1 / 30

I. Purpose of This Study

An Alternative Framework for Task-based Instruction: Core/Peripheral Task Mariko Boku Kinki University, Japan International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching At Kathrieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium 22 nd September, 2005. I. Purpose of This Study.

chione
Download Presentation

I. Purpose of This Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. An Alternative Framework for Task-based Instruction: Core/Peripheral TaskMariko BokuKinki University, JapanInternational Conference on Task-based Language TeachingAt Kathrieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium22nd September, 2005

  2. I. Purpose of This Study * Raise a question of usefulness concerning current task framework. * An alternative framework of task-based instruction will be proposed with examples. 1. Applicable to ESL Applicable to ESL/EFL 2. Task-in-process  task-as-workplan

  3. Outline of the Presentation I. Purpose of this study II. Definition of Task III. Previous Studies IV. Problems of Three-phased Task V. Theoretical Background VI. A Proposal of Core/peripheral Task VII. Examples (1. knowledge-construction task 2. language- activating/fluency-stretching tasks) VIII. Conclusion

  4. II. Definition of the Task * Long (1985) * Prabhu (1987) * Nunan (1989) * Willis (1996) * Bygate, Skehan & Swain (2001) * Skehan (1998)

  5. III. Previous Studies * Ellis (2003) 1. strategic (off-line) planning 2. on-line planning * Willis (1996, 2004) 1. Task cycle (i.e., during-task) 2. Language focus (i.e., post-task)

  6. III. Previous Studies (cont.1) * Pre-task focus on form increases learner dependency on teacher Willis (2003) * dubious acquisition under the excessive focus on form Skehan (1998 )

  7. III. Previous Studies (cont.2) Task-in-process Task-as-workplan Seedhouse (2005)

  8. Figure 1 General task phase PRE DURING POST planning (strategic) (planning: on-line) learner report framing the activity time pressure repeat the task Consciousness-raising Willis’s task phase (adapted from Willis, 1996) PRE TASK CYCLE LANGUAGE FOCUS introduction to topic task + planning+ report analysis + practice & task

  9. IV. Problems of Three-phased Task A. Universal problems 1. Deficiency of authentic environment 2. Superfluity: teachers’ roles not clear 3. Whose task? 4. Learner type

  10. IV. Problems of Three-phased Task (cont.1) B. Culture specific problems (EFL) 1. learners’ interdependence 2. educational background 3. teachers’ predisposition

  11. V. Theoretical Background A. Cognitive perspective Level of processing theory (Craik & Lockhart, 1972)

  12. V. Theoretical Background (cont.1) B. Socio-psychological perspective 1. Zone of proximal development (Vigotsky, 1978) 2. Three levels of analysis: individual, inter-individual and group levels (Semin, 2003) 3. Social identity theory (Hogg and Abrams, 1988)

  13. VI. Core/Peripheral Task A. Structure: Two-phased task 1. Core task: learner-centered 2. Peripheral task: teacher-fronted

  14. Figure 2 Core task Peripheral task learner-centered teacher-fronted

  15. VI. Core/Peripheral Task (cont. 1) B. Function Core task: *no strategic planning *communication strategies *report to the audience *constant change of partners and group members *core task repetition in the following class

  16. IV. Core/peripheral Task (cont.2) B. Function Peripheral task 1. teacher’s debriefing 2. learners’ retrospective narrative 3. peripheral task = planning for upcoming repeated core task

  17. IV. Core/peripheral Task (cont. 3) C. Advantages 1. compatibility of learner, teacher, and researcher 2. flexible class length/materials 3. authenticity-oriented 4. applicability to any learners 5. device to stop fossilization

  18. Figure 3 C1 P 1 C1 C2 P2 C2 C3 P3 C3 C4 P4

  19. Figure 4

  20. VII. Examples A. Knowledge-construction task (Samuda, 2001) *Example Story-telling activity (Boku, 1998)

  21. VII. Examples (cont.1) B. Language-activating/ fluency-stretching tasks (Samuda, 2001) *Example Dice talk

  22. VIII. Conclusion Core/peripheral task can resolve the issues of 1. superfluous process 2. learner interdependence 3. role of the teacher 4. balance of focus on meaning and form 5. applicability for EFL situation

  23. VIII. Conclusion (cont.1) 1. Emphasis on learner-centeredness in terms of 1. the framework 2. objectives 3. what and how to focus in an authentic environment 2. Possible research data collection (e.g., independent evaluation test etc.)

  24. REFERENCES Abrams, D. & Hogg, M.A. (1999). Social Identity and Social Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Boku, M. (1998). ‘Student-centered pronunciation practice: More than “Right” or “Light”.’ The Language Teacher, Vol. 22, No. 10:54-6. Brewer, M. B. & Hewstone, M. (2004). Social Cognition (eds.). Malden: Blackwell Bygate, M. & Samuda, V. (2005). ‘Integrative planning through the use of task repetition.’ In Ellis, R. 37-76. Bygate, M. & Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (2001). Researching Pedagogic Tasks Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. (eds.) Harlow: Pearson Education Bygate,M. Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (2001), ‘Introduction’. In Bygate, M. Skehan, P. & Swain,M. 1-19. Carter, R. & Nunan, D. (2001). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: OUP. Craik, F. I. M. (1973). ‘A “levels of analysis” view of memory.’ In Pliner, P., Krames, L. & Alloway, T.M. (Eds.). Craik, F. I. M. & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). ‘Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.’Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-84. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: OUP. Ellis, R. (2005). ‘Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research’. In Ellis, R. 3-36. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ellis, R. & Yuan, F. (2005). ‘The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance.’ In Ellis, R. (2005): 167-192.

  25. REFERENCES (cont.1) Eysenck, M.W. (2000). Psychology. New York: Psychology Press. Gass, S., & Madden, C. (1985). Input and Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Leaver, B. L. & Willis, J.R. (2004). Task-based instruction in Foreign Language Education: Practices and Programs. Washington: Greorgetown University Press. Littlewood, W. (2004). ‘The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestion.’ELT Journal 58/4:319-326. Long, M. (1985). ‘Input and second language acquisition theory.’ In Gass, S. & Madden, G. (Eds.) Norris, J. M., Brown, J.D., Hudson, T., & Yoshioka, J. (1998). Designing Second Language Performance Assignments. Second language Teaching & Curriculum Center. University of Hawaii at Manoa. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: CUP. Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: OUP. Robinson, P. (2001). Cognition and Second Language Instruction. (Eds.). Cambridge: CUP. Saito, H. & Ebsworth, M.E. (2004). ‘Seeing English language teaching and learning through the eyes of Japanese EFL and ESL students.’Foreign Language Annals. Vol. 37. No.1: 111-124. Samuda, V. (2001). ‘Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher.’ In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. $ Swain, M. 119-140.

  26. REFERENCES (cont.2) Seedhouse, P. (1999). ‘Task-based interaction.’ELT Journal. 53/3:149-156. Seedhouse. P. (2005). ‘“Task” as research construct.’Language Learning. Vol. 55. No.3:553-570. Semin, G. R. (2004). ‘Language and social cognition.’ In Brewer, M. B. & Hewstone, M. (Eds.): 221-243. Skehan, P. (1996). ‘A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.’Applied Linguistics. Vol.17. No. 1. 38-62. Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. New York: Psychology Press. Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2001). ‘Cognition and tasks.’ In Robinson, P. (2001): 183-205. Skehan, P. (2002). ‘A non-marginal role for tasks.’ELT Journal Vol. 56/3: 289-295. Skehan, P. (2003). ‘Task-based instruction.’Language Learning. Vol.36. 1-14. Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2005). ‘Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance.’ In Ellis, R. (2005). (Eds. ) 193-218. Vigotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2001). ‘Task-based language learning.’ In Carter, R. & Nunan, D. (2001) 173-179. Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-based Learning. Harlow: Longman. Willis, J. R. (2004). ‘Perspectives on task-based instruction: Understanding our practices, acknowledging different practitioners.’ In Leaver, B. L. & Willis, J.R. (2004):3-46.

  27. Appendix 1 (Story-telling activity) (Boku, 1998:55) John went to buy some (1. shorts 2. shirts) the other day. But first he had to (1. walk 2. work) for several hours. After he bought them, he found a nice calendar with a picture of beautiful (1. glass 2. grass). On his way home, he met (1. Don 2. Dawn). They went to a coffee shop and talked about the (1. sheep 2. ship) which they had to paint for an assignment.

  28. Appendix 2 (Dice talk) Sample topics for ‘Dice Talk’ • Favorite movie/sports/music • The funniest experience I’ve ever had • If I were a millionaire.... • Future dream • My childhood • How I spend my free time • The place I want to visit • If I were a president of U.S.A, I would • I agree/disagree with woman working after marriage because • I agree/disagree with man taking child care holiday because • I feel happy when I...... • 10 years later I....

  29. Worksheet for ‘Dice talk’ What made you feel it most difficult to talk in the first group? What was your assigned topic? Did you ask a few questions to your group members? Yes No (Why/not?) Did you feel it easier to talk to your 2nd group members? Yes No (Why/not?) Do you think that difference of the topic influenced you how well you talked? Yes No (Why/not?) Did you notice any grammatical mistakes when you were making 3 minutes speeches? Yes (What kind of mistakes? ) No Did you use Reflexive pronoun or Subjunctive mood in your speech? Yes No What kind of characteristics did you find in your group members’ speeches? (pronunciation, grammar, eye contact, communication strategies and so on) What did you find most important to communication with your partner? Did you talk more when you talked with your partner than when you were in the group? Yes No (Why/not? )

  30. Thank you very much for your kind attention! Mariko Boku: mboku@msn.com

More Related