Tasks in Practice Lourdes Ortega Georgetown University TBL

Tasks in Practice Lourdes Ortega Georgetown University TBL SIG – JALT Temple University, Osaka, July 29 th, 2017

Please cite as: Tasks in Practice. Workshop hosted by the Task Based Learning SIG

Thank you to the organizers: Paul Leeming Justin Harris Kym Jolley Shoko Samayama Mark Donnellan

What does one do in a workshop full of experts and fans (of tasks)?

My goal today: explore important & vexing questions about tasks, in context key characteristics and/or principles that task design must heed in Japan, in order for TBL to be appropriate or feasible in Japanese EFL contexts

hands-on share group discussion

Ready ? I.

#1 How can we tell a ‘task’ when we see it? What is the ‘signature’ of a very good task?

hands-on example: The zoo task In groups of 4, each student has a (different) map with incomplete animals, cages, & landmarks. Their task is to compare and fill out the full map.

What else can we do with this ‘task’ to make it more ‘tasky’?

example: The zoo task (Van den Branden, 2009) 1 -Information gap 2 -Decision making 3 - Plenary session In groups of 4, each student with a map with incomplete animals, cages, & landmarks > compare and fill out full map 6 new animals each with their needs will arrive next day > reach consensus where best to locate each All groups present their solutions to the class open-ended post-task closed Task outcome Map showing how all animals (old & new) are distributed among cages

#1 Think of a task you do in your teaching, which you consider very successful: à Write down the name of the task à Then take turns explaining it to a colleague here à Together, come up with some key reasons for the success & write them on the flip charts or stickies

Jane Willis (1998) in The Language Teacher Task-based learning is like an adventure--learners surprise you by coming up with all kinds of things. . . " ". . . exploring language in this way opens up whole new vistas. . "

moving on II.

#2 needs, authenticity, motivation… in Japan EFL?

#2 What are the characteristics in you and/or your professional environment that made you into a fan and expert in TBL? à Brainstorm a list individually on paper à Then compare your list to that of a colleague here à Together, reorganize the list into three categories: “teacher, ” “professional environment, ” “other”

For a program, TBL innovation can open up new goals, less idealistic & more idealistic v. Fit with the progressive plans set by the Ministry of Education v. Allow the university/school to distinguish itself from its competitors through innovation v. Address students’ apparent real-world needs v. Change students’ attitudes towards English v. Encourage maximal purposeful use of English (Watson Todd, 2006, in Thai University)

Reservations and criticisms

As you listen to me, add to your list any additional factors under “teacher, ” “professional environment, ” “other” if they are indeed deterrents/concerns in your present TBL practice

Asian EFL realities TBLT ideals Littlewood (2007) Classroom management: Large classes, unmotivated students Small pair and group work based, individualized, learnercentered & learner-driven Actual: By-passed by L 1 & communication Intended to elicit from students: L 2 use and use of vocab & grammar Li (1998), Butler (2005) on CLT in general Focus on written language Emphasis on oral communication Teacher with limited oral communication proficiency Teacher as expert facilitator of communicative learning

JALT Journal exchange: Sato (2010) vs. Sybing (2011), Urick (2011) Japan EFL school realities TBLT ideals Government-authorized textbooks with pre-specified target structures to teach Implicit grammar teaching, no pre-specified grammar syllabus Exam-driven Not designed for exams & tests L 1 primary use in the classroom L 2 primary use in the classroom Unfamiliarity with English use outside the classroom Premium on authenticity to emulate language use outside the classroom Lack of real communication needs Emphasis on needs analysis

The most vicious attack, perhaps: Swan (2005) TBLT is a naturalistically biased approach, not efficient to teach basic grammar & vocabulary for the beginning levels Based on theoretical hypotheses with no empirical evidence Downgrades teachers Plain rejection of “bad old methods” TBLT = high-quality watering without planting first (p. 387)

gakkyu hokai (classroom failure) Butler (2005, pp. 439 -440), citing Kobayashi, M. 2001: Gakkyu Saisei [Class reformation]. Tokyo: Kodansya Gendai Shinsho: n Entire class dysfunctional, reasons unclear, about 10% in Tokyo elementary education n Particular fears for EFL teachers doing tasks: 1. freer environment more susceptible to gakkyu hokai 2. in team-teaching contexts, NS and NNS teacher may disagree in their ideals for classroom harmonization

local practices, cultural relativism of TBL? “Ramanathan (2005) talks about the place of choral repetition in India; Nishino and Watanabe (2008) bring out the significance of grammar translation in Japan; Chen, Warden, and Chang (2005) discuss the value of an examinationoriented motivation in Taiwan; and Pennycook (1996) explains the rationale behind pedagogies favoring memorization in Hong Kong. Their stories help us appreciate the unique traditions and knowledge of local communities of practice” (Canagarajah, 2012, p. 266)

A couple of minutes: compare your lists of deterrents/concerns with others

implementatio n III.

#3 making it ‘tasky’ vs. ‘de-tasking’

TARGET TASKS PEDAGOGIC TASKS n. Real-life tasks n. Cyclical n. Derived from needs analyses approximations to the target tasks n Increasing in Example: buying medicine at a pharmacy complexity n Eventually helps learners acquire skills for the target task

#3 Discuss in pairs: How would you characterize the buying medicines realworld task, and how would you break it down into pegagogic tasks? à After coming up with a few ideas, create a flow-chart depicting your “translation” from real world to pedagogic tasks

In civic classes: What Questions Should I Ask from the pharmacist? • • • • What is the medicine’s name? Is there a generic available? (Generics save money. ) Why am I taking this medicine? When should I take it? Should I take this with food or without food? Is it safe to drink alcohol with it? If I forget to take it, what should I do? How much should I take? How many days should I take it? What problems should I watch for? Is this okay for pregnant women? Will I have an allergic reaction? Can I take this medicine with other medicines I already take? Does this medication require special storage conditions (for example, at room temperature or in a refrigerator)? Are there special side effects that I should look for? What should I do if I notice any of these side effects? Is it OK to cut pills in half or crush them to mix into foods?

Not too bad as pre-task input? https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=_NXq. Tq. Z Ll 90 https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=cp. Wtdvw s 0 e. I

“meaning” & “context” in tasks (Kraut, forthcoming) “an uncritical understanding of context […] focuses exclusively on social roles (e. g. , "I am a hotel receptionist and you are a tourist")” “a deeper sense of context” would incorporate social goals and framing (Goffman, 1974). “ordering a meal” type of establishment: fast food social roles: counter worker & customer

social goals & framing: “ordering a meal” my allergies? “expressing anxiety” the movie I need to be at after “imploring someone to hurry” this? how come am I charged extra for the ketchup! “articulating disapproval”

Hawkes (2012) Task repetition with high school EFL learners in Japan

. . . 13 - to 14 -year olds in Japan. . . second-year private junior high school, 3 classes of 16 to 20 students

Benefits of repeating task after focus on form Teacher-led brainstorming & listening to recording of two advanced speakers doing the task, focus on meaning and task content & expectations Do task [1 / 2 / 3] in dyads Consciousness-raising using the transcripts of pre -task listening to highlight structures & vocabulary & some controlled repetition of them, focus on form Do same task [1 / 2 / 3] with same interlocutor

Dyad oral interaction on 3 tasks, over 3 lessons in one week… Opinion exchange: “fast food restaurants” Describe and draw: “monsters” Timed conversation: “holiday plans” Benefits of repeating task after focus on form

Positive results: More use of targeted language, more Sheer doing a task may not self- and other-corrections of those guarantee focusing on grammar forms and accuracy, but doing it a second time after drawing attention to form does.

Leverage technology-mediated TBLT via needs analysis (González-Lloret & Ortega, forthcoming) ‘purchasing a mobile phone’ Technologies Actions What technologies are needed? Do learners have access to them, ? What is the learners’ level of expertise with these technologies? What are the sociopragmatic norms of the context (the netiquette)? What needs to be done in order to successfully complete the task Greet the sales person Request information about one or more mobile phone(s) Express the desire to buy (or not to buy) the phone Complete the payment transaction -participants’ behavior How to navigate the site Ask questions to an online representative Use the online payment system Save/print prove of purchase Appropriate norms of interaction in the medium

The importance of partners as a “flow-enhancing potential” of task design (Aubrey, 2016) • 13 -week face-to-face exchange doing 5 tasks twice in order to practice English regularly between a Japanese student and an oncampus international student, i. e. , a peer who can embody the ideal of an international citizen of the world • Doing a dialogic task with a Japanese peer is ok, but doing it with an international (Englishspeaking) partner boosts task flow, and it also strengthens international posture (Yashima, 2002)

Writing & tasks? (Hideo Watanabe, 2017 & 2016) • 4 commercial practice books and 3 guidebooks for university entrance practice of writing, which only focused on exposition (70. 6%) or exposition and personal reflection (95%), although 3 MEXTapproved textbooks in high school (Crown, Element, Pro-vision) offered better variety of genres. • In 50 writing tasks appearing in university entrance examinations in Japan in 2013, 83. 9 % were just the 2 genres of exposition and personal reflection.

students… IV.

#4 Discuss: In EFL contexts, including Japan, students have no purposes for learning and using English…

TENAR, TENOP? West (1994), Schutz & Derwing (1981) = Teaching English for No Apparent/Obvious Reason/Purpose = one of several facetious expressions used to describe a learning situation where the purpose is, at best, vague; this includes language courses that apparently exist merely to allow students to meet university graduation requirements; common in Japan. (ELT Acronyms, in ELT News, http: //www. eltnews. com/features/guide/2009/01/acronyms_m-z. html)

But common/typical does not mean desirable…? “TENOR leads to situations in which instruction is generally unfocused, learner motivation is lower than it could be, and learners come out of individual courses, and the program as a whole, without any clear idea of what they have learned or the ability to pull it together for any functional purpose” (Lambert, 2010, p. 101)

Without needs or purposes, trying out TBLT is a moot point… or is it?

Might TBLT be a cure for TENOR? TBLT can propel and guide the search for purposefulne ss

Public discourse: Instrumentalist purposes for English as international language for all Exams Globalization Utilitarian/Instrumental Purposes & Needs Trade Tourism Technology Science Academia Corporate jobs

And yet other purposes, for example, humanistic (Pigott, 2011): “Many students in compulsory education have no clear and present need for English. A humanistic, whole-person approach that takes into account more than linguistic outcomes of learning is therefore preferable” (p. 16)

And even other more personal purposes (Kubota, 2011): Daichi is a gregarious and confident 31 -year-old man who loves to talk […] After working for 10 years, Daichi resigned his job and went to Australia to study English […] “The main reason [for learning English] was I wanted to make friends. If I can communicate with people, I can make many friends—I wanted to be different from others” (p. 253)

Cultivate multiple ways of thinking of tasks/TBL and purposes for Japanese EFL education? International posture, of imagined Instrumental member Humanistic Personal international Creativity & Exams community CMC self(Yashima, 2002) Trade expression Pop Tourism culture Critical Science Technology thinking Identity constructio n

1. Use needs analysis to help uncover worthwhile instrumentalist purposes Japanese college, Craig Lambert

2. And consider the many layers of even instrumentalist purposefulness (Macalister, 2012) Reasons for studying English necessities Target tasks Present level of competence lacks Analysis of current proficiency Long-term learning aims wants Independent learning needs and goals

3. But also critically recognize gaps between imagined and actual purposes Kubota (2011): English -- highly needed in the job market and conferring a career advantage? Not even in foreign-owned companies and large corporations with international clients! Manager: “You might think that our expatriates are proficient in English and because of that they are sent abroad, but that’s not the case. . . […] We don’t teach technical maintenance and trading to language specialists; rather we send staff who can do their work and have them learn the language while working there” (p. 256)

Professionalis m V.

#5 Discuss: What do you already do well to support your TBL work, and what in addition could you do? …

Set the TBLT record straight: teachers are important! Van den Branden (2009) n “the teacher remains a crucial interactional partner in task-based language classrooms, by taking the role of motivator (i. e. launching the students into action by constructing joint projects), organizer (making sure that students know what they are expected to do and organizing temporal and spatial aspects of task performance), and, last but not least, conversational partner and supporter, as the more proficient, knowledgeable interlocutor who can feed the language-learning needs of different students in a wide variety of ways. ” (p. 284)

Expect & allow for teacher flexibility, typical of successful innovation Carless (2011) stresses gradualism, flexibility, & choice: Teachers must be “able to gradually implement ideas of their own choice at a pace that suit[s] them and in a way that match[es] with the exigencies of their context” (p. 201)

Also clearly known from research: “Regular teachers tend to modify task scenarios, even those written by professional task developers, in countless ways […] Tasks on paper do not predict interactive behaviour in the classroom – they have a large number of potential ways to come alive” (Van den Branden, 2009, p. 281) Same task, different classrooms -- and different… time management phases of the task (eliminating & adding phases) interactional support, pupil support, feedback behavior, introductions, pedagogical formats (Berben, Van den Branden, & Van Gorp 2007; Samuda, 2007)

Nishino & Watanabe (2008) Innovating from yakudoku CLT (to local TBLT)? Maybe decide thatto“just Teacher study groups since the 1990 s have influence” that 2004): can be explored CLT is (e. g. , all Kanatani, “Although they have attained considerable hoped for, or even all that is success in making their teaching more communicative, however, none of these needed in the long-run for groups had more than local influence. ” educational innovations to (p. 136) take?

Outcome VI.

#6 Looking at future action: What is a tentative and operational list of key characteristics and/or principles that task design must heed in Japan, in order for TBL to be appropriate or feasible in Japanese EFL contexts?

TBLT 21 st century Bygate, Norris, Van den Branden TBLT biennial conference since 2005 International Consortium for. TBLT since 2007 > Association for Task-Based Language Teaching (IATBLT) book series with John Benjamins since 2009 new journal with John Benjamins underway

Association for Task-Based Language Teaching (IATBLT): http: //www. tblt. org/ “Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is an educational framework for theory and practice of teaching second or foreign languages. Based on empirical research, TBLT adopts meaning-based, communicative tasks as the central unit for defining language learning needs, determining curriculum goals, designing activity in the (language) classroom, and assessing language competencies. ” https: //www. facebook. com/IATBLT/notifications/

The future of TBL in Japan? Any answers must ultimately rest in the hands of teachers-in-contexts (and the TBL-SIG leaders)

Thank You lo 3@georgetown. edu

References: Aubrey, S. (2016). Inter-cultural contact and flow in a task-based Japanese EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research. doi: wa 10. 1177/1362168816683563 Berben, M. , Van den Branden, K. , & Van Gorp, K. We'll see what happens: Tasks on paper and tasks in a multilingual classroom. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, & M. Verhelst (Eds. ), Tasks in action: Taskbased language education from a classroom-based perspective (pp. 32 -67). Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Bygate, M. (2015). Introduction. In M. Bygate (Ed. ), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. xv-xxiv). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Canagarajah, A. S. (2012). Teacher development in a global profession: An autoethnography. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 258– 279. doi: 10. 1002/tesq. 18. Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings. New York: Routledge.

González-Lloret, M. , & Ortega, L. (forthcoming). Pragmatics, tasks, and technology: A synergy. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds. ), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hawkes, M. L. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal, 66, 327 -336. doi: 10. 1093/elt/ccr 059. Kobayashi, M. (2001). Gakkyu Saisei [Class reformation]. Tokyo: Kodansya Gendai Shinsho. Kraut, J. (forthcoming). The role of “roles” in task design: An exploration of framing as a feature of tasks. In A. E. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. I. L. Park (Eds. ), Usage-inspired L 2 instruction: Researched pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kubota, R. (2011). Learning a foreign language as leisure and consumption: Enjoyment, desire, and the business of eikaiwa. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14, 473488.

Lambert, C. (2010). A task-based needs analysis: Putting principles into practice. Language Teaching Research, 14, 99 -112. Li, D. (1998). It's always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers' perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677 -703. Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243– 249. doi: 10. 1017/S 0261444807004363. Macalister, J. (2012). Narrative frames and needs analysis. System, 40, 120– 128. doi: 10. 1016/j. system. 2012. 010.

Nishino, T. , & Watanabe, M. (2008). Communication-oriented policies versus classroom realities in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 133– 138. doi: 10. 1002/j. 1545 -7249. 2008. tb 00214. x. Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201 -230. Pigott, J. (2011). Informing a task-based approach with L 2 motivation theory. On. Task: The journal of the JALT Task-Based Learning SIG, 1(1), 11 -18. Ramanathan, V. (2005). Seepages, contact zones, and amalgam: Internationalizing TESOL Quarterly, 39, 119– 123. doi: 10. 2307/3588455. Samuda, V. (2007). Tasks, design, and the architecture of pedagogical spaces. Plenary lecture, TBLT 2007, University of Hawai’i. Available at www. hawaii. edu/tblt 2007.

Sato, R. (2010). Reconsidering the effectiveness and suitability of PPP and TBLT in the Japanese EFL classroom. JALT Journal, 32(2), 189– 200. Schutz, N. W. , & Derwing, B. L. (1981). The problem of needs assessment in ESP: Some theoretical and practical considerations. In R. Mackay & J. D. Palmer (Eds. ), Languages for specific purposes: Program design and evaluation (pp. 29 -44). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26, 376 -401. doi: 10. 1093/applin/ami 013. Sybing, R. (2011). A response to criticism of TBLT in Japan’s language classrooms. JALT Journal, 33(1), 67 -69. Urick, S. T. (2011). On methodology in Japanese secondary English classrooms. JALT Journal, 33(1), 70 -71. Van den Branden, K. (2009). Mediating between predetermined order and chaos: The role of the teacher in task-based language education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 264 -285. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1473 -4192. 2009. 00241. x Van den Branden, K. , Bygate, M. , & Norris, J. M. (Eds. ). (2009). Taskbased language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Watanabe, H. (2016). Genre analysis of writing tasks in Japanese university entrance examinations. Language Testing in Asia, 6(4), 1 -14. doi: 10. 1186/s 40468 -016 -0026 -8 Watanabe, H. (2017). An examination of written genres in English language textbooks in Japan. The Journal of Asia. TEFL, 14(1), 64 -80. Watson Todd, R. (2006). Continuing change after the innovation. System, 34, 11– 14. West, R. (1994). Needs analysis in language teaching. Language Teaching, 27, 1– 19. Willis, J. (1998). Task-based learning: What kind of adventure? The Language Teacher, 22(7). Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54 -66.