An Alternative Framework for Task-based Instruction: Core/Peripheral Task Mariko Boku Kinki University, Japan International Conference on Task-based Language.

An Alternative Framework for Task-based Instruction: Core/Peripheral TaskMariko BokuKinki University, Japan

International Conference on Task-based Language TeachingAt Kathrieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium22nd September, 2005

I. Purpose of This Study

* Raise a question of usefulness concerning current task framework.

* An alternative framework of task-based instruction will be proposed with examples.

　　 1. Applicable to ESL

Applicable to ESL/EFL

2. Task-in-process

task-as-workplan

Outline of the Presentation

I. Purpose of this study

II. Definition of Task

III. Previous Studies

IV. Problems of Three-phased Task

V. Theoretical Background

VI. A Proposal of Core/peripheral TaskVII. Examples (1. knowledge-construction task

2. language- activating/fluency-stretching tasks)

VIII. Conclusion

II. Definition of the Task

* Long (1985)

* Prabhu (1987)

* Nunan (1989)

* Willis (1996)

* Bygate, Skehan & Swain (2001)

* Skehan (1998)

III. Previous Studies

* Ellis (2003)

1. strategic (off-line) planning

2. on-line planning

* Willis (1996, 2004)

1. Task cycle (i.e., during-task)

2. Language focus (i.e., post-task)

III. Previous Studies (cont.1)

* Pre-task focus on form increases learner dependency on teacher

Willis (2003)

* dubious acquisition under the excessive focus on form Skehan (1998 )

III. Previous Studies (cont.2)

Task-in-process

Task-as-workplan

Seedhouse (2005)

Figure 1 General task phase

PRE 　　　　　　 DURING 　　　 POST

　 planning (strategic) 　　　　　　　　　　 (planning: on-line) 　　　 learner report

　　 framing the activity 　　 　　　　　　　　 time pressure 　　 repeat the task

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 　　　　　 Consciousness-raising

Willis’s task phase (adapted from Willis, 1996)

　 PRE 　　　　 TASK CYCLE 　 LANGUAGE

FOCUSintroduction to topic 　　　　 task + planning+ report 　　 analysis + practice

　　 & task

IV. Problems of Three-phased Task

A. Universal problems 1. Deficiency of authentic environment 2. Superfluity: teachers’ roles not clear 3. Whose task? 4. Learner type

IV. Problems of Three-phased Task (cont.1)

B. Culture specific problems (EFL) 1. learners’ interdependence 2. educational background 3. teachers’ predisposition

V. Theoretical Background

A. Cognitive perspective

Level of processing theory

(Craik & Lockhart, 1972)

V. Theoretical Background (cont.1)

B. Socio-psychological perspective

1. Zone of proximal development (Vigotsky, 1978) 2. Three levels of analysis: individual, inter-individual and group levels (Semin, 2003) 3. Social identity theory

(Hogg and Abrams, 1988)

VI. Core/Peripheral Task

A. Structure: Two-phased task

1. Core task: learner-centered

2. Peripheral task: teacher-fronted

　Figure 2

　　 　 Core task Peripheral task

　　　 learner-centered teacher-fronted

VI. Core/Peripheral Task (cont. 1)

B. Function Core task: *no strategic planning *communication strategies *report to the audience *constant change of partners and group members *core task repetition in the following class

IV. Core/peripheral Task (cont.2)

B. Function

Peripheral task

1. teacher’s debriefing

2. learners’ retrospective narrative

3. peripheral task = planning for

upcoming repeated core task

IV. Core/peripheral Task (cont. 3)

C. Advantages

1. compatibility of learner, teacher, and researcher 2. flexible class length/materials 3. authenticity-oriented 4. applicability to any learners 5. device to stop fossilization

Figure 3

C1 P 1 C1 C2 P2 C2 C3 P3 C3 C4 P4

Figure 4

VII. Examples

A. Knowledge-construction task

(Samuda, 2001)

*Example

Story-telling activity (Boku, 1998)

VII. Examples (cont.1)

B. Language-activating/

fluency-stretching tasks

(Samuda, 2001)

*Example

Dice talk

VIII. Conclusion

Core/peripheral task can resolve the issues of 1. superfluous process 2. learner interdependence 3. role of the teacher 4. balance of focus on meaning and form 5. applicability for EFL situation

VIII. Conclusion (cont.1)

1. Emphasis on learner-centeredness in terms of 1. the framework 2. objectives 3. what and how to focus in an authentic environment

2. Possible research data collection (e.g., independent evaluation test etc.)

REFERENCES Abrams, D. & Hogg, M.A. (1999). Social Identity and Social Cognition. Oxford: BlackwellBoku, M. (1998). ‘Student-centered pronunciation practice: More than “Right” or “Light”.’ The Language Teacher, Vol. 22, No. 10:54-6.Brewer, M. B. & Hewstone, M. (2004). Social Cognition (eds.). Malden: BlackwellBygate, M. & Samuda, V. (2005). ‘Integrative planning through the use of task repetition.’

In Ellis, R. 37-76.Bygate, M. & Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (2001). Researching Pedagogic Tasks Second

Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. (eds.) Harlow: Pearson EducationBygate,M. Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (2001), ‘Introduction’. In Bygate, M. Skehan, P. &

Swain,M. 1-19.Carter, R. & Nunan, D. (2001). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of

Other Languages. Cambridge: OUP.Craik, F. I. M. (1973). ‘A “levels of analysis” view of memory.’ In Pliner, P., Krames, L. &

Alloway, T.M. (Eds.).Craik, F. I. M. & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). ‘Levels of processing: A framework for memory

research.’ Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-84. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: OUP.Ellis, R. (2005). ‘Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research’. In Ellis, R.

3-36.Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.Ellis, R. & Yuan, F. (2005). ‘The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written

task performance.’ In Ellis, R. (2005): 167-192.

REFERENCES (cont.1)Eysenck, M.W. (2000). Psychology. New York: Psychology Press.Gass, S., & Madden, C. (1985). Input and Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass:

Newbury House.Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters.Leaver, B. L. & Willis, J.R. (2004). Task-based instruction in Foreign Language Education:

Practices and Programs. Washington: Greorgetown University Press.Littlewood, W. (2004). ‘The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestion.’ ELT

Journal 58/4:319-326.Long, M. (1985). ‘Input and second language acquisition theory.’ In Gass, S. & Madden, G.

(Eds.)Norris, J. M., Brown, J.D., Hudson, T., & Yoshioka, J. (1998). Designing Second Language

Performance Assignments. Second language Teaching & Curriculum Center. University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: CUP.Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: OUP.Robinson, P. (2001). Cognition and Second Language Instruction. (Eds.). Cambridge: CUP.Saito, H. & Ebsworth, M.E. (2004). ‘Seeing English language teaching and learning through

the eyes of Japanese EFL and ESL students.’ Foreign Language Annals. Vol. 37. No.1: 111-124.

Samuda, V. (2001). ‘Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher.’ In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. $ Swain, M. 119-140.

REFERENCES (cont.2)Seedhouse, P. (1999). ‘Task-based interaction.’ ELT Journal. 53/3:149-156.Seedhouse. P. (2005). ‘ “Task” as research construct.’ Language Learning. Vol. 55. No.3:553-

570.Semin, G. R. (2004). ‘Language and social cognition.’ In Brewer, M. B. & Hewstone, M. (Eds.):

221-243.Skehan, P. (1996). ‘A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.’ Applied

Linguistics. Vol.17. No. 1. 38-62.Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. New York: Psychology Press.Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2001). ‘Cognition and tasks.’ In Robinson, P. (2001): 183-205.Skehan, P. (2002). ‘A non-marginal role for tasks.’ ELT Journal Vol. 56/3: 289-295.Skehan, P. (2003). ‘Task-based instruction.’ Language Learning. Vol.36. 1-14.Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2005). ‘Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise

information and task time on second language performance.’ In Ellis, R. (2005). (Eds. ) 193-218.

Vigotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2001). ‘Task-based language learning.’ In Carter, R. & Nunan, D. (2001)

173-179.Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-based Learning. Harlow: Longman.Willis, J. R. (2004). ‘Perspectives on task-based instruction: Understanding our practices,

acknowledging different practitioners.’ In Leaver, B. L. & Willis, J.R. (2004):3-46.

Appendix 1 (Story-telling activity) 　　　　　　　　　　　　　 (Boku, 1998:55)

　 John went to buy some (1. shorts 2. shirts) the other day. But first he had to (1. walk 2. work) for several hours. After he bought them, he found a nice calendar with a picture of beautiful (1. glass 2. grass).

On his way home, he met (1. Don 2. Dawn).

They went to a coffee shop and talked about the

(1. sheep 2. ship) which they had to paint for an assignment.

Appendix 2 (Dice talk) 　　　Sample topics for ‘Dice Talk’

Favorite movie/sports/musicThe funniest experience I’ve ever hadIf I were a millionaire....Future dreamMy childhoodHow I spend my free timeThe place I want to visitIf I were a president of U.S.A, I wouldI agree/disagree with woman working after marriage becauseI agree/disagree with man taking child care holiday becauseI feel happy when I......10 years later I....

Worksheet for ‘Dice talk’

　　 What made you feel it most difficult to talk in the first group?What was your assigned topic? Did you ask a few questions to your group members? Yes No (Why/not?)Did you feel it easier to talk to your 2nd group members? Yes No (Why/not?)Do you think that difference of the topic influenced you how well you talked?

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 Yes No (Why/not?)

Did you notice any grammatical mistakes when you were making 3 minutes speeches? Yes (What kind of mistakes? ) No

Did you use Reflexive pronoun or Subjunctive mood in your speech? Yes No

What kind of characteristics did you find in your group members’ speeches? (pronunciation, grammar, eye contact, communication strategies and so on)

What did you find most important to communication with your partner?Did you talk more when you talked with your partner than when you were in the group?

Yes No (Why/not? )

Thank you very much

for your kind attention!

Mariko Boku: [email protected]