Task-Based ESP Instruction and Its Effect on Student Outcomes: A Sociocultural Perspective

1. Task-Based ESP Instruction and Its Effect on Student Outcomes: A Sociocultural Perspective Sep. 15, 2009 at Lancaster University Yoshiko KOZAWA, MEd Aichi Kiwami College of Nursing yo.kozawa.t@aichi-kiwami.ac.jp Kazuyoshi SATO, Ph.D Nagoya University of Foreign Studies yoshi@nufs.ac.jp

2. Introduction “[T]here is less evidence to support task-based instruction, although there are strong theoretical grounds for its advocacy” (Ellis, 2005, p. 725). Moreover, little is known about how learners interact with other classmates through “collaborative dialogue” (see Swain, 2000) and construct their learning socially in a task-based ESP class.

3. Introduction This study reports the result of a yearlong classroom research project which studied how Japanese nursing college students learned ESP through repeated task-based instruction (TBI) and how TBI influenced student learning outcomes. In essence, the study reveals the relationship between TBI and language learning from a sociocultural perspective.

4. Definitions of Task “[T]asks are always activities where the target language is used by the learner for a communication purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome” (Willis, 1996, p. 23). “A task is a language-teaching activity where meaning is primary, there is some kind of gap, students are required to use their own linguistic resources, and there is an outcome other than the display of language for its own sake” (Ellis, 2008, p. 981).

5. Theoretical Background • Cognitive view on SLA SLA is a cognitive and individual phenomenon (see Firth & Wagner, 1997; Swain & Deters, 2007).“According to Long (1985, 1996) comprehensible input gained through interactional adjustments such as negotiating meaning and modifying output is central to second language acquisition” (Foster & Ohta, 2005, p. 402).

6. Theoretical Background 2. Sociocultural view on SLA Learning a language is a social phenomenon (Lantolf, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Ohta,2000, 2001; Swain, 2000, Swain & Deters, 2007; Vygotsky, 1978; Wells, 1999; Wenger, 1998). “[L]anguage acquisition is realized through a collaborative process whereby learners appropriate the language of the interaction as their own, for their own purposes, building grammatical, expressive, and cultural competence through this process” (Ohta, 2000, p. 51).

7. Theoretical Background 2-1. Collaborative dialogue “Collaborative dialogue is dialogue in which speakers are engaged in problem solving and knowledge building” (Swain, 2000, p. 102). Swain & Lapkin (1998) described how two Grade 8 French immersion students performed a jigsaw task through collaborative dialogue. They solved linguistic problems collaboratively and improved their learning as measured in post-tests.

8. Theoretical Background 2-1. Collaborative dialogue Storch (2002) analyzed the patterns of dyadic interactions as ESL students engaged in various tasks. Storch found that the collaborative dyad indicated more instances of language development than both the dominant/passive and the dominant/dominant dyads.

9. Research Issues • “Virtually no research has demonstrated that the greater comprehensibility achieved through negotiation leads to second language learning” (Swain, 2000, p. 98). Foster & Ohta (2005) compared the frequency of negotiation for meaning (quantitative data, cognitive view) and peer assistance evidence (qualitative data, sociocultural view). “Interactional processes including negotiation for meaning and various kinds of peer assistance and repair are among the many ways learners gain access to the language being learned” (p. 426)

10. Research Issues 2. Most studies are experimental and relied on quantitative data or CA. Few studies were conduced in the classrooms by employing classroom observations or interviews (qualitative data). 3. Little longitudinal research was conducted except for Ohta (2001) and Sato & Takahashi (2008).

11. Research Issues Sato & Takahashi (2008) conducted a three-year long study in a high school using repeated task-based instruction. Students were engaged in tasks collaboratively and improved both fluency and accuracy. Moreover, no longitudinal studies were reported at a college level in Japan.

12. Research Questions 1 How did students perceive and engage in TBLT? 2 How did TBLT influence students’ speaking skills? 3 How did TBLT influence students’ English proficiency? Subjects • first-year nursing students • six years or more English learning background • English Ⅱ(compulsory course): first semester, 81 out of 85 students gave permission to use the data • English Ⅲ(elective course) : second semester, 28 out of 36 students cooperated in the research

13. TBLT Framework Pre-task (1): • Model dialogues • Specific vocabulary for the topic • Communication strategies (conversation strategies) ・ “Communication strategies are employed when learners are faced with the task of communicating meanings for which they lack the requisite linguistic knowledge” (Ellis, 2008, p. 957) ・ “Strategic skills help the speaker/ listener keep a conversation going to its natural or desired conclusion” (Kehe & Kehe, 2004, p. v) ・ “Explicit CS teaching is effective to raise the learner’s awareness. Students need to be encouraged to use CSs” (Sato, 2005, p. 5).

14. TBLT Framework Pre-task (2): Communication strategies taught in the courses: • Beginning questions e.g. [Million dollars] What would you do if you had million dollars? [Hand-washing] How is your hand-washing in your daily life different from the nurses’ style? What did you notice when you performed washing in the nursing class?

15. TBLT Framework Task cycle: • Collaborative dialogues • Audio-recording Language focus: • Transcription • Self-evaluation

16. Data Collection Quantitative data • General English proficiency tests: April, September, and December by means of CASEC (Computerized Assessment System for English Communication) by JIEM (the Japan Institute for Educational Measurement), Inc. • Recorded conversations: 8 times during the courses • Speaking tests: July and December • Student surveys: July and December Qualitative data • Conversation analysis of focused students • Self-evaluation: 8 times during the courses • Final report

17. Quantitative data: Criteria forRecorded Conversations

18. Quantitative data: Criteria for Speaking Tests

19. Quantitative Results: General English proficiency testsRatios of each proficiency in the whole Section 1: Knowledge of vocabulary (n=24) Section 2: Knowledge of phrasal expression and usage (n=24) % % Section 3: Listening ability—understanding of main idea (n=24) Section 4: Listening ability--understanding of specific information (n=24) % %

20. Quantitative Results: Speaking Tests Quantitative Results: Recorded conversations n=26 points English II (1st semester) English III (2nd semester) points n=32

21. Quantitative Results: Questionnaires—increased

22. Quantitative Results: Questionnaires—decreased

23. Quantitative Results: Survey after the courses I can write…

24. Quantitative Results: Survey after the courses I can speak

25. Qualitative Results:Focused students—negotiation for meaning • Comprehension checks: • Any expression by an NS (native speaker) designed to establish whether that speaker’s preceding utterance(s) had been understood by the interlocutor. • Confirmation checks: • Any expression by the NS immediately following an utterance by the interlocutor which was designed to elicit confirmation that the utterance had been correctly understood or correctly heard by the speaker. • Clarification requests: • Any expression by an NS designed to elicit clarification of the interlocutor’s preceding utterance(s). • Long, 1980, 81-83. cited by Foster & Ohta (2005, p. 410).

26. Qualitative Results:Focused students—peer assistance • Assistance (co-construction & other correction): • Co-construction: The joint creation of an utterance, whether one person completes what another has begun, or whether various people chime in to create an utterance. • Other correction: a peer correcting his or her partner. • Self-correction: • Self-initiated, self-repair, and occurs when learner corrects his or her own utterance without being prompted to do so by another person. • Continuer : • They function to express an interlocutor’s interest in what the speaker is saying and to encourage the speaker to go on. • (Foster & Ohta, 2005, pp. 420-421)

27. TBLT 2009 Lancaster Results: Arisa’s case in December Example from the conversation between Arisa and Haruno (Students’ names are pseudonyms.) A: How about you? ← continuer H: I was very careful about too tight or too loose… when I take blood pressure. A: I know. ← continuer H: Next question OK? A: Sure. ← continuer H: What mistakes can give inaccurate readings? A: I think stethoscope is wrong… H: Put on stethoscope… ← assistance A: (Nodding). H: OK. I understand. ← continuer

28. TBLT 2009 Lancaster Results: Emika’s case in December Example from the conversation between Emika and Kanta (Students’ names are pseudonyms.) K: What mistakes can give inaccurate readings? E: OK. ← continuerMiss position ste… stetho…scope stethoscope. ← self-correction So the sound of stethoscope no… no… heard. No heard. K: No.← continuer E: Miss position, no heard. ←comprehension check K: No… ← continuer E: No.← continuer K: Dokkun, dokkun, (Japanese onomatopoeia for throbbing) no, no, no, no. ← continuer

29. Results: Conversation analysis of focused students Students’ names are pseudonyms.

30. Results: Conversation analysis of focused students

31. Results: Conversation analysis of focused students

32. TBLT 2009 Lancaster Results: Arisa’s final report (December) • Eventually, I was able to write without looking at the handouts. • I could understand how to use communication strategies more • and more. • I was worried that I might be a problem for my partner. I was • so stressed and I did not know what to do. • I hated being recorded on video. • I asked my partner when I could not understand. • Arisa is a very shy and quiet girl. She did not try to speak English at all when the English II course started. She began by asking the prepared questions and answered only with basic communication strategies. Her development was the lowest in the class, however, she could eventually speak for 5 minutes by the end of English III. She had benefitted from the experience of speaking English. By focusing on her, we notice what the average figures did not tell. Such slow learners could also develop with the help of communication strategies.

33. TBLT 2009 Lancaster Results: Emika’s final report • I felt I was making progress when I could write without referring to notes. • I only thought of answering the questions the first or second time. But I got used to speaking and asking additional questions, by using more communication strategies. • Thinking about the answers to the questions of each topic, we can get a deeper understanding of our nursing study. Emika, a very cheerful girl, always tried to make herself understood in English. Even if she was paired with quiet students, she asked about various things that would prompt responses from them.

34. Findings 1. How did students perceive and engage in TBLT? ・Students reported that both quality and quantity of conversations were improved by collaborative dialogue. ・Students felt that they could speak and write more after repeated task engagement. ・Some students did not enjoy the topics related to ESP. 2. How did TBLT influence students’ speaking skills? ・Two speaking tests showed that students’ speaking skills were developed after repeated task engagement. 3. How did TBLT influence students’ English proficiency ・Learners’ general English proficiency has not shown significant improvement.

35. Implications • Students improved their speaking skills through collaborative dialogue. 2. Teaching communication strategies helped students to demonstrate increased independence (self-regulation), though they varied in their strategy use. 　 In particular, students developed their abilities to use communication strategies (from peer assistance to negotiation for meaning) as they moved from peripheral participants to full participants in tasks.

36. Implications 3. Both quantitative (from a cognitive view) and qualitative data (from a sociocultural view) were useful to better understand language learning processes (see Ellis, 2008; Foster &Ohta, 2005; Ohta, 2001). 4. When and how to incorporate topics related to ESP and how to further promote language development is a future issue. 5. A few classes a week may not be enough to develop students’ overall English proficiency in one year.

37. References (1) Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed language learning and task-based teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 713-728). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Firth, A. & J. Wagner. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 91-94. Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402-430. JIEM, Inc. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://casec.evidus.com/english/index.html Kehe, D., & Kehe, P. D. (2004). Conversation strategies. Vermont, USA: Pro Lingua Associates.

38. References (2) Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory & Second Language Learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. UCLA. Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL. Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam& M. Piernemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-100). Clevedon. Multilingual matters. Long, M. H. (1996). The role in the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie, and T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on Language Acquisition: Second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

39. References (3) Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sato, K. & Takahashi, K. (2008). Curriculum revitalization in a Japanese high school: Teacher-teacher and teacher-university collaboration. D. Hayes & J. Sharkey (Eds.), Revitalizing a Curriculum for School-Age Learners (pp. 205-237). Alexandria, VA: TESOL, Inc. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work. Language Learning. 52-1, 119-158. Swain, M. (2000). The output and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

40. References (4) Swain, M. & Deters, P. (2007). New mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched. Modern Language Journal, 91, 820-836. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. MA: Harvard University Press. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogical Enquiry: Toward a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-basedlearning. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited. Thank you