1 / 17

TBLT 2009 Lancaster

TBLT 2009 Lancaster. Applying Content- and Task-Based Instruction in an EAP Project on Postmodernism Aviva Soesman Tel Aviv University soesman@post.tau.ac.il. Presentation Outline. Content-based Instruction – rationale / benefits Task-based Instruction – rationale / benefits The project

paniz
Download Presentation

TBLT 2009 Lancaster

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. TBLT 2009 Lancaster Applying Content- and Task-Based Instruction in an EAPProject on Postmodernism Aviva Soesman Tel Aviv University soesman@post.tau.ac.il

  2. Presentation Outline • Content-based Instruction – rationale / benefits • Task-based Instruction – rationale / benefits • The project • Students’ feedback

  3. Content-based Instruction • “the concurrent learning of a specific content and related language use skills” with “the selection and sequence of language elements determined by the content ” (Brinton, 2007: 11) • Different models • Common concept: integration/knowledge

  4. Content-based Instruction: WHY? • Removes “arbitrary distinction” (Brinton, 2007: 17) • Language learning more authentic - language in context and used for communicating meaning =real world (e.g., Garner & Borg, 2005; Pally, 2000) • Added Knowledge (Stoller, 2002; Wesche,1993); “Two-for-one” (Wesche & Skehan, 2002: 221) • Therefore: Motivation / Engagement (Nunan, 2004) • Vocabulary reinforcement (Shih, 1992; Murphy & Stoller, 2001) • Schemata(Pally, 2000)

  5. CBI in EAP: WHY? • Bridges Gap between EFL and other courses • Simulation of University settings – authentic / relevant (Stoller, 2004; Wesche & Skehan, 2002) • Simulation of actual subject matter - motivating/ relevant • Variety of similar subject matter = better preparation for needed skills (Shih, 1992; Kirschner & Wexler, 2002; Garner & Borg, 2005) “The most educationally appropriate approach” for EAP (Garner & Borg, 2005: 120)

  6. TBI: WHY? • Communicative Activities and Meaningful language use (Jeon & Hahn, 2006; Nunan, 2004) • Student-centered / autonomy (Flinch, 2005) • “Learning by doing”, active (Lingley, 2006; Nunan, 2004) • Collaboration (Ellis, 2003; Cobb & Lovick, 2007) • Authentic – real life and academia (Nunan, 2006; Shih, 1992)

  7. TBI: WHY? • Breaks Routine (Cobb & Lovick, 2007) • Cognitive investment/mental effort = deeper language processing = long-term retention (Cobb & Lovick, 2007) • Functional reading, read for clear purpose (Bogaert, 2005) Therefore: • Student engagement and increased motivation (e.g. Cobb & Lovick, 2007; Nunan, 2004; Willis, 1996)

  8. CBI and TBI

  9. A Learning Sequence on PM • Framework • Five lessons – two core texts + other materials - Activities acquiring knowledge - Activities applying knowledge • Oral presentations

  10. The Tasks • Jigsaw – information gap task - groups • Movie (Blade Runner) • Jigsaw – pairs • Pictures – reach consensus Steps, Interaction, Non-linguistic purpose, Meaning, Cognitive, Observable Outcome (Cobb and Lovick, 2007) Simulation of academic tasks

  11. Integrative Project • Subtasks and oral presentation • Purpose of oral presentation • Three stages 1.Choose piece 2.Find source 3.Give presentation • Instructions

  12. Rationale • Natural sequence, but student-centered • Simulation of academia: -access academic sources -synthesize information -apply theory, show understanding -analyze work of art -oral presentation • Oral presentations (King, 2002; Kirschner & Wexler, 2002)

  13. Students’ Feedback • Understanding of PM: 4.9 • Asking questions only: 1.8 • Good assessment tool: 3.8 • Important skills: 3.7 Negative comments Positive comments

  14. In Conclusion Applicability in different EAP contexts

  15. References Bogaert, N. (2005, September). A task-based route to Academic Literacy. Paper presented at the International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching. Leuven, Belgium. Brinton, D. M. (2007, June). Content-Based Instruction: Reflecting on its Applicability to the Teaching of Korean. Paper presented at the12th Annual Conference American Association of Teachers of Korean. Chicago, Illinois. Cobb, M. and Lovick, N. (2007, September). The Concept of Foreign Language Task, Misconceptions and Benefits in Implementing Task-based Instruction. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching. Hawaii. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flinch, A. E. (2005). The postmodern language teacher: The future of task-based teaching. Unpublished Document. Retrieved October 2008 from http://www.tblt.org/download/finch_handout.doc. Garner, M. & Borg, E. (2005). An ecological perspective on content-based instruction. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 119-134. Jeon, I. & Hahn, J. (2006). Exploring EFL Teachers' Perceptions of Task-Based Language Teaching: A Case Study of Korean Secondary School Classroom Practice. Asian EFL Journal, 8 (1). Retrieved October 2008 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_06_ijj.php

  16. References – Cont. King, J. (2002). Preparing EFL learners for oral presentations. The Internet TESL Journal, 8(3). Retrieved on 12 January 2003 from http://iteslj.org/Lessons/King-PublicSpeaking. Kirschner, M. & Wexler, C. (2002). Caravaggio: A design for an interdisciplinary content-based EAP/ESP unit. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 163-183. Lingley, D. 2006. A Task-based Approach to Teaching a Content-based Canadian Studies Course in an EFL Context. Asian EFL Journal, 8 (3). Retrieved October 2008 from http://asian-efl-journal.com/Sept_06_dn.php. Murphy, J.M. and Stoller, F.L. (2001). Sustained-Content Language Teaching: An emerging definition. TESOL Journal, 10 (2/3), 3-6. Nunan. D. (2004). Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asian context: Defining ‘task’. Asian EFL Journal,8 (3). Retrieved October 2008 from http://asian-efl-journal.com/Sept_06_dn.php. Pally, M. (2000). Sustaining interest/advancing learning: Sustained content-based instruction in ESL/EFL – Theoretical background and rationale. In M. Pally (Ed.). Sustained Content Teaching in Academic ESL/EFL: A Practical Approach (pp. 1-18). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

  17. REFERENCES – Cont. Shih, M. (1992). Beyond comprehension exercises in the ESL academic reading Class. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 289-318. Stoller, F. L. (2002).Content-Based Instruction: A Shell for Language Teachingor a Framework for Strategic Language and Content Learning?Retrieved 20 January 2009 fromhttp://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/strategies/Stoller2002/READING1/stoller2002.htm Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261-283. Wesche, M. B. (1993). Discipline-based approaches to language study: Research issues and outcomes. In M. Krueger & F. Ryan (Eds.), Language and Content: Discipline- and Content-based Approaches to Language Study(pp. 57-82). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Wesche, M.B. & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, Task-based and Content-based language instruction. In R. B. Kaplan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 207-228). New York: OUP. Willis, D. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. London: Longman

More Related