Consequently, theJapan-China War broke out in 1937 and in 1940 Japan joined the Axis powers ofGermany and Italy.
In terms of English education around that time, in 1936 Palmer went back to theU.K. after working for 14 years in Japan (Imura, 2003) and two years later Fujimurapublished another article entitled Abolition of English lessons in Junior HighSchools. Eventually, in 1941 Japan attached Pearl Harbor and the Pacific Warstarted. The following year in 1942, all the U.K. and American lecturers in Japaneseuniversities were dismissed.
In brief, this first stage leading up to the Second World War showed the peak ofanti-English language education sentiment, resulting in dismissals of foreignacademics and the abolition of English language provision in Japanese education. Theeffective military take-over of government in the mid-1930s led to stricter rulesagainst anti-patriotic expression. Teachers were required to follow the morenationalistic government education policy and English was seen as a negative, foreigninfluence in society. Nationalistic sentiment was at a high and Japanese identity wasre-conceptualized as being unique in character and spirit. This is outlined by Yoshino(1992) as the origin of the nihonjinron theory of Japanese uniqueness, broadlysummarized by Buruma and Margalit (2004) as representing a Japanese form ofOccidentalism. This led to a rejection of previously imported western culture,knowledge and, significantly, English.
The second stage of the Showa Era began in 1945, the year marking the end of theSecond World War and the start of the U.S. occupation. General Douglas MacArthurarrived in Japan as the head of General Headquarters (GHQ) organized by the U.S.military. It was approximately one hundred years after Commodore Perry arrived inJapan with his black ships (Buruma, 2003). The political, economic and educationsystems had drastically changed after Commodore Perry came to Japan, as was seenin the Meiji Restoration, but this was internally directed by successive Japanese272September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Table 5. The Second Stage of English Education History in the Showa EraImura, 2003, pp. 289-290, translated and adapted by Fujimoto-AdamsonA.D.
20 U.S. occupation21 Start of Come Come English Programmeby Hirakawa on NHK radio22 Start of English Lessons again in JuniorHigh Schools (compulsory education)The tentative plan of The Course of Studyabout English lessons devised26
Social, politicaland economiceventsEnd of WWIIEnglish Boom
Peace TreatySecurityU.S. Fulbright English teachers arrived inTreatyJapanIndependenceEgawa, Interpretation of English Grammarfrom U.S.First TVbroadcastingFries arrived in Japan and established ELEC The EconomicMiracleBulletin of The Course of Study Importance of basic English abilityArgument for Practical English bybusiness leadersIntroduction of the first STEP test
GHQs missions were manifold, such as dismantling the Japanese military andreform of the political and education systems (Buruma, 2003). In addition, the U.S.occupation played a major role in influencing peoples interest in English educationcreating a period termed as the second English boom, almost 70 years after the firstone at the beginning of the Meiji Era. This was seen in various key events, amongwhich was Come Come English, a radio English conversation programme by273September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Hirakawa in 1946. This popular NHK broadcast encouraged many people to listen inand start to study English. Also, in the following year, English lessons started again injunior high schools and the tentative plan of The Course of Study, which was theNational Curriculum for all subjects including English, was devised under U.S.supervision.
In 1951, when a peace treaty was concluded between Japan and the Allied Powers,Japan concluded another treaty with the United States related to the mutualcooperation and security between the two countries (Buruma, 2003; Wikipedia, 2004).Although in 1952 Japan was granted independence from the U.S., because of thistreaty, the American military has had a presence in Japan for sixty years. Thissituation did, however, give Japan an opportunity to develop its own economy insteadof being burdened by the expenses of protecting itself militarily in the region. Thisled to the so-called Economic Miracle in which the Japanese economy grew rapidlyfrom 1955 for almost twenty years until the 1970s.
Then in 1956 there was a call by leading business leaders to improve the level ofPractical English among company recruits so that the Japanese workforce could bebetter equipped to conduct international business (Imura, 2003). Effectively, although274September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
some investigations were then conducted by the Ministry of Education into thelinguistic competence of graduating students, no great changes were made in theEnglish curriculum at schools and public universities. However, in the private sector,in 1963 the STEP Test, the Society for Testing English Proficiency, was introduced.This was the first nationwide English examination in Japan assessing the fourlanguage skills. This can be seen, in part, as being a reaction to the call for theintroduction of more practical English made by business leaders some yearspreviously. Of some significance is the fact that the STEP Test was introducedduring the Economic Miracle period (1955-1970s), showing the strong connectionbetween business leaders and English education.
Table 6: The Third Stage of English Education History in the Showa EraImura, 2003, p. 290, translated and adapted by Fujimoto-AdamsonA.D.
3940 Mori, English for Examination
Social,politicalandeconomiceventsTokyo OlympicsEnglish boom
2 million peoplewent abroad
The third stage of the Showa Era was marked by another English boom spearheadedby the Tokyo Olympics in 1964, though English education at schools was stillexamination-oriented, as can be exemplified by the publication by Mori (1965)275September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
entitled English for Examination. Looking back at the social events in the 1970s,almost two million Japanese went abroad, a factor which greatly influenced peoplesmotivation to learn foreign languages. In the mid-70s, there was a significant debateabout English education between two intellectuals, Hiraizumi and Watanabe.According to Imura (2003), in 1974, a politician of the ruling party, WataruHiraizumi, put forward a plan for future foreign language education in Japanproposing that English should only be taught to students who really needed it. Thiswas, in effect, a proposal to restructure English language education in schools so thatit became available only to an elite set of students. Hiraizumis rationale was thatmost people simply did not require English. This move to create an elite was madedespite the fact that more and more normal Japanese were now financially able totravel abroad. Imura (2003, p. 284) summarizes that this was a sort of argument toabolish English education, ignoring the vast majority of students in Japan. Incontrast, Shoichi Watanabe, an English linguist, was against Hiraizumis plan statingthat English education for examination is valuable to train Japanese studentsintelligence (Imura, 2003, p. 284). Although this counter-argument to Hiraizumi wasnecessary to avoid the creation of an English-speaking elite, the rationale supportingit still failed to consider the ever-growing practical needs of the population.
In 1980 the number of English lessons was suddenly reduced from 4 classes in aweek to 3 classes at junior high schools. This was part of a general policy to changethe whole nature of Japanese compulsory education from one which was purelyfocused on study to one which developed the student holistically. Despite these goodintentions, however, in response to the governments policy, a campaign by teachersagainst this reduction of English lessons occurred in 1981. Fundamentally, thisshowed the teachers strong support for English education in Japan. Also, in the mid276September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
1980s there was a growing awareness that research into classroom practice wasneeded and so the Eigojigyo kenkyukai (Association of Research for EnglishTeaching in the Classroom) was established. At the same time, the communicativeapproach towards English language teaching became increasingly popular, attractingmany teachers. Then, most significantly for Japanese Junior and Senior High Schools,in 1987 the JET (Japan Exchange and Teaching) Programme, a government initiativestarted. Monbukagakusho (the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology, 2002, pp. 6-7) states that this programme was introduced to improveforeign language education in Japan.
277September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
linguistic competence comes from the private sector through the STEP and TOEICtesting systems.
This current Heisei Era seems to have reached a new peak in English languageeducation in Japan. English at schools, colleges, universities and the growing privatelanguage school market is enormously popular and appears to be responding to thepractical needs of the business community, first voiced in the late 1950s. Theintroduction of the JET scheme in itself, despite problems, is an event unimaginablein previous eras since it brings native-speaking foreigners not only face-to-face withstudents, but also with teachers and administrators.
Heisei 1
ConclusionsReviewing what has been covered so far concerning globalization, the world historyof the Great Navigation period and the history of English language education in Japan,it is clear that there is a complex inter-play between the macro events occurring inthe world and the micro events within English education in Japan itself. The tables278September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
have been translated and adapted to illustrate this inter-connected nature of the macroand micro, yet are basically flawed, firstly, in the limited space available to representso many social, political and economic events and trends, and, secondly, in thesubjective nature of the choice of those events and trends. Despite this potentiallimitation, the tables have outlined the varying booms and backlashes over history,illustrating that the most recent boom is not unique. Neither are the backlashesfollowing boom periods.
Recapping the various historical boom periods in English language education, it canbe seen that there are two significant aspects: that of the import of foreignmethodologies (the Oral Approach) and teachers (famous scholars acting asconsultants such as Palmer and classroom teachers in the JET scheme); and also, ofthe popularity of examinations (both for entrance to university and to measurelinguistic competence as in the STEP and TOEIC tests).
The backlashes in the Meiji and pre-war eras seem to have been motivated by twocriteria: firstly, the political movement towards nationalism, encapsulated by theoccidentalist nihonjinron theory of Japanese uniqueness, in which English was seenas a representation of foreignness and a potential negative influence on the purity ofJapanese society. The second criteria, the reduced status of English in the curriculum,was seen in both the Meiji Era when Japanese returned to teach in universities usingJapanese as the language of instruction, and later in the 1980s when English wasregarded by some as just another subject burdening the more holistic development ofthe student.
a means to catch up with the rest of the world and lead it in technological areas. Insummary, there have been times in which English has been seen as representative of athreatening form of globalization, as in the militaristic thinking of the 1930s, and ofbeneficial globalization, as in the Meiji Era, Showa Era and the current Heisei Era. Inbrief, English is, and has been, seen as the face of the outside world.
ReferencesBlock, D. (2004). Globalization and language teaching. ELT Journal, 58(1), 75 77.Brutt-Giffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development, Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.Buruma, I. (2003). Inventing Japan 1853-1964. New York: Modern Library.Buruma, I. and Margalit, A. (2004.) Occidentalism: A short history of antiwesternism. London: Atlantic Books.Click 20 Seiki. (2005). Tsuyoshi InukaiRetrieved 4th February, 2006,http://www.c20.jp/p/ituyosi.html515 5.15 Incident Assassination of Prim MinisterInukai Retrieved 4th February, 2006, http://www.c20.jp/1932/05515ji.htmlIchikawa, E. (1997). (Samurais crossed over the ocean). Tokyo:Yomiuri Shinbun.Imura, M. (2003). 200 (English education in Japan for the past200 years). Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.Gakken. (1999). (Unilateral Treaty) Retrieved February 1, 2006 fromhttp://db.gakken.co.jp/jiten/ha/515670.htm (Enriching the Nation and Building up the DefensesRetrieved February1, 2006 from http://db.gakken.co.jp/jiten/ha/513680.htm
280September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Japanese who can use English ). Retrieved July 26, 2006 fromhttp://www.mextgo.jp/b_menu/boubou/15/03/03033101.htmNakano, M. (2003). A dawn in modern Japanese history, Japans relationship with theU.S., 150th Anniversary Between the U.S. and Japan Part 1 Effort of CommodorePerry, Retrieved July 26, 2006 fromhttp://www.japan-society.org/commodoreperry.htmlPark, Y., H. (2004). Review of World English (2002) by J. Brutt-Griffler, ELTJournal, 58(1), 87-89.Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language.Harlow: Longman.Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Urabe, T. et al (1995). Recitation of researching world history,Tokyo: Tosho Insatsu.Wikipedia. (2004).
281September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Security between Japan and the United States). Retrieved February 6, 2006 fromhttp://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E7%B1%B3%E5%AE%89%E5%85%A8%E4%BF%9D%E9%9A%9C%E6%9D%A1%E7%B4%84Yoshino, K. (1992). Cultural nationalism in contemporary Japan. London, NewYork: Routledge.
282September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Todd VercoeInje University, Gimhae, Republic of KoreaBio Data:Todd Vercoe has been standing in front of classrooms for over two decades. Hepreviously taught games and game design for the Toronto Board of Education beforecoming to Korea over ten years ago. He currently lectures at Inje University andserves as the president of the Busan/Geyongnam Chapter of KOTESOL. He is aMasters candidate at Teachers College, Columbia University.
AbstractRecent developments in cognitive psychology have suggested definite differences inthe way Westerners and North-East Asians perceive and think about the world. Thisinformation suggests major reasons for L1 interference in L2 learning and alsodictates how some teaching methodology may, in fact, hamper the way a studentlearns English. This paper will examine some of the findings of Nisbett (2003) andothers in a way that can be applied to the EFL classroom demonstrating ways to usethis difference in thinking to enhance student understanding of English and eliminatecommon errors.
1. IntroductionHow a student views the world could influence the perceptions and learning strategiesthat a student adopts in the classroom and in their personal studies.
Though much has been made over the years to discuss, debate, refute and supportthe Whorf-Sapir hypothesis of the intertwined nature of language and culture with283September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
proponents and detractors on both sides of the argument (Kramsch, 1998; Hall, 1990;Nisbett, 2003; Sapir, 1929), recent developments in cognitive psychology have shownthat there are at least some very dramatic differences between the way Westernersand Easterners conceive of the world we live in and approach that world.
It is not the intention of this paper to re-argue the question: Does language influenceculture or does culture influence language? The author is content to assume that theyare somehow related and to approach cultural/linguistic differences with the intensionof exposing possible pedagogical errors in current teaching methodology in theteaching of English to Asian students.
There are detractors (Dash, 2003; Guest, 2000) to teaching with culture, of course:Reducing culture to a few generalized propositionally-stated pegs, whileignoring features of genre, parallels an outdated teaching methodology.Thus, it would seem that a cultural anthropology-based contrastiveapproach may be unsuited to the EFL/ESL classroom. (Guest, 2000)However, this researcher believes that the recent cognitive psychological findingsbear scrutiny as applied to second language acquisition. Drawing upon both existingresearch and practical classroom experience I hope to suggest some enhancementsthat can be made in current pedagogy and suggest other areas for future classroombased research.
vroom to you. Now, give it to me. Thank you. An American parent would be moreinclined to talk with object words Heres the car. It has nice wheels (Nisbett, 2003).Relationships become very fundamental in Asian thinking and influence a great dealof the way their world is created, where European/Americans tend to be prepared fora world of objects.Most Americans over a certain age well remember their primer, calledDick and Jane. Dick and Jane and their dog, Spot, were quite the activeindividualists. The first page of an early edition from the 1930s (the primerwas widely used until the 1960s) depicts a little boy running across a lawn.The first sentences are See Dick run. See Dick play. See Dick run andplay. This would seem the most natural sort of basic information to conveyabout kids--- to the Western mentality. But the first page of the Chineseprimer of the same era shows a little boy sitting on the shoulders of a biggerboy. Big brother takes care of little brother. Big brother loves little brother.Little brother loves big brother. It is not individual action but relationshipsbetween people that seem important to convey in a childs first encounterwith the printed word. (Nisbett, 2003)In tests (Ji et al, 2004; Nisbett, 2003) both Western and Eastern subjects wereshown pictures of a chicken and grass and were asked to group them with a cow.Most westerners have tended to group the chicken and the cow, and justifying theiranswers by thinking taxonomically, (both are animals); yet most Eastern subjectswould group the cow and grass, thinking via relationships (cows eat grass).
should come as no surprise that days after instruction students sort-of know that redis a colour and green is a colour but which colour is red and which is green ishard to remember. By the instruction of one colour and another noun with arelationship Green frogs live in a river, there is a far greater chance that studentswill retain the vocabulary (Nation, 2000) both of the target colour as well as thenouns frog and river, as opposed to collectively grouping Animals and Bodies ofwater or Places to live in another lesson.
Grouping things in a textbook or lesson is perhaps still useful in form of review andthis is not to suggest that Eastern learners cant be instructed taxonomically however;There is direct evidence that Eastern children learn how tocategorize objects at a later point than Western children.Developmental psycholinguists Alison Gopnik and Soonja Choistudied Korean-, French-, and English-speaking children beginningwhen they were one and a half years old. They found that objectnaming and categorization skills develop later in Korean speakersthan in English and French speakers. (Nisbett, 2003, p 152).It would seem clear that using a relationship-based instruction model would havefar greater success in the teaching of English to Asian students. That North EastAsian languages tend to be driven by verbs can be demonstrated in Koreans ending adinner out with friends with the single word Go. To the more noun consciousWesterner, the phrase Home, boys. would be equally comfortable.A difference in language practice that startles both Chinese speakers andEnglish speakers when they hear how the other group handles itconcerns the proper way to ask someone whether they would like moretea to drink. In Chinese (as well as Korean and Japanese) one asksDrink more? In English, one asks More tea? To Chinese speakers,its perfectly obvious that its tea that one is talking about drinking moreof, so to mention tea would be redundant. To English speakers, itsperfectly obvious that one is talking about drinking the tea, as opposedto any other activity that might be carried out with it, so it would berather bizarre for the question to refer to drinking. (Nisbett, 2003, p158italic addition, mine)This verb dominated linguistic structure can lead to L2 errors in Asian students(Moon & Vercoe, 2003). Although errors of accuracy not fluency (and ESL/EFL286September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
teachers would be well advised to allow the errors during fluency exercises)considerable student confusion can be cleared up by pointing out this differentthought process. Because the verb precedes the object in English but follows it inKorean, errors involving incorrect verb-object order arise in the production of theEnglish learner, e.g., *Cigarette give me and *(You) pizza like? (Shaffer, 2002).
Most research indicates that toddlers can learn nouns at the rate of up to two per day,much faster than they learn verbs. However, developmental psycholinguist TwilaTardif and others have discovered that East Asian children learn verbs at about thesame rate as nouns and, by some definitions of what counts as a noun, at asignificantly faster rate than nouns (Nisbett, 2003). It would be logical to assumethat viewing the world via relationships would present an advantage in the acquisitionof verbs in an L2, but more research needs to be done to confirm this.
287September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
In a perhaps more telling example of the processes in the Asian compared to theWestern mind, subjects were presented with an underwater scene involving fish, plantlife rocks etc. and were asked to describe what they see. Most Western subject would288September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
begin their description by identifying a large individual fish and orienting theirdescription around the fish (viewing the world from an individual perspective) whereas most Asian subjects would begin their descriptions by declaring its a river (orpond etc.). They view the collective whole as a starting point. (Nisbett, 2003).That Asians have a more holistic view of events, taking into perspective theorientation of other people, is also indicated by a study by social psychologistsDov Cohen and Alex Gunz. They asked North American students (mostlyCanadian) and Asian students (a potpourri of students from Hong Kong, China,Taiwan, Korea, and various South and Southeast Asian countries) to recallspecific instances of ten different situations in which they were the center ofattention: for example, being embarrassed. North Americans were more likelythan Asians to reproduce the scene from their original point of view, lookingoutward. Asians were more likely to imagine the scene as an observer might,describing it from a third-person perspective. (Nisbett, 2003, p.88)This collective vs. individual model of cognitive processes can be seen to influenceerror production in Asian students of English (Moon & Vercoe, 2003). Shaffer (2002)has identified specific areas of languacultral influences on error production in Koreanstudents of English which he describes as the Macro-to-micro Principle and the Mostto-least Principle (Shaffer, 2002). Though these two different principles may beseparate, it is the opinion of this researcher that both error productions stem from thecollective vs. individual cognitive perspective. These errors can be demonstrated:
Names:Kim (surname) Sung-Chul (given name)(collective) (individual)vs.Todd (given) Vercoe (surname)(individual) (collective)Error: It is nice to meet you, Mr. Todd.
Addresses:Gyeongnam (province) Gimhae (city) Obang Dong (ward) Siyoung Apartments(Building) Apt. #343 (apartment number)289September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
(individual)vs.Apt. 343, Siyoung Apartments, Obang Dong, Gimhae, Gyeongnam(individual) (collective)Error: I come from Gimhae in Obang Dong.
Dates:2005 Nyeon (year) 10 Weol (month) 15 il (day)(collective) (individual)vs.15th of October, 2005(individual) (collective)Error: I was born in 1975, February.
Sales:seil (sale) 80-50% halin (off)(collective) (individual)vs.50% to 80% off(individual) (collective)Error: It is an 80 to 50% discount sale.
Time:O-Jeon (a.m.) 10 shi (hour)(collective) (individual)
vs.10 oclock a.m.
10 oclock p.m.
(individual) (collective)
290September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Salutations:Sinsa suknyeo yeoreobun (Gentlemen, ladies, everyone)Error: Gentlemen and ladies
ReferencesBoroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and Englishspeakers conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43, 1-22Dash, P. (2003, June). Culture rejected as an individual difference in the SLAprocess: Not significant separate and appropriate, overall-nor for Northeast Asia.Asian EFL Journal 5(2) Retrieved March 1, 2005 from http://www.asian-efljournal.com/june2003subpd.phpDuncan, B. (2003). Reader-and writer-responsible and the in-between: A crosscultural comparison of East Asian and English writing. In D. Shaffer, D. Berry andDavid D.I. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings from the 11th Annual KOTESOL InternationalConference (pp. 157-167) Seoul: Korea TESOLFernald, A., & Morikawa, H. (1993). Common themes and cultural variations inJapanese and American mothers speech to infants. Child Development, 64, 637656Guest, M. (2002). A critical checkbook for culture teaching and learning. ELTJournal. 56(2) 154-161Hall E. T. (1990). The silent language. New York: Anchor Books.Hansen-Strain, L. (1993). Educational implications of group differences in cognitivestyle: Evidence from Pacific cultures. Pacific Studies, 16(1) 85-97Ji, L.J., Zhang, Z., & Nisbett R. (2004). Is it culture or is it language? Examination oflanguage effects in cross-cultural research on categorization. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 87(1), 57-65Kramsch C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Moon, S.W., & and Vercoe, T. (2003). I was boring so I played with myself: Firstlanguage interference in Korean students of English. Paper presentation 9th JeollaKOTESOL Regional Conference, Chosun University, April 19, Gwangju, Republicof Korea292September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
293September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Book ReviewTop Notch 1: English for Todays World,Joan Saslow and Allen AscherPearson Education, Inc., 2006, Pp.x +128Reviewed by Kevin Landry, Hong Ik University, KoreaTop Notch 1 is the second book of Pearson-Longmans six-level ELT course. Thisbook, like the other books in the series, aims to provide opportunities for adultlearners to learn natural language by offering teachers a well organized and fullysupported, integrated skills text they can use to draw students into situations wherethey can interact with language in real world ways.
The books ten units are titled Getting Acquainted; Going Out; Talking aboutFamilies; Coping with Technology; Eating In, Eating Out; Staying in Shape; FindingSomething to Wear; Getting Away; Taking Transportation; and Shopping Smart.Each of the ten units offers integrated activities that are related to the overall theme ofthe unit. Unit 1, Getting Acquainted, for example, uses realistic and colorful photosthat depict friendly people from different parts of the world in interpersonal settingsto prompt students to exchange personal information and introduce someone else. Thestudents are then lead through listening, multiple choice, conversation, grammar, pairwork, pronunciation, vocabulary, reading, writing, and finally checkpoint activities togauge their progress. Other units offer similar organization patterns on differenttopics: Unit 2 uses entertainment events as prompts for students to make invitations,talk about likes and dislikes, and give directions; Unit 3 has students exploresimilarities and differences by describing a family member and comparing theirfamily to a celebritys; Unit 4s goals include suggesting a brand, expressingfrustration, describing features, and complaining; Unit 5 is organized aroundrestaurants, menus and ordering; unit 6 has students discuss daily exercise and diet;Unit 7 focuses on shopping for clothes; Unit 8 examines types of vacations and travel294September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
In addition to the books well organized units, the book also offers a comprehensivereference section at the back which includes an alphabetic word list, a social languagelist, and a host of other relevant items.
One of the features teachers and students may find welcoming is the balanced waythe book addresses grammar. In unit 1, for example, the Topic Preview encouragesstudents to try out language they already know to motivate them to learn even if theyhave trouble expressing themselves before thinking about grammar. Grammar is thenaddressed two pages later. This gives students who do not need assistance theopportunity to move quickly through the grammar section and on to ones where theycan expand on their opinions and contribute more deeply to class discussions whileoffering an additional explanation that can be comforting for students who needadditional reassurance.
One possible drawback of the text is its conversation models. The models mayappear simple and less than dynamic at first, but they can indeed help to warm up thegroup and get them ready to talk about their own experiences, engage in role plays,and answer questions. Another possible concern is that the books organization mayappear light, but teachers will find this uncluttered layout welcoming as they explorethe full range of accompanying materials: a workbook, a teachers edition whichincludes expansion activities, audio and video programs, placement and assessmentpackages, and a companion website (www.longman.com/topnotch).
Overall, ELT teachers who work with adult learners will find Top Notch 1, as wellas the series it is a part of, to be an organized and well supported language learningpackage to help their students with their language needs. I would certainlyrecommend this book to ELT teachers who wish to ease learners into confidentlydeveloping international communication competence.295September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
PublisherDr. Paul Robertson
Conference ChairDr. Joseph JungDongseo UniversityBusan, Korea
Associate EditorsProfessor Dr. Z.N. PatilCentral Institute of English and ForeignLanguagesHyderabad, India
Dr. Phan Le HaMonash UniversityMelbourne, Australia
Darren LingleyKochi University,Japan
296September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
Editorial GroupDr. Mingsheng LiDepartment of Communication andJournalismMassey UniversityWellington, N.Z.
Naoki Fujimoto-Adamson
Mr Huw Jarvis
Salford UniversityUnited Kingdom
Ahmet Acar
Erciyes UniversityFaculty of EducationKayseri/Turkey
Dr. Xiuping Li
Education DepartmentUniversity of Bath
Sunderland UniversityUK
Toshinobu Nagamine
University of GuamGuam
Eva BernatDivision of Linguistics & Psychology,Macquarie University,Australia
Dr Aysha ViswamohanDept of Humanities &Social SciencesIndian Institute of TechnologyMadras
Alka Singhal
M.S. UniversityBaroda, India
University of MelbourneAustralia
Chieko AoyamaThe University of the Thai Chamber ofShinshu Honan College, JapanCommerceThailandDr. Michael Thomas
Associate ProfessorNagoya University of Commerce andBusiness, Japan
Nanyang TechnologicalUniversity,Singapore
Department of English,Nizwa College of EducationOman
Hongik UniversityKorea
297September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context
University of AucklandNew Zealand
University of MarylandU.S.A.
Birmingham UniversityBirmingham, UK
Marc Helgesen
Gyeongju UniversityKorea
298September 2006 Conference Proceedings: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context