Task-Based ESP Instruction and Its Effect on Student Outcomes:

A Sociocultural Perspective

Sep. 15, 2009 at Lancaster University

Yoshiko KOZAWA, MEdAichi Kiwami College of Nursingyo.kozawa.t@aichi-kiwami.ac.jp

Kazuyoshi SATO, Ph.DNagoya University of Foreign Studies

yoshi@nufs.ac.jp1

Introduction

“[T]here is less evidence to support task-based instruction, although there are strong theoretical grounds for its advocacy” (Ellis, 2005, p. 725). Moreover, little is known about how learners interact with other classmates through “collaborative dialogue” (see Swain, 2000) and construct their learning socially in a task-based ESP class.

2

Introduction

This study reports the result of a yearlong classroom research project which studied how Japanese nursing college students learned ESP through repeated task-based instruction (TBI) and how TBI influenced student learning outcomes. In essence, the study reveals the relationship between TBI and language learning from a sociocultural perspective.

3

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).

4

Theoretical Background

1. Cognitive view on SLA SLA is a cognitive and individual phenomenon

(see Firth & Wagner, 1997; Swain & Deters, 2007).“According to Long (1985, 1996) comprehensible input gained through interactional adjustments such as negotiating meaning and modifying output is central to second language acquisition” (Foster & Ohta, 2005, p. 402).

5

Theoretical Background2. Sociocultural view on SLA Learning a language is a social phenomenon (Lantolf,

2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Ohta,2000, 2001; Swain, 2000, Swain & Deters, 2007; Vygotsky, 1978; Wells, 1999; Wenger, 1998).

“[L]anguage acquisition is realized through a collaborative process whereby learners appropriate the language of the interaction as their own, for their own purposes, building grammatical, expressive, and cultural competence through this process” (Ohta, 2000, p. 51).

6

Theoretical Background

2-1. Collaborative dialogue “Collaborative dialogue is dialogue in which

speakers are engaged in problem solving and knowledge building” (Swain, 2000, p. 102).

Swain & Lapkin (1998) described how two Grade 8 French immersion students performed a jigsaw task through collaborative dialogue. They solved linguistic problems collaboratively and improved their learning as measured in post-tests.

7

Theoretical Background

2-1. Collaborative dialogueStorch (2002) analyzed the patterns of dyadic

interactions as ESL students engaged in various tasks. Storch found that the collaborative dyad indicated more instances of language development than both the dominant/passive and the dominant/dominant dyads.

8

Research Issues

1. “Virtually no research has demonstrated that the greater comprehensibility achieved through negotiation leads to second language learning” (Swain, 2000, p. 98).

Foster & Ohta (2005) compared the frequency of negotiation for meaning (quantitative data, cognitive view) and peer assistance evidence (qualitative data, sociocultural view). “Interactional processes including negotiation for meaning and various kinds of peer assistance and repair are among the many ways learners gain access to the language being learned” (p. 426)

9

Research Issues

2. Most studies are experimental and relied on quantitative data or CA. Few studies were conduced in the classrooms by employing classroom observations or interviews (qualitative data).

3. Little longitudinal research was conducted except for Ohta (2001) and Sato & Takahashi (2008).

10

Research Issues

Sato & Takahashi (2008) conducted a three-year long study in a high school using repeated task-based instruction. Students were engaged in tasks collaboratively and improved both fluency and accuracy.

Moreover, no longitudinal studies were reported at a college level in Japan.

11

Research Questions

1 How did students perceive and engage in TBLT?

2 How did TBLT influence students’ speaking skills?

3 How did TBLT influence students’ English proficiency?

Subjects first-year nursing students six years or more English learning background English (compulsory course): first semester, Ⅱ

81 out of 85 students gave permission to use the data English (elective course) : second semester, Ⅲ

28 out of 36 students cooperated in the research12

TBLT Framework

13

Pre-task (1): Model dialogues Specific vocabulary for the topic Communication strategies (conversation strategies) ・ “ Communication strategies are employed when learners are faced with the task of communicating meanings for which they lack the requisite linguistic knowledge” (Ellis, 2008, p. 957) ・ “ Strategic skills help the speaker/ listener keep a conversation going to its natural or desired conclusion” (Kehe & Kehe, 2004, p. v) ・ “ Explicit CS teaching is effective to raise the learner’s

awareness. Students need to be encouraged to use CSs” (Sato, 2005, p. 5).

TBLT Framework

14

Pre-task (2): 　　 Communication strategies taught in the courses:

Beginning questions e.g. [Million dollars] What would you do if you had million dollars? [Hand-washing] How is your hand-washing in your daily life different

from the nurses’ style? What did you notice when you performed washing in

the nursing class?

Jun.

Really! Really? Pardon me? Oh, that’s great! How about you? Oct. Let me see … Let me think …

I know what you mean. shadowing

Jun.

How are you? How are you doing? Great! Terrific! Fine! OK. Not bad. Nice talking with you. Thank you. Bye! See you.

Nov.

review (Really! Really? Pardonme? Oh, that’s great! How about you? Let me see … Let me think … )

Jul.

What does that mean? I know. Sounds good! Are you kidding? Me too! Me neither!

Nov.

review (What does that mean? I know. Sounds good! Are you kidding? Me too! Me neither!

Jul.

Who …? What …? Where …? When …? Why …? How …?

Dec.

Review (Who…? What…? Where…? When…? How…? Why…?shadowing)

TBLT Framework

15

Task cycle: Collaborative dialogues

Audio-recording

Language focus: Transcription Self-evaluation

Topics [English II] Topics [English III] Million dollars Hand-washing

Three things about me Blood pressureHobbies and interests Oral care

Family, Friends, and teachers AED (Automated External Defibrillator)

Data Collection

Quantitative data General English proficiency tests: April, September, and

December by means of CASEC (Computerized Assessment System for English Communication) by JIEM (the Japan Institute for Educational Measurement), Inc.

Recorded conversations: 8 times during the courses Speaking tests: July and December Student surveys: July and December

Qualitative data Conversation analysis of focused students Self-evaluation: 8 times during the courses Final report 16

Quantitative data: Criteria for Recorded Conversations Criteria Points

(full marks: 10) description and rating

　

starting and small talk /

leave taking

2 more than 2 pairs of typical greeting and introducing name.

1only asking for the partner's condition with typical question such as "How are you?" or answering simply like "I'm fine, thank you." and/or introducing oneself only by one's name.

0 no greeting or leave taking

　

conversation about the

topic

4 more responses to the response to the answer3 another response to the response to the answer2 response about the answer to the question 1 only answering to the question

　 0 no answer to the question

　 delivery (eagerness to communicate)

2 trying to communicate not depending on their memory

1 trying to communicate but only depending on their memory

　 0 no sign of trying to communicate their will

　 dependance on Japanese

2 no dependence on Japanese1 depending on Japanese for once or twice

　 0 depending on Japanese for more than three times17

Quantitative data: Criteria for Speaking TestsCriteria Points

(full marks: 20) description and rating

Fluency and content

10 Be able to maintain a 5-minute conversation fluently, with good content

7 Be able to maintain a 5-minute conversation with some silence, with adequate content

4 Be able to maintain a 5-minute conversation with some silence, with poor content

1 Be hardly able to maintain a 5-minute conversation with some long silences

Accuracy (grammar and pronunciation)

3 Be able to communicate with accuracy2 Be able to communicate with some errors1 Communicate with many errors, using mainly key words

Delivery (volume and eye contact)

3 Be able to speak with good volume and eye contact2 Occasionally speak with adequate volume and eye contact

1 Be hardly able to speak with adequate volume and eye contact

Strategies (conversation strategies and

follow-up questions)

4 Be able to use many conversation strategies and follow-up questions

3 Be able to use some conversation strategies and follow up questions

2 Use a few conversation strategies and follow-up questions

1 Be hardly able to use conversation strategies and follow-up questions

18

25.9026.62

28.09

21.0

22.023.0

24.0

25.0

26.027.0

28.0

29.0

Apr. Oct. Dec.

Quantitative Results: General English proficiency testsRatios of each proficiency in the whole

Section 2: Knowledge of phrasal expression and usage (n=24)

Section 1: Knowledge of vocabulary (n=24)

Section 3: Listening ability—understanding of main idea (n=24)

Section 4: Listening ability--understanding of specific information (n=24)

%

%

%

%

24.97

26.68

24.12

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

Apr. Oct. Dec.

27.02

24.83

25.28

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

Apr. Oct. Dec.

22.5122.12 21.87

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

Apr. Oct. Dec. 19

Quantitative Results: Speaking Tests

English Jul. 31 Ⅱ English Dec. 18 Ⅲ7

9

11

8.13

10.95

t (31)=2.92, P<0.01 n=32

20

points

points English II (1st semester) English III (2nd semester) 　　

Quantitative Results: Recorded conversations n=26

3.37 3.69 3.32 3.85

5.42 5.69

2.49 2.232

3

4

5

6

MillionDollars

ThreeThings

about Me

Hobbies &Interests

Family,Friends &Teachers

Hand-washing

BloodPressure

Oral Care AED

Quantitative Results: Questionnaires—increased

Yes: 5, Probably yes: 4, Not sure: 3, Probably no: 2, No: 1 (n=19)

3.58

3.84

3.47

3.42

3.32

3.58

3.11

2.53

0.0 3.0

I can speak English more after theconversation practice in this course.

The quality of conversation was improvedby practicing with many partners.

I got used to speaking English by theconversation practice in this course.

It was not difficult to write English ashomework.

December J uly

21

Quantitative Results: Questionnaires—decreased

Yes: 1, Probably yes: 2, Not sure: 3, Probably no: 2, No: 1 (n=19)

3.89

3.58

3.56

3.42

3.79

4.37

3.95

3.79

3.63

3.89

0.0 3.0

I used "conversation strategies" almostevery time in the conversation.

I tried not to speak J apanese during theconversation practice.

I understood almost everything what thepartner said during the pair work.

I enjoyed the conversation practice inpairs.

I did not feel embarrassed even when Imade mistakes in English usages.

December J uly

22

Quantitative Results: Survey after the courses

1

16

6

6

1

12

1

0

1

5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

almost

nothing

5 sentences 10 sentences 15 sentences more than 15

December (n=26) April (n=23)

I can write…

23

1

13

0

9

15

10

2

0 1 0024

68

1012

1416

almostnothing.

with writtennote anyhow

without noteanyhow for 3

min.

without notesmoothly for

3 min.

without notesmoothly for

5 min.

December (n=26) April (n=25)

Quantitative Results: Survey after the coursesI can speak

24

Qualitative Results:Focused students—negotiation for meaning

Comprehension checks: Any expression by an NS (native speaker) designed to establish whether that speaker’s preceding utterance(s) had been understood by the interlocutor.

Confirmation checks: Any expression by the NS immediately following an utterance by the interlocutor which was designed to elicit confirmation that the utterance had been correctly understood or correctly heard by the speaker.

Clarification requests: Any expression by an NS designed to elicit clarification of the interlocutor’s preceding utterance(s).

Long, 1980, 81-83. cited by Foster & Ohta (2005, p. 410). 25

Qualitative Results:Focused students—peer assistance

Assistance (co-construction & other correction):Co-construction: The joint creation of an utterance, whether one person completes what another has begun, or whether various people chime in to create an utterance.Other correction: a peer correcting his or her partner.

Self-correction:Self-initiated, self-repair, and occurs when learner corrects his or her own utterance without being prompted to do so by another person.

Continuer :They function to express an interlocutor’s interest in what the speaker is saying and to encourage the speaker to go on.

(Foster & Ohta, 2005, pp. 420-421)26

Results: Arisa’s case in DecemberExample from the conversation between Arisa and Haruno

(Students’ names are pseudonyms.)A: How about you? ← continuerH: I was very careful about too tight or too loose… when I take blood

pressure.A: I know. ← continuerH: Next question OK? A: Sure. ← continuerH: What mistakes can give inaccurate readings?A: I think stethoscope is wrong…H: Put on stethoscope… ← assistanceA: (Nodding).H: OK. I understand. ← continuer

TBLT 2009 Lancaster

27

Results: Emika’s case in DecemberExample from the conversation between Emika and Kanta

(Students’ names are pseudonyms.) 　K: What mistakes can give inaccurate readings?E: OK. ← continuer Miss position ste… stetho…scope stethoscope.

← self-correction So the sound of stethoscope no… no… heard. No heard.

K: No. ← continuerE: Miss position, no heard. ← comprehension checkK: No… ← continuerE: No. ← continuer K: Dokkun, dokkun, (Japanese onomatopoeia for throbbing) no, no,

no, no. ← continuer

TBLT 2009 Lancaster

28

Results: Conversation analysis of focused students

Speaking test 1 (July) negotiation for meanings peer-assistance

Target language

Total AS-units

Compre-hension checks

Confir-mation checks

Clarifi-cation

requests

Assistance (co-

construction & other-

correction)

Self-correction Continuer

Student whose grade

improved the least (Arisa)

Japanese 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

English 23 0 2 0 0 0 5

Student whose grade

improved the most (Emika)

Japanese 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

English 38 0 0 0 0 3 18

Students’ names are pseudonyms. 29

Results: Conversation analysis of focused students

Speaking test 2 (December) negotiation for meanings peer-assistance

Target language

Total AS-units

Compre-hension checks

Confir-mation checks

Clarifi-cation

requests

Assistance (co-

construction & other-

correction)

Self-correction Continuer

Student whose grade

improved the least (Arisa)

Japanese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

English 29 0 1 1 0 0 17

Student whose grade

improved the most (Emika)

Japanese 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

English 52 9 4 0 2 3 17

30

Results: Conversation analysis of focused students

Focused student

Total AS-unit

Total of negotiation for

meaning

Total of peer-

assistance

Jul.Arisa 24 2 6

Emika 40 0 21

Dec.Arisa 29 2 7

Emika 54 13 23

31

Results: Arisa’s final report (December)TBLT 2009 Lancaster

Eventually, I was able to write without looking at the handouts. I could understand how to use communication strategies more and more. I was worried that I might be a problem for my partner. I was so stressed and I did not know what to do. I hated being recorded on video. I asked my partner when I could not understand.Arisa is a very shy and quiet girl. She did not try to speak English at all when the English II course started. She began by asking the prepared questions and answered only with basic communication strategies. Her development was the lowest in the class, however, she could eventually speak for 5 minutes by the end of English III. She had benefitted from the experience of speaking English. By focusing on her, we notice what the average figures did not tell. Such slow learners could also develop with the help of communication strategies.

32

Results: Emika’s final report

TBLT 2009 Lancaster

I felt I was making progress when I could write without referring to notes.

I only thought of answering the questions the first or second time. But I got used to speaking and asking additional questions, by using more communication strategies.

Thinking about the answers to the questions of each topic, we can get a deeper understanding of our nursing study.

Emika, a very cheerful girl, always tried to make herself understood in English.Even if she was paired with quiet students, she asked about various things that would prompt responses from them.

33

Findings

1. How did students perceive and engage in TBLT?・ Students reported that both quality and quantity of conversations

were improved by collaborative dialogue. ・ Students felt that they could speak and write more after repeated

task engagement.・ Some students did not enjoy the topics related to ESP.2. How did TBLT influence students’ speaking skills?・ Two speaking tests showed that students’ speaking skills were

developed after repeated task engagement.3. How did TBLT influence students’ English proficiency・ Learners’ general English proficiency has not shown significant

improvement.

34

Implications

1. Students improved their speaking skills through collaborative dialogue.

2. Teaching communication strategies helped students to demonstrate increased independence (self-regulation), though they varied in their strategy use.

　 In particular, students developed their abilities to use communication strategies (from peer assistance to negotiation for meaning) as they moved from peripheral participants to full participants in tasks.

35

Implications

3. Both quantitative (from a cognitive view) and qualitative data (from a sociocultural view) were useful to better understand language learning processes (see Ellis, 2008; Foster &Ohta, 2005; Ohta, 2001).

4. When and how to incorporate topics related to ESP and how to further promote language development is a future issue.

5. A few classes a week may not be enough to develop students’ overall English proficiency in one year.

36

Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed language learning and task-based teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 713-728). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Firth, A. & J. Wagner. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 91-94.

Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402-430.

JIEM, Inc. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://casec.evidus.com/english/index.html

Kehe, D., & Kehe, P. D. (2004). Conversation strategies. Vermont, USA: Pro Lingua Associates.

References (1)

37

References (2)Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.),

Sociocultural Theory & Second Language Learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. UCLA. Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL.

Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam& M. Piernemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-100). Clevedon. Multilingual matters.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role in the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie, and T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on Language Acquisition: Second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

38

References (3)

Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sato, K. & Takahashi, K. (2008). Curriculum revitalization in a Japanese high school: Teacher-teacher and teacher-university collaboration. D. Hayes & J. Sharkey (Eds.), Revitalizing a Curriculum for School-Age Learners (pp. 205-237). Alexandria, VA: TESOL, Inc.

Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work. Language Learning. 52-1, 119-158.

Swain, M. (2000). The output and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

39

References (4)Swain, M. & Deters, P. (2007). New mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and

enriched. Modern Language Journal, 91, 820-836.Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two

adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. MA: Harvard University Press.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogical Enquiry: Toward a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Thank you40