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
 Students’ feedback
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
CBI and TBI
Traditional
Focus on
discrete
language and
reading
comprehension
skills
Linguistic
Knowledge
CBI and TBI
Focus on
acquiring,
synthesizing
and applying
knowledge
Academic
Literacy
A Learning Sequence on PM
 Framework
 Five lessons – two core texts + other
materials
- Activities acquiring knowledge
- Activities applying knowledge
 Oral presentations
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
Integrative Project
 Subtasks and oral presentation
 Purpose of oral presentation
 Three stages
 Instructions
1.Choose piece
2.Find source
3.Give presentation
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)
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
In Conclusion
Applicability in different EAP
contexts
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
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.
REFERENCES – Cont.
Shih, M. (1992). Beyond comprehension exercises in the ESL academic reading Class. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 289318.
Stoller, F. L. (2002). Content-Based Instruction: A Shell for Language Teaching
or a Framework for Strategic Language and Content Learning? Retrieved 20 January 2009 from
http://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