The Language Teacher

Preparing for Real-World Tasks in the Classroom

Alan Tonkyn
Centre for Applied Language Studies, Reading University

The theme of JALT 96 is "Crossing Borders," and the organisers have said that the conference "will look into language teachers and learners going beyond the language classroom into the outside world ." This has prompted me to engage in a reassessment of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which promises to help learners to do just that. In particular, I would like to examine some of the problems that may be associated with the use of communicative tasks in the classroom.

CLT: Two Approaches

CLT is a diffuse movement, but one can detect two key approaches within it, which, following Littlewood (1992), one can call Skill Learning and Natural Learning. Littlewood has represented the nature of, and possible relationship between, these two types of learning in the following diagram:

(Skill learning) (Natural learning)

Input from instruction

Input from communication

| |

(conscious learning) (subconscious acquisition)

| |

"Learnt items"

"Acquired system"

| (may enter, through use) |

(increasing degrees of automaticity) (increasing degrees of "correctness")

(Littlewood, 1992, p. 65)

The Skill Learning route can be seen to be fairly compatible with some traditional methods of language teaching, but has recently drawn inspiration from the information-processing wing of cognitive psychology, together with concepts from skill theory (e.g., McLaughlin, 1987, pp. 133-153; Johnson, 1994, 1995). McLaughlin (1987) has summarised his view of cognitive theory thus: "The acquisition of a complex cognitive skill, such as learning a second language, is thought to involve the gradual accumulation of automatized subskills and a constant restructuring of internalized representations as the learner achieves increasing degrees of mastery" (p. 148). Johnson's methodological interpretation (Johnson, 1994, pp. 127-130) of this view lays emphasis on activities involving progressive form-defocus, in which the learner has to cope with gradually increasing cognitive demands, allowing less and less attention to be devoted to form. The language learner is thus rather like a learner driver who starts practising gear shifts while stationary in the drive at home, and progresses via the local park and quiet suburban streets to the high street.

The Natural Learning route is associated with the theories of Krashen (e.g., Krashen, 1985) for whom the only source of acquired second language competence is comprehensible input, with form-focused input relegated to a secondary monitoring role. For adherents of this theory, second language acquisition involves picking up language a little above one's current level of competence from meaning-focused input. Although Krashen's theories have been subjected to considerable criticism on the grounds of their lack of explicitness and falsifiability, (Gregg, 1984; af Trampe, 1994), they have continued to survive at the heart of an interactionist view (e.g., Long, 1981, Long & Porter, 1985) which sees interaction between learners as producing negotiation of meaning and thereby comprehensible input and acquisition (see Famularo, 1996, p. 12, for a recent summary of this approach). The methodological interpretation of this view of second language learning usually involves some form of task-based learning in which students will learn by interacting with each other. In particular, the theory claims, as they work together to construct and clarify their messages, they will provide the comprehensible input necessary for acquisition. Famularo (1996) has also argued that this negotiation will lead to that competence-enhancing pushed output seen by Swain (1985) as necessary for the acquisition of productive skills.

Littlewood's view of the learning process, diagrammed above, can be seen as an attempt to reconcile the two approaches, and many teachers are, in practice, somewhat eclectic. They may make use of form-focused presentations leading to progressively less form-focused practice and production stages, � la Skill Learning, but may also make use of free standing conversation and discussion activities which they may see as having an acquisition as well as a fluency-promoting role.

The Two Approaches: Some Problems

Skill Learning may appeal to more traditionally-minded teachers, but there seem to be parts of the language learning process that it cannot reach. Why do learners tend to acquire some forms before others? How can we explain the variable influence of the mother-tongue on second language acquisition? These questions indicate that language learning is not the same as learning to drive: we must also, as McLaughlin himself has recognised (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 150), pay attention to the nature of language itself in order to explain how it is acquired. In addition, there are some aspects of language, such as intonation and lexical collocation, which seem to be more amenable to being picked up than to being isolated, taught and gradually automatised.

The Natural Learning route may appeal to those who wish to cut through the knots of syllabus design and methodology at one simple task-based stroke. However, many doubts remain about the theoretical underpinning of comprehensible input and interactionist approaches. It seems unlikely that learners will acquire many new forms during meaning-focused exchanges: psychological experiments (Sachs, 1967) suggest that hearers will process input for meaning and quickly forget the form in which it was expressed. This particular doubt is given added force by the lack of evidence of acquisition from comprehensible input in interactions, apart from some recent studies of vocabulary acquisition by Ellis and his co-workers (Ellis, Tanaka, & Yamazaki, 1994; Ellis, 1995). On the other hand, in relation to output, it seems unlikely that learners will develop their interlanguage when concentrating on getting meanings across, especially in cognitively demanding tasks, as Ellis (1985, p. 89) found. There is a danger that, under pressure of communication, they will fall back on a limited form of interlanguage which may become fossilised. In addition, as Aston (1986) has reminded us, negotiation of meaning may actually fail to produce comprehension, and instead lead to a situation where a polite semblance of understanding is preserved to avoid embarrassing breakdowns in the conversational process.

Before making some suggestions concerning the handling of task-based learning, let me give the discussion a Japanese dimension.

Views from Japan

A survey of recent issues of this journal reveals that many language teachers in Japan are cautious about the implementation of Monbusho's Oral Communication Guidelines.

There are some who espouse the Natural Learning route, and make explicit reference to interactionist theories and the value of the negotiation of meaning (e.g., Knight , 1996; Famularo, 1996). However, there appears to be a larger group of teachers who are aware of the difficulty of importing western communicative approaches into Japanese education, and who see the need for various kinds of compromise to make the mixture work. (e.g., Akita, 1995; Cogan, 1995; Kemp, 1995; Nunn, 1996; Stori, 1996).

In keeping with this cautious approach, a number of writers argue for techniques which involve careful, structured preparation for communicative tasks. Thus Kirk (1995), Le (1995) and Davies (1996) describe techniques for preparing dialogues or debates for performance, techniques which Davies sees as helping to prevent the fossilisation of incorrect forms in learner language; Hunter (1995), Williams (1995), Nasman and Shannon (1995) and Stori (1996) argue for different kinds of practice phases leading towards real conversation. Such views are certainly consonant with Littlewood's Skill-Learning and Johnson's progressive form-defocus approaches.

Crossing the Border: Brief Suggestions

The theoretical arguments against relying heavily on a Natural Learning approach to task-based interactions, coupled with the practical problems associated with teaching shy students from a non-Western educational background in monoglot classes, suggest to this writer that in most cases teachers in Japan will have to modify their approach to CLT in various ways to make it more structured and focused.

Bygate (1994) has noted: "There are four main areas where a teacher may intervene in task-based learning: pre-task preparation; task selection; manipulation of on-task conditions; and post-task follow-up" (p. 243). Let me look briefly at each stage in turn.

Helen Johnson (1992) has argued that discussion of language choices and forms during a pre-task rehearsal stage can be beneficial in preventing fossilisation, and may be heeded more than post-task comments. Research by Skehan and Foster (eg., Foster, 1996) has confirmed that pre-task preparation boosts language complexity during task performance.

Teachers frequently select tasks to practice certain grammatical patterns. Thus narratives may be chosen to provide a free stage for a lesson on past tense, and problem-solving tasks requiring the giving of advice may serve to give practice in certain modals or conditional clauses. However, in my experience, it is rare for teachers to give tasks a trial run -- even in their own heads -- to check on the unexpected lexico-grammatical challenges that may lie hidden therein. Taking notes on student task performance can open up important and interesting areas for pre-task preparation when the task is run again.

The conditions under which the task is performed are likely to influence performance. Thus weaker learners can be given more verbal and/or visual support; stronger learners may be asked to use their memories more, or perform under conditions of time pressure, either of which is likely to lead to Johnson's desired form-defocus, and prepare them for the real world. On the other hand, learners in danger of stagnating with a fossilised variety of the target language can be asked to perform under conditions of monitoring (by observer or tape recorder) that will increase the likelihood of a beneficial focus on form.

Task follow-up is all too often neglected, or is so brief as to be useless. Problem areas should ideally be isolated for attention, form-focused practice, and later reintegration into a similar task. Attention can be paid, not only to grammatical and lexical accuracy, but also to such things as the appropriateness of certain discourse moves or lexical choices in relation to the context of the task.

These suggestions, in summary form, will seem rather bland, and I am aware that I have ignored the vital issue of L1-use in student-student interaction. However, I look forward to developing and exemplifying these ideas, with help from those with experience of teaching in Japan, at JALT 96.

References

af Trampe, P. (1994). Monitor theory: Application and ethics. In R. Barasch & C. Vaughn James (Eds.), Beyond the monitor model: Comments on current theory and practice in second language acquisition (pp. 27-36). Boston: Wadsworth.

Akita, K. (1995). Japanese-culture-enhanced English class. The Language Teacher, 19 (5), 51-52.

Aston, G. (1986). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: the more, the merrier? Applied Linguistics, 7, 128-143.

Bygate, M. (1994). Adjusting the focus: Teacher roles in task-based learning of grammar. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, & E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the Language Teacher (pp. 237-259). Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Cogan, D. (1995). Should foreign teachers of English adapt their methods to Japanese patterns of learning and classroom interaction? The Language Teacher, 19 (1), 36-38.

Davies, S. (1996). Developing sociolinguistic competence through learner-centred dialogues. The Language Teacher, 20 (3), 13-15.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1995). Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meanings. Applied Linguistics, 16 , 409-441.

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 44, 449-491.

Famularo, R. (1996). A group project: student-generated materials. The Language Teacher, 20, (4), 11-14.

Foster, P. (1996). Doing the task better: How planning time influences students' performance. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 126-135). Oxford: Heinemann.

Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-100.

Hunter, L. (1995). Ad-libbing as a language learning objective. The Language Teacher, 19 (1), 4-7.

Johnson, H. (1992). Defossilising. English Language Teaching Journal, 46, 180-189.

Johnson, K. (1994). Teaching declarative and procedural knowledge. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, and E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the Language Teacher (pp. 121-131). Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, K. (1995): Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kemp, J. (1995). Culture clash and teacher awareness. The Language Teacher, 19 (8), 8-11.

Kirk, D. (1995). Role-play cards for teaching, evaluating, and motivating. The Language Teacher, 19 (6), 12-14.

Knight, T. (1996). Learn vocabulary through a shared speaking task. The Language Teacher, 20 (1), 24-29.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. Harlow: Longman.

Le, V. (1995). Doable debates. The Language Teacher, 19 (7), 12-16.

Littlewood, W. (1992). Teaching oral communication: A methodological framework. Oxford: Blackwell.

Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz, (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-278). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379.

Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Groupwork, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-228.

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.

Nasman, D., & Shannon, J. (1995). The Japanese who can say "NO". The Language Teacher, 19 (7), 4-7.

Nunn, R. (1996). Learning from Qatar: Evaluation of methods-in-use. The Language Teacher, 20 (3), 7-10.

Sachs, J. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 437-442.

Stori, S. (1996). Encouraging Japanese students to take an active role in L2 classes. The Language Teacher, 20 (3), 35-36.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Williams, P. (1995). Real talk. The Language Teacher, 19 (4), 55-56.

Alan Tonkyn's workshop is sponsored by the Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Reading. His current research interests are oral proficiency development and EAP assessment. He is the co-editor of Grammar and the Language Teacher(Prentice Hall, 1994), and author of a number of articles in the areas of EAP, and oral proficiency development and assessment.