A strong version of task-baseddesign at beginner’s level

Michael Schart (Keio University Tokyo)

Hidemi Hamano

Holger Schütterle

Andreas Meyer

Strong version of TBLT

2

analytical, content-based syllabus

task as the driving force for all activities in the class

rich L2-input: opportunities to experiment and explorelanguage, encouraging learners to practice languagemeaningfully and creatively

collaborative learning: extended opportunities forcollaborative interaction

classroom communication with parallels to real worldcommunication

focus on form

Balance between meaning-focused andform-focused activities

3

Ellis (2003:237)

“The challenge is to find the right balance between meaning-based andform-based activities.“ (Willis & Willis 2007: 30)

“The extent to which form-focused instruction must be integrated intocommunicative activities is still open to debate.“ (Lyster 2007: 43)

Intensive German Studies Program in theLaw Faculty of Keio University Tokyo

4

Reading CourseFoFsPPP

FoFsPPP

Freshmen Sophomore 3th & 4th

academic year

TBLT TBLT TBLT

Nativeteachers

Japaneseteachers

Problems with the traditional structure

5

Logitudinal evaluation study results (2003-2008):(Schart 2008, 2010)

• TBLT course structure, learning materials and Nativeteachers‘ teaching skills are critically judged by students

• students doubt the effectivity of TBLT-lessons

• Native and Japanese teachers‘ lessons were perceived asseparated

• role of learners subjective theories (cf. Bohn 2004, Ockert 2011):

wish for change need for safety

6

Intensive German Studies Program:curricular variations

7

PPPPPP

Beginnerclass A

TBLT TBLT TBLT

Nativeteachers

JapaneseteachersTBLT

(FoF)

Beginnerclass B

Beginnerclass C

N=12 N=10N=14

Objections

8

objections inside the team: Will the students learn enough grammar? appropriateness of TBLT for Japanese learners (c.f. Burrows 2008, Kolarik 2004)

academic critics on strong versions of TBLT (Swan 2005)

limited number of classroom based studies in the field of TBLT (seeVan den Branden

2006/ 2007; Edwards, C. & Willis, J. 2005)

far less studies about TBLT with Beginners (see Duran & Gysen 2006)

appropriate balance between form-focused and meaning-focused activities isconsidered a desideratum (see Bygate, Norris &Van den Branden 2009:497)

“Does TBLT work for teachers and learners in the classroom as well as it does forSLA researchers? Is TBLT more than a fascinating pedagogical approach that looksgood and convincing on paper?”

(Van den Branden 2006:1)

Research design

9

How do beginning students deal with an unfamiliar mode of foreignlanguage learning?

What are their understandings of the advantages and disadvantagesof a strongTBLT-version?

What impact on the learning process and on the communicativebehaviour of the student can be observed?

insider teacher-researcher outsider researcher

learningdiaries

question-naires

focus groupinterviews

writtenassessments

videotapedlessons

pairinteraction

Beginner class C

10

10 students (3 female/ 7 male), freshman

9 students with traditional foreign language learning experiences inhigh school, but high expectations on the lessons in the university

6 students absolute beginners, 5 of them involuntary in this class

4 students with 1 year German learning experience in high school

Communicative behaviour

11

data source: dyadic interactions

• 13th semester week (July 2009),5 minute free conversation about arandomly chosen course topic

• 26th semester week (January 2010),7 minute free conversation about arandomly chosen course topic

Which communicative patterns are typical orprevalent in the pair interactions?

12

Model of dyadic interaction(Storch 2002, Lin, Wigglesworth & Storch 2010)

13

Collaborative Interaction

14

learners engage with each other's ideas

they offer each other assistance

perceived level of discussion and cooperativeness

(Storch 2002:128; Lin,Wigglesworth & Storch 2010)

results: in all 10 pair interactions the predominant pattern wascollaborative effect of the communicative situation?

What are the concrete markers of collaborative interaction in the pairinteractions?

Negotiation for Meaning research (psycholinguistic perspective) markersfor interrupted communication: clarification request comprehension checks confirmation checks

The 3 C‘s in the pair interactions

15

pair interactionJuly 2009

pair interactionJanuary 2010

I II III IV V I II III IV V

clarificationrequest

5 1 4 1 2 5 3

comprehensionchecks

1 2 2 1 1

confirmationchecks

1 1 2 1 1 1 1

Beyond the 3 C‘s (Foster & Ohta 2005)

16

quantifying instances of the 3 C‘s provide a limited view of theinteractions

social dimension of interaction only partial acquired collaboration rise not only in communicative failures more

holistic approach

markers of scaffolding: „Learners collaborate to create discoursein the target language.“(Foster & Ohta 2005:413)

language-related episodes content-related episodes co-construction (collective scaffolding) continuers

Markers for collaboration

17

pair interactionJuly 2009

pair interactionJanuary 2010

I II III IV V I II III IV V

language-relatedepisodes

3 3 1 5 3 3 1 1 1

content-relatedepisodes

2 5 1 1 2 2 4 8 3 3

co-construction 1 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 1

continuers 9 11 4 14 8 6 8 22 9 15

The students‘ unterstanding of learning inthe TBLT environment

18

1. effective foreign language learning in contrast to the experiences of high school learning more

effective and interesting learning a language while using it makes sense to guess and to imagine more important than to know learning happens while explaining things to others context and content are essential for learning

2. the role of learning group in the learning process surprise about the influence of positive atmosphere to help each other should play important role in classroom asking others as central element in the learning process

3. the role of grammar learningproud uncertainty

Further perspectives

19

in contrast to related studies (Todd 2005, Li 2004) no needto withdraw

better program evaluation results and greater learningsuccess

instead of withdraw continuous development (problems inrespect to content learning)

TBLT neither mystifying nor alienating to Japanese students, ifthey understand what happens (Farrell 2004, Sampson 2010)

crucial role of classroom atmosphere

“Pedagogical tasks need to be studied within pedagogicalcontexts.”(Samuda & Bygate 2008:258)

20

21

22

23

society

group

person