An Alternative Framework for Taskbased Instruction: CorePeripheral Task Mariko Boku Kinki University

1
An Alternative Framework for Task-based
Instruction Core/Peripheral TaskMariko
BokuKinki University, JapanInternational
Conference on Task-based Language TeachingAt
Kathrieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium22nd
September, 2005
2
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

3
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 Task
• VII. Examples (1. knowledge-construction task
  
• 2. language- activating/fluency-stret
  ching tasks)
• VIII. Conclusion

4
II. Definition of the Task

• Long (1985)
• Prabhu (1987)
• Nunan (1989)
• Willis (1996)
• Bygate, Skehan Swain (2001)
• Skehan (1998)

5
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)

6
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 )

7
III. Previous Studies (cont.2)

• Task-in-process
• Task-as-workplan
• Seedhouse (2005)

8
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
• Williss task phase (adapted from Willis, 1996)
• PRE TASK CYCLE
  LANGUAGE
• 
  
  FOCUS
• introduction to topic task planning
  report analysis practice
• task

9
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

10
IV. Problems of Three-phased Task
(cont.1)

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

11
V. Theoretical Background

• A. Cognitive perspective
• Level of processing theory
• (Craik Lockhart, 1972)

12
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)

13
VI. Core/Peripheral Task

• A. Structure Two-phased task
• 1. Core task learner-centered
• 2. Peripheral task teacher-fronted

14
Figure 2

• Core task Peripheral task
• learner-centered teacher-fronted

15
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

16
IV. Core/peripheral Task (cont.2)

• B. Function
• Peripheral task
• 1. teachers debriefing
• 2. learners retrospective narrative
• 3. peripheral task planning for
• upcoming repeated core task

17
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

18
Figure 3

• C1 P 1 C1 C2 P2
  C2 C3 P3 C3 C4 P4

19
Figure 4

20
VII. Examples

• A. Knowledge-construction task
• (Samuda,
  2001)
• Example
• Story-telling activity (Boku, 1998)

21
VII. Examples (cont.1)

• B. Language-activating/
• fluency-stretching tasks
  
• (Samuda,
  2001)
• Example
• Dice talk

22
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

23
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.)

24
REFERENCES

• Abrams, D. Hogg, M.A. (1999). Social Identity
  and Social Cognition. Oxford Blackwell
• Boku, M. (1998). Student-centered pronunciation
  practice More than Right or Light.
• The Language
  Teacher, Vol. 22, No. 1054-6.
• Brewer, M. B. Hewstone, M. (2004). Social
  Cognition (eds.). Malden Blackwell
• Bygate, 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 Education
• Bygate,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.

25
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
  58/4319-326.
• 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.

26
REFERENCES (cont.2)

• Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction.
  ELT Journal. 53/3149-156.
• Seedhouse. P. (2005). Task as research
  construct. Language Learning. Vol. 55.
  No.3553-570.
• 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.

27
Appendix 1 (Story-telling activity)
(Boku, 199855)

• 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.

28
Appendix 2 (Dice talk) Sample topics for
Dice Talk

• Favorite movie/sports/music
• The funniest experience Ive ever had
• If I were a millionaire....
• Future dream
• My childhood
• How I spend my free time
• The place I want to visit
• If I were a president of U.S.A, I would
• I agree/disagree with woman working after
  marriage because
• I agree/disagree with man taking child care
  holiday because
• I feel happy when I......
• 10 years later I....

29
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?
  )

30

• Thank you very much
• for your kind attention!
• Mariko Boku mboku_at_msn.com