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