Theoretical Bases of Language Teaching 語言教學之理論基礎 英文科 蔡吉信 內容: For a group of learners you are familiar with: a) Describe the learners’ profiles and context of learning. b) Design 3 tasks which develop a particular aspect of the learners’ communicative competence. c) Explain how and why you would sequence the tasks for the group of learners you referring in your answer to the literature on task demands and task grading. 1. Introduction Communicative competence plays an important part in real-life communication. Successful and effective communication is more than the ability to produce correct sentences. One can not just make any sentence after another to expect it to mean something. Therefore, communicative competence is highly valued in the current teaching context of English as second language. This paper aims to suggest an approach to developing English learners’ communicative competence through designing three tasks. In this paper, the tasks are modified to some extent to be appropriate for the level of the learners, to motivate them to learn English, and to meet their needs of speaking English. The first part of the essay attempts to define communicative competence and to distinguish two approaches—CLT and TBI. The second part is a description of the learners’ profiles and context of learning. The third part discusses two aspects of communicative competence that are aimed to develop for the learners in the tasks. The following part is to adapt and design the tasks accompanying the texts in the English conversation class. The final part clarifies the rationale that underpins the tasks. The rationale presents the sequencing of the tasks, task demands, and task grading. 2. Literature review 2.1 What is communicative competence? Canale and Swain (1980) define communicative competence as the ‘underlying systems of knowledge and skill required for communication.’ They (1980:30) identify grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence with the components of “communicative competence.” They argue that sociolinguistic competence ‘is made up of two sets of rules: sociocultural rules of use and rules of discourse.’ Then Canale (1983) himself interprets “rules of discourse” as discourse competence. He (1983:6-10) lists a total of four areas of knowledge and skill in communicative competence: grammatical competence mastery of the language code sociolinguistic competence appropriateness of utterances with respect both to meaning and form discourse competence mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and meanings to achieve unity of a spoken or written text strategic competence mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies used to compensate for breakdowns in communication, and to make communication more effective Briefly, communicative competence refers to both knowledge and skill in using language. A language learner has to equip himself with communicative competence to make great progress in the macro skills of a language. 2.2 What is the relation of task-based learning to communicative language teaching? 2.2.1.1 Views of language At the level of language theory, communicative language teaching (CLT) has the following characteristics. 1. Language is a system for the expression of meaning. 2. The primary function of language is for interaction and communication. 3. The structure of the language reflects its functional and communicative uses. 4. The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and structural features, but categories of functional and communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse. (Richards and Rodgers 1986: 71) Richards and Rodgers (2001) further reveal several assumptions about the nature of language underlying task-based language teaching (TBLT). They (2001: 226) indicate that ‘language is primarily a means of making meaning,’ and ‘advocates of task-based instruction draw on structural, functional, and interactional models of language.’ It is apparent that CLT and TBLT have these features in common: emphases on meaning, interaction, function, and structure. 2.2.1.2 Views of language learning Hedge (2000: 71) indicates that CLT involves learners in purposeful tasks embedded in meaningful contexts, and thus reflects and rehearses language as it is used authentically in the world outside the classroom. Willis (1996) claims that TBLT is a logical development of CLT. Richards and Rodgers (1986: 72) argue that three principles of an underlying learning theory can be inferred from CLT practices. First, on the communication principle, activities that carry real communication promote learning. Second, on the task principle, learning is promoted through the activities in which language is used to perform meaningful tasks. Third, on the meaningfulness principle, the learning process is supported by the language that is meaningful to the learners. These assumptions about the nature of language learning are shared by task-based instruction (TBI) as well. However, there are additional learning principles that play a central role in TBLT theory. Richards and Rodgers (2001: 228-229) list the three principles. 1. Tasks provide both the input and output processing necessary for language acquisition. 2. Task activity and achievement are motivational. 3. Learning difficulty can be negotiated and fine-tuned for particular pedagogical purposes. Thus, TBLT differs from CLT in these three principles in the views of language learning. 2.2.2 Learner/ teacher roles The roles of learners and teachers are complementary. They sometimes overlap in CLT and TBLT. In TBLT lessons, the learners get chances to start and end conversations, to interact naturally, to interrupt and to challenge. According to Richards and Rodgers (2001), the learner’s primary roles that are implied by task work are a group participant, a monitor, and a risk-taker and innovator. Meanwhile, Cook (2001) points out that the teacher is an organizer or a provider rather than a director or a controller. She (2001: 215) reveals that ‘the teacher sets up the task or the information gap exercise and then lets the students get on with it, providing help but not control.’ That is, the teacher is a ‘facilitator,’ who has to set tasks up and to ensure that learners understand and get on with them. He/she intervenes only when needed, and reviews each phase at the end. Richards and Rodgers (2001) mention additional roles of a teacher in task-based instruction, including a selector and sequencer of tasks, the one preparing learners for tasks, and the one promoting consciousness-raising. 2.2.3 Rationale for task-based learning Skehan (1994) claims that TBL may underlie language systems which can be formed and developed well while learners focus on the process of doing tasks. Willis (1996) illustrates the framework of TBL, consisting of three phases: pre-task, task cycle, and language focus. The following is a list of the framework of TBL. (Willis 1996: 40) Pre-task: to introduce the class to the topic and the task, activating topic-related words and phrases. Task cycle: to offer learners the chance to use whatever language they already know in order to carry out the task, and then to improve that language, under teacher guidance, while planning their reports of the task. Language focus: to allow a closer study of some of the specific features naturally occurring in the language used during the task cycle. Adopting TBI in class can provide learners with a rich exposure to the target language in use, stimulate them to improve upon that language, and encourage them to activate and use the language they already have. Above all, it provides lots of learning opportunities for learners of all levels and abilities. 3 Background of my students The target learners in this study are grade one of Pei-tou Vocational High School in Chang-hua in Taiwan. In my class are about forty female teenagers aged fifteen or sixteen. They all passed the entrance exam of senior high school, but their grades were not good enough for them to enter senior high school. A few of them are not interested in the schoolwork of senior high school. Therefore, they choose the vocational high school. Most of them come from the countryside, so they do not get so much cultural stimulation and do not start learning English as early as those who live in the city do. Consequently, unlike the “city students,” they are not able to perform well the four skills of English, though they have learned English for more than three years. In fact, English is a required or compulsory subject, which is considered an important part in secondary education in Taiwan. The reasons why they have to learn English are to get better grades and to pass the college entrance exam in the near future. In class, the learners first have to accustom themselves to the student-centred instruction, listening to English, and speaking out simultaneously, since this is their first time to attend English conversation classes (they have no conversation classes in junior high school). Also, they want to get better grades and make progress in English. With small vocabulary and poor grammatical knowledge, they often feel frustrated and take less interest in reading English materials and speaking English. For that reason, the first things that their English teacher should do when teaching English conversation are to eliminate their ideas that English is “the language of the extraterrestrial”, to increase their motivation of learning spoken English, and to establish their confidence in speaking English. 4 Adaptations and design of the tasks 4.1 The reasons of adaptations There are two reasons why the tasks accompanying the three texts are adapted. First, the tasks are modified according to the level of the learners that I teach in Taiwan. Second, the tasks are adapted to be more interesting and practical in order to motivate them to learn English and to use it in real life. Therefore, the adaptations of the tasks help them to learn and to use spoken English more naturally and practically. 4.2 Which areas of communicative competence these tasks are designed to develop? First, grammatical competence or linguistic competence is designed to develop in these tasks. According to Hedge (2000: 47), ‘the linguistic competence involves a knowledge of spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary, word formation, grammatical structure, sentence structure, and linguistic semantics.’ In the three tasks, the students have to familiarize themselves with some new words (vocabulary) and sentence structure. Then they practise the pronunciation of the new words and the target sentence structure while performing the tasks. Last, they acquire the vocabulary and the structures through the communication and negotiation of meanings in doing the tasks. Second, the tasks are designed to develop the learners’ discourse competence. Hedge (2000: 51-52) points out that ‘second language learners will need to acquire useful language for strategies such as initiating, entering, interrupting, checking, and confirming in conversation.’ For example, when the students do the role-play in Task 2, they learn “initiating” by saying hello to start the conversation. When they introduce their family members in Task 1, they may “interrupt” their partners’ talk and ask questions about the family members. In Task 3, when they describe the pictures, trying to find the differences, they may “check” and “confirm” by repeating what their partners say or using physical responses like nodding. Therefore, though the three tasks are designed respectively, all of them will reach the goal of developing the learners’ linguistic competence and discourse competence. 4.3 Design of tasks The three original tasks (see Appendix A to D) are chosen from the book Cutting Edge-Elementary. Task 1 (see Appendix A) Aim: The task encourages the learners to talk more freely about themselves and share their personal experiences or opinions with partners. Since their family is a familiar subject to them, the learners are motivated to exchange personal information or their ideas in English. Pre-task: 1) Look at Hannah’s family tree. Find Hanna and answer the questions a, b, c, and d. 2) Listen to Hannah talking about her family and write the extra information in the right place. Task cycle: 1) Make a family tree for your family. Grandparents, parents, brothers and sisters should be included. Relatives like cousins or aunts are optional. Write in the names of at least six people and stick their photographs on the family tree. (The students have to prepare the photos before class.) 2) Prepare the information about their ages, occupations, personalities, interests, or even anecdotes, etc. Don’t write it down. For new words and phrases, ask the teacher or consult references such as dictionaries. 3) Work in pairs. Introduce your family members to your partner and answer questions your partner asks about your family. 4) Ask questions about the people on your partner’s family tree. In your partner’s family tree, find out one person that interests you most and give the reasons why. Write down some gist if necessary. 5) [Report] The teacher picks students and asks them which person that interests them most in their partner’s family tree and the reasons as well. Language focus: 1) new words of the jobs of the family members 2) statements of introduction like “My father is a factory worker.” and simple wh-questions like “What’s your mother’s job?” Task 2 (see Appendix B, C-1, and C-2) Aim: The task is actually the combination of role-play and plan making. The first activity, role-play, gets the learners familiar with how to start up a conversation, to negotiate the trade, and to end the conversation. Then the second activity demands the learners’ intellectual and reasoning power. Through the completion of this task, the learners’ confidence in speaking is developed. Pre-task: 1) The students listen to the first conversation on the tape and tick the topics the people are talking about. 2) The students put the words in Conversation 1 in order to make questions. Task cycle: 1) The teacher gives the students the schedule or the timetable, the price included, of Taiwan Railway Administration (see Appendix C-1 and C-2). The students work in pairs to prepare for role-play in class. 2) The students can write key words about what they are going to say. The following is an example of the dialogue in their role-plays. A: Hello. Taiwan Railway Station. B: Hello. Can you give me the information about trains from Taichung to Kaohsiung? A: When are you travelling? B: This Saturday. What time is the first Tze-Chiang Express in the morning? A: Err…at nine sixteen. B: What time does it arrive in Kaohsiung? A: Eleven forty-one. B: How much is it? A: Single or return? B: Single. A: Four thousand and seventy dollars. B: Thank you. A: You’re welcome. 3) The students make a simple weekend plan to go on an excursion by train. Work in pairs to negotiate the appropriate time, train, place and the cost. [Report] Next, the students present their plan orally in class. Language focus: 1) expressions of time and price 2) wh-questions like “What time…?” and “How much is it?” Task 3 (see Appendix D-1 and D-2) Aim: The task is a comparing task, through which encourages the learners to negotiate information with their partners to develop their interactional skills. Pre-task: The students listen to someone in the tape describing the picture. They have to put a number in the circle in the picture. Task cycle: 1) Work in pairs. Do not look at your partner’s picture. Student A: Look at Picture A on page 54. Student B: Look at Picture B on page 135. 2) Find out the differences between the two pictures by describing your picture and asking questions. Mark them on the picture. 3) Form new pairs. Student A works with another Student B. 4) [Report] Share the differences that have been found out and continue to spot the rest of the differences together. Language focus: 1) new words or phrases of the grocery store 2) the target structures: “There’s/ are (not)….”, “Is/Are there…?”, “How many/much…are/is there?”, and “I have/haven’t….” 5. Sequencing the tasks Nunan (1989: 118-119) suggests a psycholinguistic processing approach, composed of the three phases of processing, productive, and interactive, can be used to sequence tasks. In Task 1, the processing demand and the productive demand are made upon the students. They listen to a text (the tape and their partners’ introduction to family members), and give a verbal response (write down key words or the gist). They listen to a cue or a question from their partners, and give a meaningful response. In Task 2 and Task 3, the interactive demand is required from the students. They simulate the dialogue in the tape and create a role-play on their own. Next they discuss in pairs a weekend plan. Task 3 is a comparing or problem-solving task. The students work in pairs and identify the differences in the pictures. Obviously, interaction is demanded through all the activities in Task 2 and Task 3. The three tasks are sequenced with the gradually increasing demands on the learners. 5.1 Task demands According to Cameron (2001), there are six types of task demands: cognitive, language, interactional, metalinguistic, involvement, and physical demands. In cognitive demands, use of the picture (the family tree) and understanding of relationship in Task 1, use of the timetable, telling the time, and geographical knowledge in Task 2, and use of the picture in Task 3 are needed. In language demands, the students have to find the vocabulary to describe the relatives (Task 1), the time of the train (Task 2), and the items in the grocery store (Task 3). They have to pronounce these words correctly, give correct stress and intonation to sentences they make, and understand the teacher’s instructions, explanation, and feedback. Next, since the students are asked to do the task in pairs, each needs to listen to her partner. This would be an interactional demand. In involvement demands, the students do not have much difficulty in engaging with the tasks. Each activity in the tasks can be completed in 6 to12 minutes, and the tasks link to their interest and concerns. In physical demands, the students usually sit still, but they have the chances to write notes or answers. 5.2 Task grading Nunan (1989: 96) points out that ‘Decisions on what to teach first, what second, and…will reflect the beliefs of the coursebook writer or syllabus designer about grading.’ Grading has been described as the arrangement of the content of a language course presented in a helpful way. He mentions four factors about grading—input, activities, the learner, and goal. The first three factors are used to grade my tasks. 5.2.1 Input factors The first thing that has to be considered is complexity of the text or the grammatical factors. Task 3 and Task 2 are more difficult than Task 1, because the sentence structures (e.g. In my picture, there are… on the left. How many potatoes are there? What time does the first train leave Taichung?) are a little more complicated than those in Task 1 (e.g. My father’s name is…. How old is he?) Next, the support provided to the learners will also affect the textual difficulty. In Task 3, there are no hints of the differences in the two pictures. The students have to find out the differences by giving and asking for information. Also, the explicitness of the information is hidden in Task 3 since there are no hints on the differences. The information in Task 2 and Task 1 is more explicit. So, the pictures in Task 3 are more demanding than the timetable of the train in Task 2, which is a little more unfamiliar and complicated than the family tree in Task 1. 5.2.2 Learner factors The students have more background knowledge in Task 1 and Task 2, so they are highly motivated and have more confidence. In Task 3, they have less prior learning experience or less familiarity with such an activity “spotting the differences in English”, so it is the most difficult task for them to do among the three. Again, lack of linguistic knowledge in Task 3 is a problem to the students. The sentence structures suggested are more complex than those in Task 2 and Task 1. Apparently, the students need more time, practice, and take more efforts to learn to speak out on what they mean by using those structures. Therefore, difficulty increases in Task 2 and then in Task 3 by degrees. 5.2.3 Activity factors Nunan (1989: 104) mentions ‘In recent years, with the increasing use of authentic texts, there has been a tendency to control difficulty… by varying the difficulty of the activities which learners are expected to carry out.’ The three tasks are authentic, meaningful and relevant to the students, especially Task 1 and Task 2. Task 1 is of beginners’ level because the students have to give personal details and ask for personal information (e.g. names, ages, interests). They also have to listen to short narratives and identify key words when their partners introduce family members. Task 2 and Task 3 rise to the pre-intermediate level. In Task 2, the students have to comprehend, respond to and make requests (the role play). They also talk about future events (the plan of the excursion). In Task 3, they give an oral description of 2 pictures and find out the differences. Because grammatical accuracy is expected from the students, and because they have to complete the task with a time limit, Task 3 is challenging to the students. 6. Conclusion In everyday conversation, speakers always have something to say. They talk about what interests them. Since second language learners hope to be competent and successful speakers, communicative competence is introduced to language teaching. Thus, the approaches of CLT and TBLT are developed, and the latter has been applied and become a pedagogical mainstream gradually in recent years. In this essay, the tasks are designed and graded not only to suit the learners’ level in Taiwan but also in an authentic way. They motivate the learners and exploit both the linguistic competence and discourse competence in the texts. Through performing the tasks, the learners are more likely to be confident and effective speakers. That is, they can become more competent users of the English language, especially in the aspects of speaking and listening, only by exposing themselves to the listening and speaking context very often and to interacting in a large number of ways. References Cameron, L. (2001) Teaching Languages to Young Learners, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Canale, M. (1983) ‘From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy’. In Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.) Language and Communication, London: Longman Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980) ‘Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing’, Applied Linguistics Vol 1 No 1 pp. 1-47 Cook, V. (2001) Second Language Learning and Language Teaching, 3rd ed., London: Arnold Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom, Oxford: Oxford University Press Nunan, D. (1989) Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Richards, J. C., and Rodgers, T. S. (1986) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching: a Description and Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Richards, J. C., and Rodgers, T. S. (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Skehen, P. (1994) ‘Second language acquisition strategies and task-based language’. In Bygate, M., Tonkyn, A. and Williams, E. (Eds.) Grammar and the Language Teacher, New York: Prentice Hall Willis, J. (1996) A Framework for Task-base Learning, London: Longman