The Power of an Integrated
Curriculum through TBLT
JALT 2011 in Tokyo
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies
Department of English Language Teaching
Kazuyoshi Sato & Paul A. Crane
Introduction
Hinkel (2006) claims that “[in] an age of globalization,
pragmatic objectives of language learning place an
increased value on integrated and dynamic multiskill
instructional models with a focus on meaningful
communication and the development of learners’
communicative competence” (p. 113). Although
integrating all language skills has been a recent trend in
language classrooms rather than focusing on language
skills in separate courses, there has been little research
as to how skill integration influences student learning.
Introduction
Moreover, there has been little discussion
about how to develop a TBLT curriculum.
This study reports the results of an integrated
English curriculum through TBLT over one
year.
Skills Integration
Brown (2007, p.286)
1. Production and reception are quite simply two sides of the
same coin; one cannot split the coin in two.
2. Interaction means sending and receiving messages.
3. Written and spoken language often…bear a relationship to
each other; to ignore that relationship is to ignore the
richness of language.
4. For literate learners, the interrelationship of written and
spoken language is an intrinsically motivating reflection of
language and culture and society.
Skills Integration
5. By attending primarily to what learners can do with language, and
only secondarily to the forms of language, we invite any or all of the
four skills that are relevant into the classroom arena.
6. Often one skill will reinforce another; we learn to speak, for
example, in part by modeling what we hear, and we learn to write by
examining what we can read.
7. Proponents of the whole language approach… have shown us that in
the real world of language use, most of our natural performance
involves not only the integration of one or more skills, but
connections between language and the way we think and feel and
act.
Models of Skills Integration
Brown (2007)
・Content-based instruction
・Task-based language teaching
・Theme-based/topic-based instruction
・Experiential learning (e.g., projects, field trips,
simulations)
Definitions of Task
“[T]asks are always activities where the target language
is used by the learner for a communication purpose
(goal) in order to achieve an outcome” (Willis, 1996, p.
23).
“A task is a language-teaching activity where meaning
is primary, there is some kind of gap, students are
required to use their own linguistic resources, and there
is an outcome other than the display of language for its
own sake” (Ellis, 2008, p. 981).
TBLT Framework
Pre-task:
Introduction of a topic (Impact Issues, Longman)bbbbbb
Listening
Conversation strategies
Discussion questions
Task cycle:
Skills integration in four classes
Recording in pairs
Language focus:
Transcription
Self-evaluation
Teacher feedback
Pre-task
Task cycle
Language focus
(Willis, 1996)
Review of Literature
Little longitudinal research on TBLT was conducted
except for Sato & Takahashi (2008)
Sato & Takahashi (2008) conducted a three-year long
study in a high school using repeated task-based
instruction which integrated writing and speaking in
particular. Students were engaged in tasks
collaboratively and improved both fluency and
accuracy.
Research Issue
Ellis (2003) raised one issue by saying that “[i]t
should be noted that the rationale for task-based
syllabuses is largely theoretical in nature, there
being little empirical evidence to demonstrate that
they are superior to linguistic syllabuses” (p. 210).
Moreover, few longitudinal studies were reported at
a college level in Japan.
Participants and Teaching Context
・43 first-year university students (two classes-A&B)
in Department of English Language Teaching, NUFS.
・DELT was established in 2008 with an integrated English curriculum
called CBEC.
・There are 7 English classes. Among them, four classes (D&D, IR,
AW, PUT) are integrated according to the same topic.
・Each topic is covered in two weeks.
・The participants’ average score of TOEFL was 420 in April, 2009.
Research Questions
1. How did the students perceive the integrated curriculum and engage
in various tasks?
2. How did they view recording/self-evaluation and teacher feedback?
3. How did they improve their communication ability through the
integrated curriculum ?
Data Collection
1. Videotaped conversations (12 topics):
No.1, 6, and 12 were evaluated by 3 NETs based on the
rubric.
2. Essays (12 topics):No.1, 6, and 12 were evaluated by 3
NETs based on the rubric.
3. Self-evaluation reports (twice, at the end of each semester
4. Interviews with 6 selected students from B class (by Sato in
Japanese)
5. TOEFL tests (April, January)
6 selected students (B class)
Student
A
B
C
D
E
F
Sex
F
M
F
F
M
M
Level
Low -IM
IM
High-IM
High-IM
IM
Low-IM
Essay Evaluation Criteria
 Content (15 points)
 Organization (5 points)
 Vocabulary and Grammar (5 points)
 Total: 25 points
Essay Evaluation Criteria
Content (15 points possible)

Provides only a small amount of information; ideas present but not developed; not
always keeping to the requested topic
6-8

Provides a pretty fair amount of information; some development of ideas; some ideas
lacking supporting detail or evidence
9-12

Provides lots of information; very thorough; well developed, and stays on the
requested topic
13-15
Essay Evaluation Criteria
Organization (5 points possible)
 Has a clear topic sentence
Yes = +1 No = 0
 Has a logical and effective order to the reasons and
support
Yes = +2 No = 0
 Used transition words and uses them correctly
Yes = +1 No = 0
 Has a clear conclusion
Yes = +1 No = 0
Essay Evaluation Criteria
Vocabulary and Grammar (5 points possible)
 Many errors in grammar; word choice; spelling;
computer spell check and grammar check
ignored
1
 Some errors in grammar; word choice; spelling
2-3
 Almost no errors in grammar, word choice, or
spelling:
4-5
Video Evaluation Criteria
 Interactive Communication (10 points)
 Delivery (5 points)
 Content (5 points)
Total: 20 points
Video Evaluation Criteria
Interactive Communication
 Initiating/Responding


Initiates and responds appropriately
Development


(10 points)
Maintains and develops the interaction and negotiates
towards an outcome with very little support
Use of conversation strategies

Uses CS appropriately
Video Evaluation Criteria
Delivery
 Pronunciation / Intelligibility




Can be clearly heard
Fluency


Is intelligible
Intonation is generally appropriate
Sentence and word stress is generally accurately placed
Volume


(5 points)
Produces extended stretches of language despite some hesitation
Eye contact

Maintains comfortable eye contact
Video Evaluation Criteria
Content
 Cohesive / Coherent


Uses a range of cohesive devices
Relevant


(5 points)
Contributions are relevant despite some repetition
Depth/Extent

Can develop the topic and include support for the
reasons
Result (Essay)
Total Essay Average (25 points)
Essay 1
Essay 6
Essay 12
Low
12.66
15
17.33
High
21.33
23.33
24.66
Average
17.385
20.384
22.495
Total Essay Content
(15 points)
Essay 1
Essay 6
Essay 12
Low
8.33
12
11.33
High
13.33
15
15
Average
11.053
12.864
13.942
Total Essay Vocabulary & Grammar
(5 points)
Essay 1
Essay 6
Essay 12
Low
High
2
4.66
2.33
4.33
3
5
Average
3.273
3.464
4.108
Total Essay Organization (5 points)
Essay 1
Essay 6
Essay 12
Low
1
2.33
3
High
4.66
5
5
Average
3.052
4.064
4.44
Results (Speaking)
Total Video Average
(20 points)
Video 1
Video 6
Video 12
Low
7.66
13.66
16.33
High
14.33
18.66
19.66
Average
10.28
14.99
18.26
Total Video Content (5 points)
Video
1
Video
6
Video
12
Low
1.66
3
4
High
3.33
5
5
Average
2.33
3.775
4.596
Total Video
Interactive Communication
(10 points)
Low
Video 1
3.66
Video 6
6
Video 12
8.33
High
7.33
9.33
10
Average
5.163
7.553
9.398
Total Video: Delivery
(5 points)
Video
1
Video
6
Video 12
Low
2
3.33
4
High
4
4.33
5
Average
2.775
3.663
4.266
Improvement Summary
Student
A
B
C
D
E
F
Essay 12
Essay 1
Video 12
Video 1
Diff.
Diff.
22.67
22.3
13.67
15
9.03
7.3
19
18.33
7.67
14.33
11.27
4
24.33
24.67
21.33
21.33
3
3.3
19.67
13.67
13.33
9
6.33
4.67
23.67
17.33
20.33
12.6
3.34
4.66
16.33
18
8
9.33
8.33
8.68
Students A & F Video Sample
Topic 1

Let’s watch a sample video.

What do you notice about:

Interactive communication (IC)?

Initiating and responding

Development

Use of conversation strategies
Student A Video Sample
Topic 1

What do you notice about:

Delivery (D)?

Pronunciation/Intelligibility

Volume

Fluency

Eye contact
Student A Video Sample
Topic 1

What do you notice about:

Content (C)?

Cohesive/coherent

Relevant

Depth / Extent
Student A Video Sample
Topic 1
Evaluators’ comments about IC
1: No use of CS except HAY, very mechanical
2: Reading, few CS, little interaction
3: Reading, few CS, no FUQ
Student A Video Sample
Topic 1
Evaluators’ comments about delivery
1: Pron. OK, fluency not good if not reading, no
eye contact
2: Little eye contact, very stiff, not natural
3: no eye contact, pron. OK, good intonation
Student A Video Sample
Topic 1
Evaluators’ comments about content
1: coherent, but just reading, no contrib. outside
of “script”;
2: reading, reading
3: relevant, provides some support
Student A Video Sample
Topic 12
Let’s watch Student A’s last recording
and see how she improved!
Student A Video Sample
Topic 12
Evaluators’ comments about IC
1: Great develop. of topic, good shadowing, many CS
2: Managed to negotiate lack of vocab. well, checks
partner’s understanding; clarifies/helps partner
3: Lots of CS, listens actively & carefully, helps partner,
great interaction
Student A Video Sample
Topic 12
Evaluators’ comments about delivery
1: Easy to understand; few mistakes, fluency
good, good eye contact
2: clear, intelligible, good inton. good volume,
confidence, long cohesive reasons
3:good volume & confidence, self-corrects pron.
Student A Video Sample
Topic 12
Evaluators’ comments about content
1: Very coherent & logical; goes into depth;
2: clear & cohesive; nice depth;
3: develops topic well, structures ideas clearly,
presents good reasons
Results (Interview)
1. CBEC was fun (all six students).
・It was fun. I could listen to different ideas from
my classmates. I could change and deepen my
ideas through four integrated classes. (Student D)
・I could share and compare my ideas with my
classmates’. Then, I could come up with my new
ideas. That’s why I enjoyed the program and I
think it was useful. (Student C)
Results (Interview)
2. CBEC was different from HS English classes (all six students).
・There was no pair work in my HS. The teacher mainly talked and
checked the answers of the books for university entrance exams.
However, it was boring and many students did not listen to the
teacher and just did what they wanted to do. (Student B)
・We have to express our opinions in CBEC; however, we just
memorized in HS. (Student D)
Results (Interview)
3. Advantages of CBEC (All six students)
(1) Developing ideas by sharing ideas with classmates (six students)
・I could develop my ideas through the program. For example, I could
learn different ideas from IR and changed my ideas. I sometimes
changed my ideas in PUT through listening to others’ ideas. I could
choose better ideas by myself. As for “working women,” I had an
initial idea that women should continue to work to save money by
putting their children to day-care centers. However, someone told
me that putting a child to a day-care center costs money. Then, I
changed to the idea that women should stay home for one year to
raise their babies. (Student A)
Results (Interview)
・We started with D&D on Friday. Then, I thought the topic was
difficult and I didn’t like it. Next we came to understand the topic
better in IR on Monday. After that, I could rewrite my opinion better
by finding more information in AW on Tuesday. Then, I came to
like the topic. Finally, in PUT on Thursday I had chances to listen to
others’ ideas and were often impressed by others’. I thought they
were clear and found the topic more interesting. (Student B)
・I could listen to many ideas from different classmates and expressed
my ideas in all four classes. Because there were four classes, I could
deepen my understanding about each topic. (Student D)
Results (Interview)
(2) Receiving teachers’ feedback (four students)
・I could see if my ideas in writing were good or not by
actually communicating them in class. Then, I could
receive feedback on my errors from the teacher. It
was good that I could receive feedback about the
same topic. After that, I rewrote my ideas and
received feedback again. I really like the system. I
also enjoyed listening to others’ opinions. (Student E)
Results (Interview)
(3) Using more conversation strategies (three students)
・I was not good at asking follow-up questions so there
were many silences at the beginning. It was a torture.
Then, I learned what kinds of questions I should ask
through the program and got used to asking follow-up
questions. (Student B)
・I could keep talking by using conversation strategies
such as shadowing and follow-up questions compared
to April. (Student E)
Results (Interview)
(4)Learning vocabulary (two students)
・I also learned new vocabulary from news
articles in IR. Those new words were useful in
writing and speaking. (Student D)
・I came to use new words by encountering
them many times. (Student B)
Results (Interview)
4. Topics (four students)
・International marriage and same-sex marriage were difficult because
I had never thought about them. I could not find any good reasons
and ended up with unclear ideas. (Student D)
・I enjoyed talking about women’s place and capital punishment. As
for capital punishment, I thought it was the most difficult one.
However, I heard the most ideas from my classmates of the 12
topics and I became interested in it. On the other hand, I had
difficulty talking about same-sex marriage because most of the
classmates had the same ideas. (Student B)
Results (Interview)
5. Recording/Self-evaluation was effective (five students)
・I could evaluate my ability objectively by watching the video. So it
was useful. Also I was glad to see my progress. Through selfevaluation, I could notice my errors and my bad habits. (Student E)
・I hated recording and felt like crying at first because I got stuck and
there were many silences. I could not express my ideas and just
nodded to my partners. So I didn’t like watching myself in the
video. However, I think it was useful because I could set up my next
goals. So I think it was useful. (Student D)
Results (Interview)
6. Progress (Six students)
・I could improve my English ability. There were many
chances to use English in this program. I noticed my
progress when I was spoken to by some foreign exchange
students. I could communicate with them. (Student F)
・I could improve my TOEFL score by 80 points. I could
communicate with my host family when I visited Boston
in summer. (Student B)
Results (Interview)
7. Improvements
・I wish I could receive feedback earlier. (Student A, B, F)
・ Unfortunately, many students did not realize the
importance of this program. They were still passive. So
was I. However, I noticed it when I had a change to
explain the program to high school students. Then I
became motivated and started to work harder. (Student E)
Results (TOEFL)
DELT (43)
A (162)
B (103)
April (2009)
420
425
398
January (2010)
471
449
423
Findings
1. How did the students perceive the integrated
curriculum and engage in various tasks?
(1) Students enjoyed sharing their ideas with classmates
and developed their ideas through the integrated
curriculum.
(2) Students developed and deepened their understanding
about each topic through the integrated curriculum.
(3) Students enjoyed topics which were divided into pros
and cons.
Findings
1. How did the students perceive the integrated
curriculum and engage in various tasks?
(4) Students appreciated teacher feedback for
rewriting.
(5) Students learned new vocabulary words by
recycling them through the integrated
curriculum.
Findings
2. How did they view recording/self-evaluation
and teacher feedback?
(1) Students evaluated their performance,
noticed strong and weak points, and set up
next goals.
(2) They became aware of their progress and
classmates’ progress.
Findings
3. How did they improve their communication ability through
the integrated curriculum ?
(1) Students developed their speaking ability by actually
communicating with each other, learning to use more
conversation strategies.
(2) Students developed their writing ability by writing more
and communicating more.
(3) Students developed both fluency and accuracy
(communicative competence) through the integrated
curriculum.
Conclusion
Repeated tasks through language integration
facilitate student understanding about each
topic and develop their communicative
competence.
References
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principle (3rd ed.) New York: Pearson Longman
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hinkle, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly,
40, 109-131.
Sato, Y., & Takahashi, K. (2008). Curriculum revitalization in a Japanese High School:
teacher-teacher and teacher-university collaboration. In D. Hayes & J. Sharkey
(Eds.), Revitalizing a program for school-age learners through curricular
innovation (pp. 205-237). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Wills, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Longman.