Torrin Shimono: Your interests in the field are wide ranging—from task-based language teaching (TBLT) to English as a lingua franca (ELF) to extensive reading (ER). First, could you tell us how you got interested in TBLT, and why you think it is important for teachers and learners?
Paul Leeming: My interest in task-based language teaching started a long time ago when I was doing my master’s. One of the texts that we were required to read was A Framework for Task-Based Learning by Jane Willis (1996). That was the first book I read that was really easy to understand, but also provided me with a framework that I could easily use in the classroom on Monday morning. I found it incredibly useful and the more I read, the more the theory and research seemed to support TBLT as an approach. Japanese students particularly need the chance to experience successful communication, and tasks provide that. With the framework that Jane provided, it was relatively easy to come up with my own tasks related to just about any topic, and that has proven to be so useful as a teacher.
How about ELF and ER?
ELF is something that I became interested in more recently. Again, I studied this during my master’s, and was always interested in it. My wife used to work in a company that traded with Malaysia and would sometimes talk about how none of the books she could get in Japan had anyone speaking Malaysian English. The models in the textbooks were not helpful to her. My co-author, Justin Harris, has done some research in this area, so when we started writing books, we were both keen to avoid the native-speaker model. Also, ELF ties in quite nicely with TBLT in that it rejects the idea that students need to produce a “perfect” answer and focuses on the central idea of communication of meaning.
The more I have read about successful language learning, the more interested I have become in ER. Students have such limited time to communicate and study in class, so it is obvious that they need to be doing something outside of class, and ER offers the necessary input. The research is clear in terms of the benefits, so the issue for teachers is really just how to get students engaged with it. Again, it ties in somewhat with TBLT in that the focus is on meaning and also trying to get students to enjoy studying English. They don’t have to understand 100% and should use the language that they already have to try to understand the texts. This is similar to tasks, where students are encouraged to use any linguistic or non-linguistic resources to complete the task, and also to focus on meaning.
You have three recent ELT textbook series you have co-authored with Justin Harris: On Task (2018), Talking Point (2021), and most recently, Links (2023). Could you tell us about them? Particularly, how are they unique and how will they benefit students?
Yes, On Task came about from my interest in TBLT, as I mentioned before. When I started teaching in universities, I generally had to use textbooks in my classes and was constantly trying to find additional tasks that would work with the students. All the textbooks basically followed a present-practice produce (PPP) approach. I felt like it was quite uninspiring and not necessarily appropriate for students. All the books followed the same pattern. First, teach students some vocabulary (most of which they actually already know), then do some grammar and listening practice, and then perhaps there may be a communicative task, but often not. There was little freedom for students and little chance for them to just have a go at communicating with a task focusing on meaning.
This meant I was always adapting textbooks, and as Justin Harris was working in the same department, I often asked if he had tasks for a particular topic. After doing this for a while, I realized that rather than adapting textbooks from PPP to TBLT, it would be easier just to write a TBLT textbook. It seemed quite amazing that in 2015 or 2016 when we were talking about this, there was still only one textbook that could be considered TBLT and that was Widgets (Benevides & Valvona, 2008). There was no general four-skills textbook that followed a task-based approach. We contacted a few publishers and ended up working with Alastair Graham-Marr from ABAX. Alastair was already interested in TBLT and had been to our TBL SIG conferences (TBLT in Asia), so he was a great person to be the editor and publisher of the series.
Basically, On Task takes a TBLT approach, with tasks as the central part of each unit, and has all the language work moved to the back of the book as a resource. One of the big criticisms of TBLT is the lack of language input, so we actually developed the framework from Jane Willis, and added an input task. We called it the “Integrated Input Output Framework” (Leeming & Harris, 2020). Surprisingly, even with a catchy name like that, it has not yet taken off. Anyway, each unit starts with a reading, which introduces the theme and useful vocabulary. Then students have a main output task where they get a chance to communicate with classmates. All the language work (vocabulary and grammar) is at the back of the book. This means students get to have a go and see if they understand the reading before being bombarded with vocabulary. They get to try to talk about the topic before being given the grammar to do it. Hopefully, that means that when the teacher turns to the back of the book to focus on grammar or vocabulary the students are far more interested. The tasks are also tried and tested to work with the students that we teach. The biggest compliment we have had about the book is from Jane Willis, who we gave a pilot version to. She gave us some feedback, which we incorporated into the book, and also said that if teachers use the book, they will be doing TBLT. The book works well and is still actually the only general TBLT textbook out there. I enjoy using it, and it does seem to work.
Talking Point came about after discussion with Alistair Graham-Marr who was keen for a presentation book that got away from the norm of videos of native-speakers showing students an impossible model. I’m sure you know the kind of books, where students are shown videos of professional actors doing presentations that the students are never going to be able to do or should not even be trying to do. This is where the ELF thing came in. We took the same TBLT approach as a general framework for the book and had non-native speakers as the presenters in each unit. Alastair was able to get an amazing variety of speakers from countries ranging from France to Syria to Singapore. They give short talks about academic topics that hopefully provide a realistic model for students. As with On Task, all the language and vocabulary work is at the back of the book, and each unit has a main communicative task designed to get the students talking and using language. The students do a presentation on the topic, and there are also fun activities built in, such as timed dictation, which the students seem to enjoy. We have had some positive feedback from students about this book. They really like the topics because they are slightly more academic than the more general focus of On Task.
Finally, Links came about from conversations with Paul Goldberg, who founded Xreading.com and is a big promoter of ER. His site is one of the few ways that you can make sure that students are actually doing ER, so I was keen to use it with my students. The problem is that many universities require teachers to select a textbook for students. This can often mean that it’s impossible to expect students to pay for a textbook and also a subscription to Xreading in order to get students to do ER. He talked about the idea of a textbook that was a general four skills course, but also included a subscription to Xreading. It took more than five years, but we eventually started talking about making the book together and have finally managed it.
Basically it is a four skills book that comes with a subscription to Xreading. There is a graded reader that forms the central part of each unit, so instead of ER being something students do that is unconnected to the classroom, they read and then come to class and talk about what they read. It makes ER far more integrated into classroom activities and, hopefully, then makes students a little more motivated to read the books. Links is a general four skills book, so if students read all the books related to it, they will have read roughly 50,000 words in a year. So of course, they need to do a lot of reading outside of that, but at least it gives them a solid base, and makes it easy for teachers to incorporate ER into their courses. Again, it follows a task-based approach, with students able to try reading before being “taught” vocabulary and language resources at the back of the book. There are also communicative tasks throughout designed to get the students to interact. We have even managed to incorporate an ELF element quite naturally into it, in that each unit has a listening section where two English L2 speakers talk about the main graded reader for that unit. So, the students actually get to hear other students talking about the book that they have just read.
To be honest, when we started talking to Paul Goldberg, the three of us were not entirely sure that this was going to be possible. We presented at JALT2022 and titled our presentation The Impossible Dream because of that. It was challenging trying to fit all the parts together, but in the end, I have to say I am happy with how it has turned out. I am excited to start using it and see what other teachers make of it. At the moment it is a single book, but we aim to add a couple more books for different levels.
Great! That’s something we’ll look forward to. Regarding ELF, native speakerism has been an issue of contention in the field (see Holliday, 2005). What are your thoughts on the topic, and why do you think it’s important to present non-native speaking models for L2 learners?
I think the majority of researchers and teachers have come to accept that there are many different kinds of English, and that we should not expect everyone to sound like they come from London or New York. Not only is the native-speaker model dated, but it is also not very helpful. Students in Japan don’t need to sound like an American, and they probably won’t be able to anyway. I think the problem is that although teachers feel like that, the major publishers are still producing materials that rely heavily on native speakers from the so-called “Inner Circle” (Kachru, 1985). So, as I said in my presentation at JALT2022, for a large number of textbooks, 90% or more of the dialogue is by native speakers. Then, when students go into the world and use English, most of the people that they interact with are non-native speakers. Again, the conventional materials are just not helpful.
Also, I think by presenting non-native speaking models, you achieve several things. First, students realize that it is okay to have an accent, and that they do not have to aspire to sounding “native” in order to be a successful user of English. This builds confidence and also makes students less worried about their mistakes. Motivation is one of the most important things for our students, and I think the native-speaker model is just demotivating. Another advantage is that students are exposed to a variety of different accents, which is going to help them in future communication. If a Japanese salaryman travels abroad on business, there is a reasonable chance that it will be to somewhere in Asia. English will be the language of communication, but perhaps the person they do business with will have a Malaysian accent. This was the case with my wife, as I mentioned before. Prior exposure to a variety of Englishes is likely to prepare students for this, so they will not panic when their interlocutor does not sound like they come from Manchester.
That being said, the non-native model presenters in your textbook Talking Point seemed very polished and presented like a native speaker with no apparent mistakes. I thought students might even mistake this person as a native speaker. I suppose proponents of the native speaker model would argue teachers should present to students perfect models who speak grammatically correct English. What are your thoughts, especially with regards to presenting students with models whose language might not be 100% grammatical or accurate?
There are a variety of speakers in the Talking Point series, and although they are very proficient, all of them do have some kind of accent or pronunciation that would be considered “non-native” or “non-standard.” For example, Naomi Ishii in the final unit of Talking Point 1 grew up in Brazil, and although her English is really good, she does have a few things that would be considered non-native. The compromise that we had to make when writing Talking Point was that we created the scripts for the presentations, so in that way they are not as authentic as we would like, but there are occasional “errors” as there are in our On Task series listening tasks, which again feature L2 users of English. For On Task, we actually tried to ad lib the dialogues to make them as authentic as possible, so there was no script.
It is also important to remember that any “errors” or differences from the norm do not necessarily mean that the speaker is wrong. In a world where so many people use English as a second language, it becomes a complicated issue to argue for who should decide what is acceptable. The presentations for Talking Point and the dialogues from On Task are all available online through QR codes, so have another listen. There is quite a range in terms of accents, and I think that they provide a really useful model for students.
Native speakers from the U.S. and U.K. often utilize popular culture, such as movies and music, to draw students’ interests in English. Students are eager to learn about these things. What is your response to this with respect to ELF?
Again, while I think there is a lot of merit in using popular culture in this way, it assumes that students are getting most of their popular culture from either the U.S. or the U.K., and I think if you talk to any of our students today, you will know that is not true. Many of my students are interested in Korean culture. Therefore, English becomes redundant if you cling on to the native-speaker model, but in reality, if a Japanese person and Korean person meet, English is most likely to be the language of communication. So having students from a variety of countries actually expands our students’ interest in English. That does not mean that we shouldn’t use our own culture or other cultures to increase motivation and interest for students. I think students are fundamentally interested in finding out about their teacher, and sharing your own culture is a great way to facilitate this. American or British TV shows are also a great way to get students interested in English, but I think we need to be aware that it might not work for everyone.
Another benefit of having a variety of speakers in textbooks is that you can increase interest in a variety of cultures. For example, before I show a presentation by a woman from Spain, I will sometimes get all the students to tell me one thing that they know about Spain. This can be a fun introduction to the presentation, and also get students sharing ideas and information that they have about other countries. If you do this about America, most students find it pretty easy, but other countries can be more challenging and therefore, more interesting.
In your presentation at JALT2022, you illustrated how Ryan and Deci’s (2000) concept of Self-Determination (SDT) and TBLT have a nice synergy. For those who could not attend, could you explain more about what you mean about that?
First of all, to me, motivation is the most important single factor in my classroom, and I think in many compulsory EFL settings around the world. It does not matter how good a task is, how much students are going to learn from it, or how well it has been planned by the teacher; unless the students are motivated to do it, no learning is going to take place. This is why motivation has always been of interest to me—I have always tried to think about how I can get students engaged and interested in the tasks that I give them.
My interest in SDT started when I saw Richard Ryan speak at the Psychology of the Language Learner conference in Tokyo back in 2017. He was talking about the latest book he had written, which was a comprehensive introduction to SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017), and I was so impressed, I remember ordering the book on Amazon the minute the presentation ended. He introduced the key concepts behind SDT, and I was amazed at how TBLT actually utilizes these in the pedagogical approach that it embodies.
So, SDT states that humans have basic psychological needs, and that these are autonomy, relatedness, and competence. Autonomy fits perfectly with TBLT, as students are given tasks but are not told what to do, or what specific language they should use. That is up to them. Also, because tasks have a meaningful outcome, students are more likely to see the value of tasks which again is argued to lead to more autonomous orientations. In terms of relatedness, I have touched on this before, but most tasks involve some kind of interaction, and many of the tasks that we like to use have the students trying to find out more about their classmates. This is the perfect way to help students to connect and to make friends. For me, one of the biggest lessons that COVID-19 taught me was the importance of my classes for students to actually make friends and build relationships at university. Tasks facilitate that perfectly. Finally, with competence, the whole point of TBLT is that students are given a chance to experience success in the classroom. Instead of being told to use a certain grammatical structure or expression, and then being corrected when they inevitably make mistakes, they are given a task and told to try to finish it. It may be deciding on some classroom rules, it may be finding out about the shopping habits of classmates, but whatever it is, they are free to use the language they have. Also, they are judged based on whether they completed the task. Did they come up with rules? Then they succeeded. This means that students finally start to experience success, which then leads to greater feelings of competence. This can be highly motivating.
Overall, I was amazed at how well SDT seemed to describe the motivational impact of TBLT. SDT is a detailed theory of motivation, and there are six mini theories, so I was only able to introduce them briefly in the presentation, but I recently published an article describing how SDT could be useful as a framework for motivation in relation to TBLT, and hopefully that explains things fairly clearly (Leeming & Harris, 2022). There is lots of research showing how TBLT is great for facilitating language learning, but less related to motivation, so the goal of that paper was to try to generate interest in SDT for researchers interested in TBLT. I still feel that as a teacher, the most important thing we can do is to motivate our students, and hopefully, SDT helps us to understand how TBLT enables that to happen.
Thank you for your time and sharing all your ideas and insights!
References
Benevides, M., & Valvona, C. (2008). Widgets: A task-based course in practical English. Pearson Longman.
Harris, J., & Leeming, P. (2018). On Task. ABAX.
Harris, J., & Leeming, P. (2021). Talking Point. ABAX.
Harris, J., & Leeming, P. (2023). Links. Xlearning Systems.
Holliday, A. R. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford University Press.
Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–36). Cambridge University Press.
Leeming, P., & Harris, J. (2020). Expanding on Willis’ TBLT framework: The integrated input output framework. Journal of Asia TEFL, 17(1), 215–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.1.13.215
Leeming, P., & Harris, J. (2022). Self-determination theory and tasks: A motivational framework for TBLT research. Task, 2(2), 164–183. https://doi.org/10.1075/task.21024.lee
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guildford Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Longman.